cor scorpii wrote: When defining "combustion/under the beams", they never(however,I quite possibly may have overlooked something important!) mention sign boundaries as of any relevance! If being in the same sign with the Sun were so important for combustion , I have to wonder why didn't they just say so?

Because - at least in your quotations - they were, not "defining combustion/under the beams", but only conjunction. Obviously they did not differentiate between "combustion" and "under the beams" - at least in the quotatins you are giving.

And insofar your quotes are worthless (but of course not as to the Sun's conjuncion in general).

But if we want to differentiate, we should use the terms correctly, following the authors who do differentiate in the Sun's conjunction between combustion and under the beams.

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:

cor scorpii wrote: When defining "combustion/under the beams", they never(however,I quite possibly may have overlooked something important!) mention sign boundaries as of any relevance! If being in the same sign with the Sun were so important for combustion , I have to wonder why didn't they just say so?

Because - at least in your quotations - they were, not "defining combustion/under the beams", but only conjunction. Obviously they did not differentiate between "combustion" and "under the beams" - at least in the quotatins you are giving.

But if we want to differentiate, we should use the terms correctly, following the authors who do differentiate in the Sun's conjunction between combustion and under the beams.

Johannes

What else is conjunction with the Sun but either combustion or planet's position under the beams???
(cazimi being irrelevant for the current discussion, because it happens only in partile conjunction with the Sun and hence both planets must be in the same sign)

15 degrees of the Sun's body, in front and behind, are exactly the distance required for planet's exiting or entering the beams(half of which is 7.5 degrees, the distance within which a planet is said to be combust) - and the sign boundaries are never mentioned as relevant, i.e able to 'spoil'/alter the concept, make it somehow 'invalid'.

If it is not mentioned as relevant in the case of 'beams', why would it be relevant in the case of combustion? Any source to support your claim?

I would encourage you to provide us with a quote of some other authority/authorities(beside Lilly) who says otherwise and claims the sign boundary is decisive in defining when combustion is/isn't present.

Goran

cor scorpii wrote:I would encourage you to provide us with a quote of some other authority/authorities(beside Lilly) who says otherwise and claims the sign boundary is decisive in defining when combustion is/isn't present.

It's a pleasure, Goran.
Frawley too differentiates the Sun's conjunction and says in The Horary Textbook, p. 60:

"NB: to be combust a planet must be in the same sign as the Sun."

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:

cor scorpii wrote:I would encourage you to provide us with a quote of some other authority/authorities(beside Lilly) who says otherwise and claims the sign boundary is decisive in defining when combustion is/isn't present.

It's a pleasure, Goran.
Frawley too differentiates the Sun's conjunction and says in The Horary Textbook, p. 60:

"NB: to be combust a planet must be in the same sign as the Sun."

Johannes

Oh, but the pleasure is all mine

Of course Frawley does,following Lilly, but he's as much of a real authority in traditional astrology as I am

Especially if one bears in mind his re-definition i.e deliberate distortion of one of the core astrological principles - reception.

I really had some more serious authorities in mind than him.
The ones who actually created/preserved the core principles of this art

Goran

Lee Lehman in "The Martial Art of Horary Astrology" talks the about the significance of sign boundaries and comments (on page 47) that sign boundaries seemed to be important enough to Lilly for him to "restrict definition of combustion more than other astrologers did."

She goes on to say that in consequence, Lilly presents a "very inconsistent picture" in that he is quite happy to allow out-of-sign aspects, (which occur five times in four example charts) to the point where he does not even bother to mention the fact.

For the record, Coley does not mention the fact that combustion must be in-sign, which is an indicator that perhaps this was a quirk of Lilly's that struck him as important when he wrote CA, but grew less attached to later on - or perhaps he was never really as fired up on this point as the book might indicate.

Johannes,

The point is that you refer to combustion as the 'worst'...

From my experience (I follow my own experience) ... Combustion is not a weakness in natal astrology ... , however, in horary it represents 'stand alone' (stand alone means that it is not qualified by any other thing or condition)

The thing is brought to light...
The thing is not seen...
The querent is not able to see the light or reason...
The person or thing represented is over-powered by authority...
The person or thing represented by the planet being combusted is under the pressure of 'standard' moral values/legal values which do not let him act according to his desires...

The worst weakness in horary IMO, is

Station... but you are free to disagree...

wow 2 pages! nice ppl .. i love it!

Gryffindor,
i agree but it is the querent that is burning everyone around. I do not understand the symbolism nor logic behind it.
Does this chart make any sense?

thanks
CD

CD,

If the querent is represented by the Sun, then we have to seriously forget the notion of applying combustion in this chart. I have not made analysis of this chart (the members have already done it). But let say, the Querent asks when s/he would meet his wife/husband and lets say Sun and the 7th Lord are conjunct what do you say? Querent instead of meeting has started burning his/her spouse?

cor scorpii wrote:

johannes susato wrote:

cor scorpii wrote:I would encourage you to provide us with a quote of some other authority/authorities(beside Lilly) who says otherwise and claims the sign boundary is decisive in defining when combustion is/isn't present.

It's a pleasure, Goran.
Frawley too differentiates the Sun's conjunction and says in The Horary Textbook, p. 60:

"NB: to be combust a planet must be in the same sign as the Sun."

Johannes

Oh, but the pleasure is all mine

Of course Frawley does,following Lilly, but he's as much of a real authority in traditional astrology as I am

Especially if one bears in mind his re-definition i.e deliberate distortion of one of the core astrological principles - reception.

I really had some more serious authorities in mind than him.
The ones who actually created/preserved the core principles of this art

Goran

As you and Frawley make a team of real authorities, what is wrong to quote Frawley for support, when he is right, Goran?

That he is an autonomous author and it is not understood him following Lilly automatically is evident by the fact of his indeed abstruse teachings of receptions.

You are free of course, not to accept Frawley as an authority, but this, your opinion affects not in the least my right to quote Frawley validly.

Johannes

Geoffrey wrote:She goes on to say that in consequence, Lilly presents a "very inconsistent picture" in that he is quite happy to allow out-of-sign aspects, (which occur five times in four example charts) to the point where he does not even bother to mention the fact.

Hi Geoffrey,

does Lehman give the numbers of the pages or a hint, which examples in CA she is thinking of?

Johannes

Gryffindor wrote:Johannes,

The point is that you refer to combustion as the 'worst'...

From my experience (I follow my own experience) ... Combustion is not a weakness in natal astrology ... , however, in horary it represents 'stand alone' (stand alone means that it is not qualified by any other thing or condition)

The thing is brought to light...
The thing is not seen...
The querent is not able to see the light or reason...
The person or thing represented is over-powered by authority...
The person or thing represented by the planet being combusted is under the pressure of 'standard' moral values/legal values which do not let him act according to his desires...

The worst weakness in horary IMO, is

Station... but you are free to disagree...

Thanks for your thoughts, Gryffindor.

As to the in-validity of combustion - and not only in nativities - Morin is surely a strong supporter of your opinion and experience.

As to horary you are (possibly - I for myself am not so sure as yet in my practic) right that sometimes and under special circumstances combustion may be helpful.

At any case all authors (with the exception of you, really?) see combustion as a debility and if not the worst in any case as one of the worst.

Lilly, CA, p. 111:
"and you must know that the combustion of any Pla-
net is the greatest misfortune that can be."

Johannes

As you and Frawley make a team of real authorities, what is wrong to quote Frawley for support, when he is right, Goran? You are free of course, not to accept Frawley as an authority, but this, your opinion affects not in the least my right to quote Frawley validly.

Yes, Frawley's right [in your opinion], Johannes, I never had any doubt it wouldn't be so - as much as Lilly is

As I've already stated, that's the particular point upon which these two agree.

The only two out of many, I'd say.

This, of course, doesn't mean you're not entitled to follow/quote them - it's just that they are at odds with all the other important authorities and Lilly is even at odds with his own teaching, as Geoffrey has pointed out


As for the matter of "astrological authorities" - it is highly disrespectful to twist one's words around as you just did with mine.

But I can understand why you've chosen to do so...Sahl ibn Bishr, al Biruni, Masha'allah, al Qabisi, Abu Ma'shar, Guido Bonatti and, as Geoffrey has already pointed out, Henry Coley as Lilly's contemporary and student, never mention sign boundaries as relevant for the concept of combustion

Therefore, I think the majority of testimonies presented thus far should lead you to the obvious conclusion.

Anyway, it's very similar to a controversy of reversing/not reversing formula for the part of fortune in nocturnal charts.


BTW, I'd like to remind you that we never got the promised 'proof' from CA II that Lily allowed/used orbs when it comes to antiscia position of a planet.


Geoffrey wrote:
She goes on to say that in consequence, Lilly presents a "very inconsistent picture" in that he is quite happy to allow out-of-sign aspects, (which occur five times in four example charts) to the point where he does not even bother to mention the fact.

Hi Geoffrey,

does Lehman give the numbers of the pages or a hint, which examples in CA she is thinking of?

Though this question was posed to Geoffrey, I think he made an excellent point by bringing this up, so I'll add my two cents - offhand (without providing the exact page numbers and verbatim questions from CA II because anyone familiar with this text ought to know instantly what I'm talking about), I remember Lilly used out of sign aspects in these cases:

- the siege of Reading (whether it would be taken or no)
- the woman who asked whether she'd find her son at home or not
- the woman who asked about her imprisoned husband (if/when he would be released from prison)
- if marry the gentleman desired


Goran