pushing power vs. combustion 1 by Jupiterianquest This might not be the smartest question ever asked but it got me wondering... I recently read a post on mercury/jupiter conjunction in gemini on skyscript. Mercury was applying to jupiter and the term used here was 'pushing power'. Now why is it that when the sun applies to a planet by conjunction, it's weakening the planet. Why dont we see it as 'pushing power' instead of combustion and 'makes the other planet shine' instead of 'weakens/afflicts'? Quote Sun Jun 09, 2013 9:52 am
2 by cor scorpii Hello I'd say this wholly depends on the position of the Sun. If in Aries or Leo, it would also push its power upon the applied to planet, thus receiving/strengthening it. Goran http://7heavenastrology.wordpress.com http://klasicnaastrologija.wordpress.com Quote Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:50 am
3 by zoomaster edit Last edited by zoomaster on Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total. Quote Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:13 am
4 by sulme i heard sun combustion is basically meaning that the planet is under the power of the sun, like a person under the control of the king. thus the planet cannot express itself freely under combustion. whereas, when a planet conjuncts to jupiter, the planet is benefited by the benefic planet jupiter. i dont know if im making sense or creating some total bullshit, but anyway. Quote Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:52 am
5 by zoomaster Actually that's insightful, sulme. It made me think perhaps that the Sun absorbs some of that planet's qualities, thereby yes, making said planet unable to express itself freely, but also giving the qualities of that planet to the Sun. So if you have Saturn combust, let's say, then your Sun will take on powerful Saturnian qualities, but Saturn itself will be weak. Quote Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:44 pm
6 by Tom In my admittedly brief time as an astrologer, I have found that the Sun's conjunction with another planet, whether it be in cazimi solis, combust, or under the Sun's beams actually intensifies that planet's effect. I have this on again off again relationship with combustion in natal charts. It seems to work as described by authorities in horary and mundane, but natal is iffy. If we treat a planet close to the Sun as we would any other conjunction, the above quote makes perfect sense. If we go to the other extreme as some old astrologers did, and deny all power to planets combust, then, as Morinus asks, "Who rules their signs?' Cazimi is another problem. How is it that a planet's energy is burned up when combust, but when it is in the center of the Sun, where the Sun is most powerful, it becomes more powerful, only to be burned up again after this brief stint with the King on the throne? The reasons for combustion are said to go back to visual astrology. When a planet is within 8.5 degrees of the Sun either way, it cannot be seen. OK but no planets can be seen during the daylight hours regardless of their distance from the Sun (Sometimes we can see the Moon and even Venus during daylight hours but that's rare). It could be argued that planets far from the Sun that cannot be seen in the daylight hours can be seen at night, but combust planets can never be seen. But even that is a bit of a stretch. Lilly says combustion is not in effect when the Sun and the planet are in different signs, but he is the only one. Yet his position makes more sense if we don't use out of sign aspects. But it makes sense on another level, too. We don't use visual astrology any longer. In fact by Ptolemy's day, according to Lee Lehman, astrology had pretty much gone indoors. Why the hangover for this concept? Because it works? OK if that were true, it would be a valid argument, but is it? I have my doubts. Quote Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:01 am
7 by Geoffrey Tom wrote: In fact by Ptolemy's day, according to Lee Lehman, astrology had pretty much gone indoors. Why the hangover for this concept? While that is true, the new month in Islamic culture still starts when the imam can see the new Moon - in other words, when the Moon emerges from combusion. This is very important, particularly at Ramadan. Since most of our traditional astrology comes to us filtered through Islamic astrologers, it is natural that this concept would have been seen as a matter of observational astronomy to them - and so that is how we should think about it. Cazimi is another problem. How is it that a planet's energy is burned up when combust, but when it is in the center of the Sun, where the Sun is most powerful, it becomes more powerful, only to be burned up again after this brief stint with the King on the throne? Coley defines Cazimi as being within 16 minutes of longitude and latitude of the centre of the sun. This makes more sense in relation to your question because - for the Moon, Venus and Mercury anyway - you can see the transiting planet as it crosses the face of the Sun. A poetic interpretation would be that when in the heart of the sun, the planet has the power to overcome the brilliance of the sun and be visible once again. When Coley wrote his book, Mercury and Venus had been observed transiting the sun for the first time and Coley, who was obviously well acquainted with the recent advances in astronomy, would have know about this. When Lilly wrote his book, only Mercury had been observed but he almost certainly did not know about it. Quote Thu Jun 13, 2013 5:51 am
8 by nahid.fs Whenever you ask astrologers now adays : what is cobustion ? They immediatly reply : Ptlomy, Lilly, Al- Behruni, Bonatti, Al-Kindi, ..., ... Said : Combustion is so and so Yes, thats right .But do they cover all over the term ? Of cource no, Because they are as the workers in aprojection, every one of them put astone at the wall of the house The matter is as the matter of midicin, do Hippocrattes, Gallinos, ... cover all over the term of blood, for ex. ? Of cource, no. But yet now the workers in the midicin field are continwing the the explorations So, what i want to say, the past astrologers didnt they complete all what regarding astrology and its terms we have to continue the explorations in astrology, as in midicen, as in alchemy, as in ? In language, combustion means burning, and we know what is burning is the fire Now, if we look to the Sun as the source of the heat and look to the heat of summer, autemn, winter, spring Does that heat of those seasons is balanced ? Of cource no So, we havent to conseder the Sun always combusts What I said now is apart of the subject, while the details are un restricted regards Quote Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:48 am
9 by Tom While that is true, the new month in Islamic culture still starts when the imam can see the new Moon - in other words, when the Moon emerges from combusion. This is very important, particularly at Ramadan. Since most of our traditional astrology comes to us filtered through Islamic astrologers, it is natural that this concept would have been seen as a matter of observational astronomy to them - and so that is how we should think about it. The concept of combustion predates Islamic culture by hundreds of years. The fact that Muslim astrologers looked at it that way is of historical interest, perhaps, but does not pertain to the origins of the concept unless this represents a change in understanding, which it does not. The origins established the meaning. Future refinements did not. Coley defines Cazimi as being within 16 minutes of longitude and latitude of the centre of the sun. This makes more sense in relation to your question ... Yes it does, but it also reinforces the idea that there is some question as to its validity. Coley refines the idea to bring it more in line with visual astrology. Muslims refined it to bring it into line with their culture. Morin rubbished it. Lilly treated it like a technique without regard to the visual condition. None of this (except in a negative way Morin's stance) answers the question of whether the effect is as advertised over the many centuries. The question for combustion is the same as it is for all astrology techniques: does it work the way we think it does? Uploaded with ImageShack.us Wells' Mercury is combust, in the 12th house, and square the Moon. It is also his ASC ruler. I think, given Wells' career we could argue the combustion either way, i.e. it doesn't work, (his fame, major artistic accomplishments are not indicative of a combust ASC ruler OR he had only one major accomplishment, but it was greater than anyone else's [Citizen Kane] leaving a great talent largely unrealized; fame is due to his MC ruler being conjunct the ASC). I'm not ruling out the effects. I'm only presenting the arguments. Quote Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:55 am
10 by cor scorpii Combustion isn't suppressing the functioning of a planet non-stop. When its effects will be made most obvious may be shown by various time lord techniques which activate the oppressed planet. As for the fame/accomplishment of Orson Wells, I'd say it can also be deduced from an angular POF in the 10th, with its ruler co-present in its domicile Pisces; at the same time, it's a doryphory of the Sun in the strongest point of its oriental phase and in its sect/domain. It is in a partile/dominant sextile to Mercury, lord of the ASC and it actually helps him "see" the ascendant. The Moon/Mercury square is formed between the signs of equal ascension, so its tense effects should be substantially mitigated by this kind of a lesser reception, i.e sympathy existing between Taurus/Aquarius. Also worthy of note is that this strong Jupiter as the benefic of the sect beholds the SAN in Scorpio, while both malefics are in aversion to it - though even its lord, Mars. Goran http://7heavenastrology.wordpress.com http://klasicnaastrologija.wordpress.com Quote Thu Jun 13, 2013 1:36 pm
11 by Tom Combustion isn't suppressing the functioning of a planet non-stop. It doesn't seem to be a question of stopping and starting. Combustion, like everything else in the natal chart, if it has value, must have some essential meaning for the native. The effects may be more obvious at one time or another, but the essential quality is always there. Wells' Mercury is combust in the nativity and therefore what that signifies never goes away, but it doesn't always manifest. Mercury at 20 Taurus and not combust must differ in some essential way from Mercury at 20 Taurus and combust. I quickly read some of Bonatti on this and his remarks, or the ones I read seem to relate mostly to horary. But he seems to think of combustion as a strengthening or weakening of the planet involved. The closer to the Sun and applying the weaker the planet, and vice versa. So in his view, combustion always weakens, but to varying degrees (I didn't find anything about how it weakens, but it might be there. I didn't read it all) So, according to Bonatti, Well's Mercury is a lot more problematic than a non combust Mercury and more problematic than a Mercury farther from the Sun, but less problematic than one that is say two degrees from the Sun. While this makes a great deal of sense, it also indicates that stating, "Mercury is combust in this chart" simply doesn't tell us very much, at least according to Bonatti. While, in general, this could be said of any planet in any position in the chart, Bonatti's detailed explanations seem to make combustion a far trickier item to deal with. Quote Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:31 pm
12 by cor scorpii I've just read his early childhood years weren't exactly a model of happiness (parents divorced when he was four, his father turned alcoholic and his mother died when he was nine, he escaped from home at the age of ten!) if we bear in mind that according to Ptolemaic "ages of man" Mercury rules 10 years (the Moon starts at the birth and governs first four years, then comes Mercury and holds rulership for the following ten) we may get a pretty good glimpse of the combustion at work in the 12th. It is also not insignificant that Mercury is separating from the Sun,so the worst case scenario is not given in his case. And the help of an overwhelmingly strong/dignified Jupiter should be given its proper weight, especially because the exact aspect stretches between Taurus/Pisces, signs which hear each other, i.e command/obey and thus have a strong relationship of sympathy; the sextile aspect between them is said to have the strength of a trine (Paulus). Goran Last edited by cor scorpii on Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:35 pm, edited 4 times in total. http://7heavenastrology.wordpress.com http://klasicnaastrologija.wordpress.com Quote Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:36 pm