About receptions

1
I would like to have your views on which way to use receptions in horary charts. I've seen that the literature suggests that we use host, guest and basically that when the quesited is placed inside domicile or exaltation of the querent, then it is a sign of the querent being welcoming and liking the quesited. BUT I've seen people use this theory the opposite way, so they say that when the quesited is placed in such a way, then it is the quesited that likes the querent and wants to be there.

Do you understand what I mean?

I've seen this informative thread:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... 8fdcedf840
... which gives excellent explanations and it seems many in here would disagree with Frawley's receptions. Does anyone use them or is he generally disregarded in the traditional horary world?

I think my conclusion is to disregard Frawley's receptions, but stick with the traditional view that seems to be the exact opposite.

I've also seen that planets cannot give receptions in signs of their fall even if there is aspect to the querent/quesited (they are in bad shape or even rejection/hatred). But is it the Moon that hates/dislikes Mars, or is it judged as Mars dislikes being in Moon's domicile because it feels bad?

But how would you go about and handle a "mixed" reception? F.ex. if the ruler of 1st is Mars and is placed in Cancer (it's fall) and let's just say the quesited is Venus, also placed in Cancer and they are within orb of conjunction? Some literature suggests that an aspect is an aspect, regardless of receptions.
The Moon would be co-ruler or the ruler of the matter, and the Moon receives both querent and quesited, although is not aspecting them (f.ex. placed in Gemini, but is within moiety of the other two or one of them and is about to enter their sign and conjunct them in a while). Would you call this a mixed reception, or no reception at all? Would you simply call this generosity? Moon receives them both, but does not aspect them yet.

This may come up numerous times since we always consider the Moon as co-ruler of the querent, or some say that Moon actually is the ruler of the matter asked about.

Let's also consider another example and understanding of liking/disliking.
When planet A is placed in planet's B domicile or exaltation and it is not planet's A detriment or fall, then we could say that the planets actually like each other. Planet B welcomes planet A, and planet A feels good (or not bad) to be in planet's B dignity. BUT if planet A is placed in planet's B domicile or exaltation and it is in planet's A (it's own) detriment or fall, then we can say that planet B likes planet A, but planet A does not like planet B since it feels bad to be in it's dignity?

2
lifestudent

I advise that you simply ignore concepts of who likes who when it comes to reception. Reception is not about the concept of liking someone or not, but instead is a way to help describe the aspect between two planets. As we know, the square between planets, for example, is stressful or requires a certain amount of effort or will in order to resolve or perfect the matter between them.

What receptions do is allow us to see if that square, which is normally stressful or requires a lot of will or effort to perfect, can be made easier. Reception can show us this. If the quesited to whom the querent applies, for example, is received, then the aspect between them is made easier and so there would be less effort required.

Bonatti gives an idea of how to use this in practice when he suggests that a square without reception requires an amount of effort or striving or diligence, but if the quesited receives our querent, then the quesited is in effect open to the querent and so our normally difficult square could be interpreted more like a trine. Reception also confers a sense of safety or protection, such that being received can help indicate that this planet is receiving some protection from the planet which receives it. This is particularly useful if, say, you have a planet being received by a malefic, the malice of this planet which may normally harm the planet in aspect to it, is spared some of this malice if the malefic receives it.

Note that this doesn't tell us if the quesited like the querent, or vice versa, just that the quesited, if it receives our querent, is open to querent, and bestows upon the querent some sense of protection.

Typically we may look to the speed of the planets involved to see who is the more keen or who is the one to whom the expectation of the work or effort that is required to perfect the aspect falls. In other words say we have a horary where Mercury represents the quesited, and Jupiter represents the querent, as Mercury is the swifter planet, Mercury is expected to put in the effort or work to perfect the aspect. Jupiter will simply have Mercury come to it without putting in work himself. In relationship charts then, the swifter planet may well be the one who is the more keen on having the question perfected.

So to recap:
Being received helps mitigate harm to the received planet which might otherwise occur from the planet who is doing the receiving.

Receptions help ameliorate difficult aspects, such that oppositions where the quesited receives the querent behave more like squares without reception, squares with reception behave more like trines without etc.

Receptions therefore are like descriptors or modifiers for the aspect, they help inform us something about the aspect itself.

Receptions tell us nothing about 'like' or 'love' between planets, and only about willingness to engage or protect or be open to the planet that they receive, namely that they do so and that received planets are therefore tended to by receiving planets.
I think my conclusion is to disregard Frawley's receptions, but stick with the traditional view that seems to be the exact opposite.
I think this would be a sensible idea. I like Frawley's book, it's clear and succinct in places, and witty and humorous as well. But his handling of reception is, in my view, a misunderstanding of the tradition and of Lilly in particular that he appears to be influenced by.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

3
Thank you very much Paul, you are an excellent teacher. :)

I guess we are more inclined to use this concept of "liking/loving" in relationship horaries and I guess that even though we try and dismiss that idea - it will still be at the back of our heads that a host to a planet does probably show a liking of sorts, otherwise it would not want to welcome it or be helpful to it. But that may not have been the idea in traditional literature at all.

But what do you have to say about that kind of mixed reception I am trying to figure out? Just in hypothetical sense, how to grasp an understanding of a situation when the quesited is placed in Moon's domicile or exaltation - so the Moon (jupiter and venus as well for that matter) is helpful and welcoming ...but then that sign (Cancer or Taurus) might be the querent sign of fall/detriment in which is placed?

4
Lifestudent

I'm afraid I'm feeling a little under the weather, so I may be just having a brain dead moment but I can't wrap my head around what you mean.
Just in hypothetical sense, how to grasp an understanding of a situation when the quesited is placed in Moon's domicile or exaltation
Okay so let's imagine the quesited is Venus in Cancer, the sign of the Moon's exaltation.
- so the Moon ...is helpful and welcoming
Right, but really we want the slower moving planet to be received, but we can do it this way too, it is just that if the Moon is receiving Venus it still has to do the work to make the aspect, it's less useful than if it were the other way around. What we typically want is the quesited receiving the querent, not the other way around.
...but then that sign (Cancer or Taurus) might be the querent sign of fall/detriment in which is placed?
But what do you mean? Do you mean the querent to be some other sign than the Moon then? Can you provide an example?

The planets which are in detriment or fall in Cancer and Taurus are Saturn and Mars.
So if I understand you right, then you are saying that the querent must be Saturn or Mars.

So let's take the example of Mars ruling the querent, Venus the quesited. Venus is in Cancer so the Moon if she were applying to aspect Venus would receive Venus, though really the more helpful is if Venus receives the Moon instead.

But Venus is in the place where Mars has fall. But the question ought to be really if Mars and Venus are in aspect. Venus is typically the swifter of the two and will apply, let's imagine, to Mars. Venus, our quesited, is once again the more interested party because she is the one doing the work to perfect the matter. Mars can more or less wait for Venus to catch up, which isn't to say it's not nice to have the swifter planet receive the slower, it's just that the really useful kind is when the slower receives the swifter.

So in this case Mars, the querent, will not receive Venus, so depending on what the question is this may show that the relationship is not one which benefits the querent or one that the querent truly wants - Venus has nothing positive to bring to Mars.

Really when you ask this kind of question where you place one planet in the detriment or fall of another, I believe you are still thinking of reception in terms of liking or not liking, when in fact the only condition we ought to be thinking of with reception is when one planet is in the dignities of another, because then if these planets aspect one receives the other. But what we shouldn't be focusing on is when the planets are in detriment or fall because then we're not looking at reception - reception only occurs via a dignity, preferably domicile or exaltation, or if not two minor dignities. So if we focus on some aspect in which a planet is not in the dignity of another, then we're not focusing on reception at all, but something else. In my opinion what you are focusing on instead is in trying to understand when does a "does not like" kind of aspect happen - but again this 'like' or 'does not like' idea needs to be dropped as it is not what reception is about.

To reiterate, we look at reception not to find out if two planets like or do not like one another, but instead to describe something of the aspect between them and whether one (the receiver) provides protection or tends to another (the received) and in this manner makes a potentially more difficult aspect (such a square) be made more ameliorable (so we might interpret it like a trine with no reception).
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

5
Thanks again Paul.

You said:
So let's take the example of Mars ruling the querent, Venus the quesited. Venus is in Cancer so the Moon if she were applying to aspect Venus would receive Venus
So that is the example I was talking about above.

We would see Mars as 1st, Venus as 7th and they are both placed within Cancer, within orb of conjunction (but not a perfected aspect until in next sign) and since they are both in Cancer, Moon is helpful to them both. However the Moon is placed in late Gemini, so it is not aspecting either of them, although within moiety and about to enter it's domicile, Cancer.

So this is why I called it a "mixed reception"

6
lifestudent wrote:Thanks again Paul.

You said:
So let's take the example of Mars ruling the querent, Venus the quesited. Venus is in Cancer so the Moon if she were applying to aspect Venus would receive Venus
So that is the example I was talking about above.

We would see Mars as 1st, Venus as 7th and they are both placed within Cancer, within orb of conjunction (but not a perfected aspect until in next sign) and since they are both in Cancer, Moon is helpful to them both. However the Moon is placed in late Gemini, so it is not aspecting either of them, although within moiety and about to enter it's domicile, Cancer.

So this is why I called it a "mixed reception"
Going to leave this topic be for a bit as I'm probably too tired to do this justice.

However, the Moon is not much help to the planets in Cancer if she is herself lacking any dignity (which she is in Gemini) and inconjunct the planets within her sign (which she is if they are one sign away). So the Moon is not much help. Keep in mind receptions help describe an aspect - if there is no aspect, then we're just looking at the dispositor but in this case the Moon, the dispositor of Mars and Venus, is not in any strong place (she may be angular etc. but I'm just dealing with essential dignity here).

Also if the two don't perfect until Leo, then again there is no reception, as neither planet as any major dignity in Leo.

So whilst all this may be an important thing to look at, and we may wonder at the symbolism of Venus chasing Mars out of the sign of its fall, none of this is reception.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

7
Ok I see what you mean about the Moon not being of any help as "a receiver" since there is no aspect. Would look different as soon as the Moon enters her own sign, Cancer and is within orb of that conjunction.

Don't tire your head too much with this, feeling under the weather. Hope you are getting better though. :)

I am just trying to learn a bit more, and sometimes receptions confuse me when one of the sigs of the querent is receiving, but the other is not.

I've been wondering about this conjunction of Mars and Venus since Lilly seems to have said (read it somewhere but can't find right now) that if planets are already within orb (like Mars and Venus f.ex.) then we do consider their conjunction in the next sign as a perfection, even though they have to move a long way before getting there. Also read that if planets do conjunct, they don't need reception, the matter will perfect.

Found this to read upon the matter some more.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/perfection.html