Hi Guys,
I have studied John Frawley for several years now. But I have to confess the way he describes Reception is very confusing. I understand implicitly the Classical use of reception. Reception only comes into use with an aspect. The applying planet has to cast the aspect from the receiving planets place of Dignity. This can be by sign, exaltation, and if only by triplicity then the triplicity must be accompanied by at least one other minor dignity. If there is no aspect then reception is irrelevant. This is fine. I understand this. If reception is not in place with the aspect then the prospect of the event materialising is in doubt. And of course the reception, positive or negative will reveal the difficulty, or not, of how the event materialises. Take for example my own chart, (posted), of my question over whether my son would be able to rent from a specific landlord. As far as I can deduce most of the testimonies are negative, apart from one translation of light of Moon separating from Saturn and then going on to square Sun. The Sun does not receive Moon as Sun is in fall in Libra. Moon is not received. Now to translate into possible reality lets say the Moon represents my sons "servant" as the individual who goes to Sun to state his case. See sons turned 6th. This could translate as Sun not receiving Moon as no, not interested in what you have to say. We don't want to know. Judging by the state of the rest of the charts testimonies this would fit as a negative answer at bringing son and landlord together. It would not matter a whit if the advocate speaking on behalf of the son was the best dressed, best looking, most articulate advocate in the world. Landlord sun aint interested. Now this is where Frawley comes in. He seems to have a different slant on the whole thing surrounding reception. I don't know what hes explaining but to me it isn't reception. According to him Sun would receive Moon as Sun in Cancer "loves" Moon. Sun would be most willing to hear Moon out. If this is so we have to take note that in Cancer Sun "damages" or does not "like" Saturn. And on top of that Moon herself does not "like" Sun, or is "disappointed" in Sun, but it makes sense to see that Moon "Exalts" son Saturn. So, going by Frawleys idiom we can deduce that Sun DOES receive Moon? And I would imagine that translated into reality the Sun says Hey, I might not like Saturn, but because I love you Moon well, I might just connect with Saturn after all. Frawley states however that no set amount of reception is needed for translation to be effective. So according to him even without reception the translation can still connect Saturn son to Landlord Sun. But what if it was not a translation and just an ordinary aspect. what then? he gives the comparison of Venus and Mars in his textbook. He states that if planets are in each others signs they will rush to be of assistance to each other. But he goes on if one planet is only in the face of the other then it is less inclined to either help or be helped. So again, back to my chart if Sun is in the sign of Moon, "loving" moon, then Sun will rush to offer assistance. But seeing as Moon is in the fall of Sun then Moon is most reluctant to offer help back, or be helped in the first place by Sun. This is all very confusing. Is there anyone out there who has a set amount of resolved charts that tested both methods of reception, Classical as well as Frawleys, to see which was more reliable?

pyramidpower

I sympathise greatly with you, I've had my head scrambled and rescrambled about reception. Mostly because I was trying to marry up what each author said about reception as being the same thing. It took me to realise that they aren't and that really Frawley's use of reception is quite unique to him.

My only advice to you would be to ignore Frawley's use of reception, at least until you are clear about how the ancient authors are using it and are clear on how it has been used for millennia in that way. When you understand this, carefully re-read Frawley's chapters on reception, they're utterly different.

Traditionally reception is a case where we have two planets and one of them applies to another, from the sign in which the other has some dignity like domicile, exaltation, or two lesser dignities. In this case, the other planet receives the first - which is to say it attends to it in some manner, offering it a sense of hospitality and engagement and has a responsibility as host to that planet. When, therefore, we have two planets aspecting, and one of them is received, that one which is received is attended to or protected in some manner by the one who receives.

Liking and loving and hating and not liking - none of this comes into it. Needless to say this topic has been discussed at length on this forum.

See these pages:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1869
http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=952
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/reception.html

As for translation of light requiring reception, it's certainly true that some authors have said that reception is needed here, but within context, it seems more like this is just advocating for the best possible or most secure kind of translation. If one planet separates from another and immediately enters into aspect with another that it applies to, it's like it gathers the light or virtue of one planet and brings it to the other. With that in mind we can see that reception would be very useful here as it can help us be sure that the matter is brought to fruition.

Really reception is more about ameliorating aspectual connections than it is about liking or loving. I would encourage you to read Frawley's (often very witty and sometimes hilarious) book in this light. It's a useful and even fun book to read on horary, but the reality is that if you're hoping to learn reception as understood by the greater tradition of horary astrology, you will only leave yourself confused if you think that Frawley's approach mimics that of, say, Lilly or Bonatti.

Unfortunately Frawley never lets us know when he's departing from the tradition, and as he makes references and appeals to the tradition, the effect is that we could be left with the impression that his treatment of reception summarises, in his own unique way, the traditional use of reception. It isn't however.

Actually there is reception, classically speaking, between these three planets. The Moon is in Saturn's exaltation and the Sun is in the domicile of the Moon so this translation of light looks very effective indeed. Saturn receives the Moon while the Moon receives the Sun.

Thank you guys. Yes I quite agree with your statements Paul. I have come to the conclusion that Frawley, in a way, tries to emotionalise and humanise the reception between planets. I somehow feel that the heavens would not deign to lower themselves to our murky, emotionally conceived ways and that for them it is simple, detached black and white. There is certainly a touch of grey in there too, but this needs extra strong testimonies to back up the grey areas. Something either happens or it doesn't. Its that simple. I actually know some folk that used his reception, (love/hate etc), in relationship horaries with serious consequences as the outcome of their loves interest had no interest in them what so ever. Indeed. A huge disappointment for them I'm sure despite what Frawley would have had them believe with his idea of reception. I think I would advise any student to stick with the classical use of reception as for me it is way more reliable. Certainly Frawleys idea of rulership and domination would be more appropriate I think for safeties sake for anyone wishing to incorporate his methods but even then be careful. I admire the man immensely and he is one of the best astrologers around, but I must confess I have of recent times began to question some of his methods. I remember reading a while ago that where house rulerships were concerned in finding the appropriate significator for the quesited he maintained that friend was always 11th, partner always 7th, brother always 3rd etc, but in one of his statements I also remember reading he stated that for instance in a question about a chess game a friend would be 7th of opponent. I had brought this up to him in a recent email in a question I needed assistance with, where the significator may have been a different house than it normally would be due to the subject matter of the question. He denied this however and maintained friend was 11th. In a follow up email I tried to broach the subject again but he made no attempt to focus on my query and did not acknowledge it. I also noted in his textbook that he has contradicted himself. He states that Uranus is connected with divorce. On p44 he states that in a question regarding, "Have I got a future with Cedric?", and Uranus is sitting on the Ascendant, it is a strong testimony that the relationship will soon come to an end. He then contradicts this on p228 stating, "Uranus too can show divorce or separation. For instance, if the question is, "Will this relationship last?", finding Uranus on the 7th cusp is testimony that it will not. FINDING IT ON THE ASCENDANT HOWEVER MAY SHOW ONLY THAT THE IDEA OF DIVORCE IS WEIGHING ON THE QUERENT. So which one is it, Ascendant or 7th cusp? Maybe one day he will further clarify on these points as I am finding more and more confusion following his methods to the letter. As he is such a fine teacher I am sure he will. However as far as the reception goes yes Paul I will stick with the classical. And yes you are right Lazarus, in my chart there certainly is a very good Translation of light but for me I would rather see the planets in slightly better shape for a positive outcome. So, along with the rest of the testimonies for this question I would still veer towards a negative. But again as always questions are a work in progress till an outcome is known, especially where learning is concerned.I will certainly post an update should one become known. Again thank you guys for your replies. Much appreciated. And thank you for the links Paul.