Prohibition of Conjunction

1
There is a chart someone posted on FB in which they wanted to know if a spell they cast to help a friend get a job is working. One person says that the will get the job because L10, the Sun, applies to L11, retrograde Mercury, in Virgo. Sun is at 17dgrs and Mercury at 23dgrs (again both in Virgo). The Sun casts a superior square to Mars at 18dgrs Sag and the Moon applies from 19dgrs Sag to Mercury. All this is before the conjunction between Mercury/Sun complete. This person says that the aspect between Mars/Sun will not prohibit because supposedly aspects don't prohibit conjunctions. Now there seems to be some support for this in Bonatti book III but then he goes on to show that an aspect can indeed prohibit a conjunction. I realize there is powerful reception as Mercury receives the Sun and is under the rays but I am very skeptical that the square from Mars (and the square from the Moon) won't potentially prevent the person from getting the job. I'm curious if anyone has any insight as I have never heard of this idea that conjunctions can NEVER be prohibited by aspects.

2
Also I don't have access to the chart data otherwise I would post it here. Sorry for that. It is in the traditional horary astrology FB page if anyone is a member of that.

3
As for me, I would deem the chart to be invalid from the start. Horary questions can only be asked for verifiable matters, and there is no way of "knowing" if a spell works or not. Let's say the person gets the job, it can or can't be the spell (and, since I am a skeptical - yes, who studies astrology - I think the later would be more possible).

This is the same reason why questions like "Do extraterrestrial intelligence exist?", "Is reincarnation truth?" and "Was Jesus a real person or a myth?" can't be answered.

In any case, just let's pretend I didn't say all the above. I still see the interpretation of the chart very wrong. First of all, why Mercury, L11 is a significator? The spell maybe should be represented by the L12. Even if we take Mercury as the significator, the simple fact of it being retrograde is indicative of a 'no' (unless we were talking about getting back a previous job the person had already).

As to the specific question of prohibition, I can't see how a Sun square Mars would NOT prohibit the conjunction.

As for Lilly, in Christian Astrology:

"Prohibition is when two planets that signify the effecting or bringing to conclusion any thing demanded are applying to an Aspect; and before they can come to a true Aspect, another Planet interposes either his body or aspect, so that thereby the matter propounded is hindered and retarded".

Of course, as you may know, there is a discussion about whether conjunction is an aspect or not, and this would be the key to interpret Lilly's passage. So, suppose L10 and L11 are the significators, retrograde motion is not a problem, the question would be: is conjunction an aspect? Most medieval sources would say 'no'. Lilly himself states: "We use to call the conjunction an aspect, but very improperly".

As for me, in my personal experience, I do see conjunctions as aspects, and I would definitely consider the square as a prohibition.

So, in one word, this whole horary chart (if considered valid) screams a resounding "no" as I see it.
Yair Alon
Kabbalist

4
L12 is spell. L11 is friend and L10 is job. Sorry for the confusion. Not sure if I agree that you cannot ask this particular question. Thanks for your input I'll think it over.

5
Here are some thoughts:

1)
The question and context must be clearly understood to start with. Is the question about the spell helping the person get the job? Or is it about the person getting the job? Or both? Or is is about "me" helping her/him get the job using a spell? Each context requires different significators.

A suitable aspect showing the person getting the job does not mean that the spell had anyting to do with it. In order to know that the spell helped the person get the job we should at the very least expect proper receptions and a translation or collection of light by the significator of the spell (or the person who cast the spell) connecting the person and and the job. Without that connection the influence of the spell is absent of the chart and the answer would be no as far as the spells' influence is concerned. The person could still get the job without the influence of the spell, or not. Likewise, if the person does not get the job it does not necessarily meant that it was because the spell did not work.

It is the astrologer's job to understand the question very clearly and the astrologer should ideally be versed in the subject of "spells" if he/she hopes to attempt to answer the question properly.

2)
Conjunctions with negative receptions or even neutral reception can be prohibited. Some aspects do not need receptions to be judged but most do need receptions to be taken into account. So, a "general rule" that conjunctions cannot be prohibited is, in my opinion, faulty.

3)
The question about the spell is acceptable as far as I am concerned. And it can be answered. What cannot be verified by some may be verifiable by others. Just because we are not versed on a subject it does not automatically mean that no one can be, specialy in metaphisical matters.

Most people think a spell or prayer to be something intangible or abstract. They are not. They are manipulations of energy and as such are part of the mechanism of what can be perceived as cause and effect. Subtle? Imperceptible to many? Yes. Abstract? No.

If the querent has enough intuition or "extra sensorial" (for lack of better term) perception functioning and such "psychic" perceptions are not hampered by logical thinking and excessive skepticism many questions that are deemed "invalid" by many can be answered to the querent's satisfaction. Assuming, of course that is what they are asking about and not something else altogether?
--
Felipe Oliveira
http://traditionalmedicalastrology.org
http://medicalastrologer.net