skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Godfather of Modernity: The Alan Leo Legacy Vol. One - Early Astrological Journals 1890-1912, compiled by Philip M Graves
Reviewed by Deborah Houlding
Lilly's Considerations
compiled by D. Houlding
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
The Babylonian Astrolabe: the Calendar of Creation, by Rumen K. Kolev
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

reception and essential dignities
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
siraxi



Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Posts: 99
Location: Romania

Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:13 pm    Post subject: reception and essential dignities Reply with quote

Up to now, my understanding towards reception was that a planet that receives another planet in one of its essential dignities may be compared to a person who likes another person.
Like: if Mars is in Venus' term, that is Venus receives Mars in its term, then the person represented by Venus likes the person represented by Mars. In this case the expresion "Venus receives Mars in its term" may be understood (as I did) that Venus is doing Mars a favour to receive it in its term and therefore the Venus person likes the Mars person.

I think I might have misjudged the word "reception". As I read the Frawley's book, the situation is quite on the contrary: if Mars is in Venus term, than it is the Mars person who likes the Venus person.

Actually Frawley says on p.121 of his last book: "Mars (querent) is in the fall of Venus: the querent loathes his wife".

I can't understand this statement: why is it this way and not the contrary? I mean: its fall sign is definitely a place that Venus hates. Since Mars is in a place hated by Venus, then Mars also is hated by Venus. Therefore it is the wife who hates the querent and not the other way. Could Frawley be wrong on this?

This is my problem. Could anyone be so kind and shed some light on this matter?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3207
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"I'm not sure that matters of ‘liking’ or ‘loathing’ really belong to receptions – that sort of description is best shown by the aspectual contacts. You can view someone with a poor level of respect, but the reception doesn’t by itself reveal whether the relationship generates friendly pity or concern, or a hostile loathing."


John uses descriptions such as "liking," "loving," and "loathing" as part metaphor and part mnemonic device to assist his students when learning about reception, a concept that John emphasizes (with good reason).

"Planets love the planets whose signs they are in." But when we study with John further this is broken down to: in rulership the planets love the planet who rules the sign. In exaltation, the planet puts that planet and what it means on a pedestal. In triplicity, just friends. In term, an aquaintance, in face, knows the planet well enough to say hello to.

So if I ask, "Will Iget a raise?" and I see that Lord 11 is in my planet's sign, boss's money loves me and wants to be near men and therefore this is testimony that I want. Obviously, the money has no emotions, but this helps with the judgment.

As for who is receiving whom, I've had difficulty with this from the beginning, and with good reason: even the authorities don't agree. In Rob Hand's translation of Masha' Allah On Reception, there is this little gem:


Quote:
when Saturn is in Aries in the twentieth degree and Mars in the 10th degree of Capricorn, then they receive each other mutually in their domiciles; for Mars receives Saturn because Saturn is in his domicile “


I find it best, in order to avoid confusion, to avoid stating who is receiving whom. Perhaps the English word "reception" isn't the best way to explain the phenomenon, I don't know. But I tend to write things like "Saturn is in Pisces is in the detriment and fall of Mercury." Then if I need to link Saturn and Mercury I try to do so without referring to who receives whom. It isn't that difficult, and it does keep us all sane. However, I agree with Deb for the reasons she stated.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3915
Location: England

Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In order to understand Lilly’s definition of reception turn to p.220 of CA – you get a clear example in his judgement “If I should purchase Master B his houses?”. He says

“Venus is for myself, the Sun locally placed in the seventh is for the seller; the Sun receives Venus in his exaltation” and then later “… finding my significator received of the Sun”

Both Venus and the Sun are in Aries where the Sun is in exaltation. Because the Sun was exalted the seller was ‘high in his demands’ but because he received Venus, Lilly’s significator, Lilly knew he had good reason to proceed; and that the seller would be amenable to his request.

There is an article on site which explains it in more detail at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig6.html

I would say this supports the argument you made in your original post Siraxi.


Last edited by Deb on Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:02 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
siraxi



Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Posts: 99
Location: Romania

Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you very much, Deb, Tom, for your comments.

Indeed, on p.220, Lilly says "finding, I say, my Significator received of Sun, and so neer to the cusp of the Angle of the West, it was an argument I should proceed further in the matter, notwithstanding Venus her many Debilities" suggesting that because of Venus is in the Sun's exaltation, the Sun person is granting some favours to Venus.

Yet, this is the opposite of what John Frawley teaches...

Now, I'm really confused Confused

I'll have to dig in more carefully into the CA, looking for more examples of this kind, that would support one theory on another.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3915
Location: England

Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don’t think your understanding is wrong on this Siraxi. It looks to me like John has given a too-narrow definition of the effect of reception. I have just read the relevant section in his book and note that he says:

“A planet literally exalts the planet in whose exaltation it falls; it puts it on a pedestal”

– he doesn’t give any allowance for the fact that reception from the dispositor suggests a willingness to receive the influence of the visiting planet amicably (as well as being in a position of influence and control).

Let’s say we have Mercury in 28 Cancer and Jupiter in 21 Taurus. Jupiter receives Mercury into its sign of exaltation, but Mercury does not receive Jupiter in any of its dignities. By John’s definition Mercury, by falling in the exaltation of Jupiter, would exalt Jupiter and put it on a pedestal.

But this is not the way that Lilly described the effect of the planets in these positions in his “A Gentlewoman desired to know if she should have an aged man, yea or no”, recently discussed in the traditional forum. (You can see the chart and judgement in the 2nd page of the Is the traditional approach too fatalistic? thread - towards the end of the page)

Here Jupiter signifies the old man who desires the marriage and Mercury signifies the young woman who is less keen. Lilly writes:

“… the old man did much importune it, because Jupiter receives Mercury in his exaltation and causeth a friendly trine to the degree ascending”

‘Importune’ means to strongly desire something so that you are annoyingly persistent and insistent in your requests for it.

This is clearly not a case of Mercury falling in the exaltation of Jupiter and therefore exalting the person signified by Jupiter. If anything the young woman is on the pedestal in this situation, not the old man. It is more the case that these two significators had recently been in sextile (at the time the marriage proposal was discussed) and as Mercury applied to Jupiter, Jupiter received the application by exaltation and therefore welcomed the proposal with ‘open arms’, ‘elation’, etc. When a swifter planet applies to another, what we aim to see is the planet being applied to receiving the applying planet in some of its dignities. This shows the willingness to accept the influence (or the ‘promise’ of the contact). Where there is no reception from the weightier planet towards the one making the application, the promise may be rejected or there is a lack of recognition towards it.

But unfortunately, here, Mercury doesn’t receive Jupiter in any sense and the young woman didn’t really want to return the old man’s ardent attentions. The sextile was separating and her interests were moving elsewhere. The old man had his emotions stirred for nothing Neutral

In the earlier example mentioned above (CA p.220) Lilly judged his chances improved by the fact that his significator was received into the exaltation of the Sun (the seller). He considered the seller ‘high in his demands’, not because his planet ‘fell’ into the Sun’s exaltation, but because the Sun was in its own exaltation and angular. But the reception indicated that the seller was amenable to receiving his proposal.

Quote:
I find it best, in order to avoid confusion, to avoid stating who is receiving whom.


I was going to agree with you Tom but I’m starting to think the confusion has actually arisen because people have said things like “Mercury falls in the exaltation of Jupiter” rather than “Jupiter receives Mercury by exaltation”. I have had to read and re-read the above several times to make sure I have explained this properly – it is so much easier to comprehend when you think of planets ‘receiving into dignities’ rather than planets ‘falling into dignities’ because being received is much more suggestive of being accepted, welcomed or at least being given attention.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarkF



Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 499
Location: Outside Washington, DC

Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb,

I’ve read what you said here and I think this topic should be front and center of everyone on the forum. Like just about everybody on here, I’ve read John Frawley’s book and came away from them with what I now think is a kind of simplified understanding of reception.

I still am not sure how to use reception in every case. You seem to be arguing for a more two-sided view of it, where the planet that receives the other into it’s dignity is the one who gives up it’s power and influence to welcome the received planet. So how or when do we use John Frawley’s definition where the planet that receives the other planet is the one who has the power in the situation?

You talk about power and influence in your article, is it always that the receiving planet always gives up its power? That would seem to fit the analogy of the planet letting another into its own house.
_________________
Mark F.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
siraxi



Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Posts: 99
Location: Romania

Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is this other way of seeing the reception by essential dignities, other than the most powerful ones, by domicile and by exaltation, which relate to controlling and putting the visiting planet on a pedestal, respectively.

The essential dignity of triplicity may be considered as related to the mental level. Example: in the example from the thread Romantic Telepathy Horary, the significators in mutual reception by triplicity indicate a communion on the mental level: each one is thinking to the other one.

The essential dignity of term may be considered as related to the emotional/sentimental level. In questions like Does he love me ?, we see Venus (her) in Mars' (him) term. Or, let's put it this way: Mars (him) receives Venus (her) in his own term. Translating this: he receives her in his heart, she's got a place in his heart.

The essential dignity of face may be considered as related to the physical level. Example: in a horary question like Who will win the 1986 World Cup in football? the main significator in the Sun's term gave a physical description: the flag of the country who won the World Cup in 1986 (Argentina) contains the image of the Sun.

At this point, this is still an experimental theory, yet it seems to be very useful in selected cases that relate specifically to those levels.
Comments?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew



Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 360

Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A receiving planet extends its influence.

The essential dignity of term is often used to describe identifying *physical* characteristics, like red hair.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Ben



Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 151
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA

Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was reminded of reception when I saw a scene in the recent movie “Kingdom of Heaven,” about the 3rd Crusade; and it sounded like some passages from Bonatti I have been translating. Here is the scene. Two crusader lords are captured by Saladin and brought into his tent. Saladin gives ice water to one (whom he intends to treat as a guest). The other takes water, too, which Saladin did not intend. Saladin has him killed.

So two enemies of Saladin are in his tent, but one is formally greeted, and the other not. Saladin suspends his warfare against the one he greets, but has no duty to protect the one he has not greeted.

In Bonatti’s horary material on illness, he emphasizes again and again that the patient will not die if the Lord of the 1st (the sick person) is received by the Lord of the 8th (death); but he will die if it’s the other way around. Why? I think the Saladin analogy helps (Saladin = Lord of 8th). When a planet is properly received, it is taken care of by the planet receiving it; normal hostilities cease, and the received planet is able to do what it normally does. Now, if the Lord of the 1st is received by that of the 8th, then the 8th will not kill him, and the Lord of the 1st gets to do what he wants to do: live. But if the Lord of the 1st receives that of the 8th, then the 8th gets to do what he wants: to kill.

So it is true that reception shows a kind of dependence of the received on the receiver, or an interest between them (as Frawley says), but the received is also allowed to do and signify what he normally wants to, in connection with the receiver. If the planets are normally hostile, then hostilities formally cease (though perhaps with bad consequences). If they are normally friendly (in the context of the question), the matter can be perfected all the more.

The other point about Frawley (and Lilly) that comes to mind is that Frawley says a planet is received whenever it is in another planet’s dignities. In that case, a planet would be received every minute of every day. But the Saladin example is instructive here. Bonatti’s medieval requirements are that a planet can only be received if it is also aspected by the planet in whose dignities it’s in. Just so, both kings were in Saladin’s “house.” But Saladin only formally “received” the one he gave his ice water to (similar to an aspect). The other king did not get special protection simply because he was in Saladin’s house.
_________________
www.bendykes.com
Traditional Astrology Texts and Teaching
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3915
Location: England

Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Mark,

I am about to leave the country so I am pleased Ben has explained this – I agree with everything he says. The only extra point I’d make is that Ben refers to Frawley (and Lilly) together as if the way JF has presented the way that Lilly used it. But it isn’t – Lilly used it exactly as Ben has described it here – and I have been through CA with a fine-tooth comb (and several other texts of his period) to check this out.

I am starting to hate analogies but here is an alternative way of describing it that I've updated from some old notes. I think this is basically repeating what Ben says but in a manner more fitting to relationship charts.

Imagine Venus at 23° Capricorn. She is in the sign of Saturn – therefore received by Saturn by sign. This is favourable for Venus in any situation where she has to deal with Saturn because it shows him receiving her with interest and treating her with dignity and respect. She will be made comfortable by his influence.

She is in the exaltation of Mars – therefore received by Mars by exaltation. In her dealings with Mars she will be treated with great ceremony and respect – as when you receive an important visitor, show them through to the parlour and get the best china tea-service out. Although more elevated, this is not as comfortable for Venus as being received by sign, because elevation brings pressure, and Venus may not find it very easy to relax.

She is in her own triplicity so gains essential dignity because of this. This gives her some control over her own situation/environment. The reception by Mars by term only strengthens the willingness of Mars to pay attention to Venus and be receptive to her.

She is received by the Sun by face. Being a lesser dignity this is not so influential. No china tea-cups here – you are allowed to stand in the door way and get your message across. But at least the Sun is receiving Venus so this adds strength to any situation where Venus wants to make a friendly application to the Sun.

It is not really apt to say that Jupiter receives her by fall. Jupiter cannot treat her with respect because he has none to offer. It would be like Venus trying to take comfort and shelter from someone who lives at the back of the alley where the junkies hang out. Venus will more likely be damaged by Jupiter’s influence – as any planet is when its dispositor is essentially or accidentally debilitated and they want to make a friendly pact with them or benefit from their influence.

Generally, planets benefit when their dispositors are well placed and fortified. And obviously mutual receptions bring most benefit because then both parties gain from each other’s strength.

The important exception to this is in those situations where the receiving planet does not want to grant any favours or be receptive to the applicant's interests, for example when they are in conflict. In those cases you want to see your planet disposing the other or otherwise stronger in essential dignities. Like Ben suggests, being received by a powerful person can be very beneficial- just like getting access to the kings ear - but anger him and he'll squash you, because he has that sort of power.

Actually I much prefer the way Ben has explained this - the reference to Saladin is a very good example (and makes me want to watch the movie Smile)

I‘ve been collecting references on this but I don’t have time to drop them in now. I am literally ‘out the door’, but I agree, this is an important point and needs to be clarified.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MarkF



Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 499
Location: Outside Washington, DC

Posted: Wed May 25, 2005 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ben and Deb,

Thanks so much for the last two posts. I haven’t read anything on here that has helped me so much in quite a while. As with the other novices, I’ve read reception differently.

Would you say that the key point here is that reception without an aspect or being conjunct is not worth much as far as adding information to a chart?

Do you guys know how much this has thrown my perspective in turmoil?

And with all respects to John Frawley, who’s taken of his time to answer me on a number of times, are you both saying that the example of Venus in Aries = Venus loves Mars, is wrong? On a logical basis, it makes sense that without an aspect or being conjunct, reception does not tell us much in a chart.

And to Deb, we’re all looking forward to you returning from your trip, and look forward to more on this topic from you.
_________________
Mark F.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sungem



Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 206
Location: Australia

Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is absolutely perfect timing for me.

Thank you Ben and Deb for diamond bright and crystal clear analogy and explanation as always.

This is going to be laminated and kept ready to hand for eye to read until brain commits indelibly!

Thanks once again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3207
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark writes:

Quote:
And with all respects to John Frawley, who’s taken of his time to answer me on a number of times, are you both saying that the example of Venus in Aries = Venus loves Mars, is wrong?


Nah. Let's take a look at the chart that I think was mentioned above from Lilly's Prophetical Merlin, "A Gentlewoman desired to know if she should have an aged man." June 24, 1644 n/s 10:30 am LMT London. 16 Virgo rises.

Lilly's handling of this confuses the issue, but if we apply the axiom that a planet loves the the planets whose signs he is in, it works out nicely. The lady is Mercury in Cancer. Who does she love? The Moon. Who is the Moon? She is the Moon or at least the Moon represents her as emotional being. In short she loves herself. In other words she is motivated by self interest (In her situation I have no problem with that) or security issues, if that is more to a reader's liking. Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter, so she has a very high opinion of Jupiter. Who is Jupiter? Jupiter is the quesited. If we accept exaltation as something that is not quite based on reality, She loves what this man represents to her, but as we shall see, this isnit the objective reality.

What does she like? Mercury is in Cancer the triplicity of Mars. Mars plays another role in this drama, but one of them is Mars is quesited's money. Yeah she likes that too,

He's Jupiter what does he love? Jupiter is in Taurus, so he loves Venus. Venus is her as woman. He likes the comfort and the feminine side of her and he wants that in his old age. He is in the exaltation of the Moon. He elevates her in his mind perhaps to a station someone as calculating as she is doesn't deserve to be in. But he loves her as emotional being. This is all well and good, but what is in it for her? Not much. Jupiter is not in any of Mercury's dignities.

What we have is a lot of self interest here. She wants financial security first (a not unreasonable position given the age difference and cultural realities of the day). He is interested in having someone take care of him. He is not interested what he can do for her.

There is more detail in The Astrologer's Apprentice issue No 20 "Towards Reading Lilly," but we can see that this idea works well.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Sue



Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 945
Location: Australia

Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Lilly's handling of this confuses the issue, but if we apply the axiom that a planet loves the planets whose signs he is in, it works out nicely.


It might work out nicely for John’s way of describing this but it doesn’t seem to be the way that others have described it, including Lilly. I don’t see how Lilly has confused the issue. The way he has described the chart “a Gentlewoman desired to know….” is certainly how I would have seen it using the method of reception that I have understood. I understand reception in the way that Ben and Deb have explained with great clarity.

This debate has been very instructive for me. I understand this issue so much better now. I read John Frawley’s earlier two books a couple of years ago when I was but a mere pup in the art of horary. (Still am really). But it perplexed me no end when I read them. I also went to a couple of his lectures when he was in Australia early last year. Like Siraxi, I thought I must have misunderstood what I had been taught because what I understood differed from the version described in John’s books and his lectures. But I see now that John has a different way of looking at it that I don’t really feel comfortable with. In the example chart we have been using, Jupiter (the old man) receives Mercury (the young woman) into his exaltation. He welcomes her into his home because he desires her to be there. She is his honoured guest and he feels favourable towards her. But John puts the emphasis onto the young woman, claiming that because she exalts him she puts him on a pedestal. Yet she isn’t receiving him at all. She hasn’t invited him to her home. She must feel something for him to go to his home but not enough to invite him to hers. It is even clearer in the example that Deb gave earlier on ‘Master B’s house’. Because the Sun (the seller) received Venus (Lilly), the seller felt favourable towards him. John’s method would be that Lilly would put the seller up on a pedestal. I think this is a point that Siraxi made earlier.

Ben, your point about Bonatti’s medieval requirements that a planet can only be received if it is also aspected by the planet in whose dignities it is in is interesting. This seems to contradict, or at least differ from, Lilly who says that something may be brought to pass that normally would not occur due to a lack of aspects between the primary significators if the two significators are in mutual reception. So, to use the example of the old man and young woman again, if Mercury and Jupiter were in mutual reception by exaltation say, but there were no aspects between them, Bonatti would say that they are unable to receive each other but Lilly would see the mutual reception as the potential for a positive outcome. Is this correct?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tom
Moderator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3207
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Sat May 28, 2005 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It might work out nicely for John’s way of describing this but it doesn’t seem to be the way that others have described it, including Lilly. I don’t see how Lilly has confused the issue.


I'd love to go into this in detail right away, but I'm off to a baseball game. Briefly Lilly says that Mercury in Cancer shows that that man wants the match. This is not the way he usually does it. Mercury is HER significator. John's point is not that Lilly didn't know what he is talking about, but rather that this particular horary was treated, in the writing anyway, in a cursory fashion that horaries in CA are not treated. If you have the Apprentice issue No. 20 it is all in there, if not, I'll try to add more to this later tonight or early tomorrow.

Tom
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated