Hi folks,

I'm sorry to bring up another job question; obviously these are plaguing me lately!

'Will I be able to secure a job in the UK while still in the US?' was my question (the concern of course being that I would have to land in the UK without a job or delay the move, if the answer is no) asked:

4 May 2008
9:50 pm
Tucson, AZ

What is interesting about this chart is this:

'The job' is Venus, dignified in Taurus and in the house of her joy, the 5th.

9th house ruler, the Sun, is also in Taurus.

The Moon is in-between them; e.g. carrying the light from Venus to the Sun. Jupiter is about to turn Rx and re-cross a threshold, and the Sun applies to trine Jupiter without impediment.

However, all of this is done near a New Moon, so both Venus and the Moon are technically combust or Under the Beams.

So does the symbolism of the Moon (the action) carrying one light to the other override the combustion and weakened state of being Under the Beams?

Is there not some rule about combustion being overridden by the fact that otherwise nothing could be brought about if the Sun combusts the planets in question? When does this work, and when does it not? Since the Sun is a significator in this, how does that factor in?

I have judged the answer to be 'yes', but of course I am strongly biased toward that answer! Any discourse on this would be appreciated. I've had other charts where the Sun as a significator has applied to combust another significator, but I'm unsure as to when this is a 'good' thing and when it's 'not'.

It's this 'good vs bad' combustion (if there is such a thing as 'good' combustion) I would like to understand better. Frawley seems to think it's possible. Can't find anything in Lilly yet, but I haven't looked that hard.

Perplexed,
GH

Hi Gunhilde

Venus is under the beams, the Moon combust.

John Frawley says this about combustion:

"This is of huge importance. It can decide a judgement on its own. "will my team beat their team? and Lord 7 is combust: your team wins. End of judgement. There is no greater affliction to a planet than this."
The Horary Textbook, page 59.

Enough said, methinks. Sorry

Susie

Can't find anything in Lilly yet, but I haven't looked that hard.

One example off the top of my head: A horse lost or stolen... (CA, p467)
The lost horse is signified by the combust Mercury. The combustion describes the horse's powerless condition.

I haven't looked at your chart but if the sig is combust, that planet is somehow rendered ineffective, has no power or freedom to act.

Hi,
Lilly gives -5 points to a Combust planet...CA pg.115,so it might as well be in its' sign of Detriment. Also,has to be in the same sign as the Sun & within 8 degrees & 30 mins,either way.
Under the Sunsbeams is not as afflicting.
Saturngirl.

Hi there,

Thanks for all the replies; I think they might be slightly off the mark, however. Let's look at the question:

This isn't simply a question about a significator moving to combust the Sun, with the Sun having no significance to the chart other than being the Sun, who burns things up.

This is a question where the Sun is actually a significator in the question, with a translation from one significator to another! Frawley *also* says:

"If conjunction with the Sun would give a Yes to the question, combustion can be ignored: the poor Sun would never get conjuncted otherwise." The Horary Textbook p60

What I am *asking* is whether this is the case here: that Venus, the job significator, Under the Beams, receiving the Sun by domicile; and the Moon, in the sign of her exaltation, carrying the light from Venus to the Sun; are burned up in this translation, or if, as Frawley says, the fact that the Sun, 9th house ruler in my chart, is a significator, and so combustion 'doesn't count' because the Sun is of relevance? Is this ever the case with the Moon?

The symbolism being, of course, that the Moon is bringing the job (Venus) to the Sun (overseas).

And being that Venus, the job significator, is otherwise in dignity by domicile and in joy, how much (or little) does being near the Sun factor in?

Do you see what I'm getting at? This isn't a straightforward combustion...

Thanks!
GH

I agree with Gunhilde that if the Sun is a significator then conjunction would give a Yes and combustion can be ignored (as Frawley says). But what I noticed (and I don't know if this affects things) is that actually Mercury conuncts the Sun before Venus does.....what effect (if any) do think this might have?

SRS

Hi GH,

I am a bit perplexed as well.
What is Saturn doing conjunct MC and the South node close to the MC.
If your asc lord was strong I would go with the more positive of the outcomes,otherwise I would go with the more cautious ones.

Saturn, the 2nd lord disposes the ascendant lord and is posited in 10th- this is about money matters.Sun translates(Vocation) light from Saturn to Jupiter-now that is a new angle.It is Jupiter's strength that is a worry.

best wishes

PD

Hi Gunhilde

If you want to see about the definition of a combust Moon, go to THT, page 162.

Regards

Susie

Hi SusieN,

I have gone to THT p 162; but my concern is with THT p 60, which also applies.

Edit: and here I will copy and paste a piece of Deb's article on The Moon: Transmitter of Influences from CA:

p.421 ff If have the portion promised?

Moon is separating from the conjunction of the Sun (ruler of the 8th house); applying to the trine of Saturn (ruler of the 1st). Lilly says that the Moon translates the virtue of the Sun to Saturn, assuring the querent of the money he was promised. Both are within orb. [Sun = 2.25 Leo | Moon = 10.20 Leo | Saturn = 15.21 Sagittarius]

The Moon is combust here, although separating; and Lilly doesn't seem bothered about the combustion because what is key is the translation of light from the Sun to Saturn via the Moon. This also takes place in a sign where the Sun is dominant and the Moon peregrine. In my chart, the Moon is dominant and the Sun peregrine.

I think perhaps it would be a good idea to question, at least, the flat assumption that a combust Moon is always 'negative', if the cojoining of the Moon to the Sun brings something about. I am still unsure as to whether the application or separation of the Moon to combustion makes a difference... I guess I will have to wait and see what happens! I have a telephone interview set up for the 2nd (not a day I'd pick; the Moon is VOC!) so I will feed back on this, for sure.

GH

I wish you well - I know this feeling of wanting to throw in the towel, suffering from the same malaise myself at the moment (and also having Saggie planets)

Keep us posted!

Susie

Update:

Well, so far, the 'No's' have it; I didn't get the job I was interviewed for (interestingly, the interview was delayed until the next day, the *exact* day of the New Moon!!). I have several other applications outstanding at the moment ('the carpet-bomb approach' to job-hunting, I call it), and I don't fly out of the US until the beginning of July, so there's some leeway yet...but there are definitely some issues with being overseas; not all the establishments are as flexible as the one I interviewed with, and won't do telephone interviews...

Jeez, I really hate New Moons!

GH

Okay, folks, the verdict's in: the combusted Moon gave a 'no' answer, after all...

So what I want to know is, does a combust Moon (or a combust planet, in general) EVER, in your experience, give a 'yes' answer? In all the New Moon charts I've ever done, the answer is always in the negative, but Frawley says a 'yes' can happen.

Question is: when? And how? Do the planets have to be separating from combustion?

GH