Pankajdubey - You cannot be serious?

Andrew Bevan wrote:Pankajdubey - You cannot be serious?

Oh Dear me ! actually, I was

PD

Well, the gentleman comes to the astrologer because he desires to know the truth. This is because a woman has come to him and said something that gives him reason to ask. The only reason the woman could have come to him with this incentive is because she probably thinks it his business and that there are circumstances that give him reason to care.

And your advice is don't bother??

I would suggest the gentleman was given a more constructive line of advice.

Hi,

I tend to agree with PD. If we read this as "Is the rumor true?" you get a negative answer.

According to one (infamous ) Mr. Gadbury , Mercury retrograde or debilitated shows a false rumor, as does the affliction of the planet to whome the Moon or Mercury next applies.

Here, Mercury is indeed retrograde. Moon applies to a square to Venus which is in its detriment sign of Aries and in a cadent house (9th).

If the lady who brought him the rumor is signified by the 7th house and Saturn, then the fact Angular Neptune is cnj the cusp of 7th (with Jup L5), afflicting the Asc, and Saturn as a malefic is on the cusp of 2nd, point to the fact her words of a child are false and she is only interested in the querent's money. Saturn on the cusp of 2nd afflicts the querent's pocket, while it is also in the sign of fall of the dispositor of the PoF, Venus.

And, of course, Venus , lady of the 3rd house of rumors is in its sign of detriment and cadent, absolutely debilitated both essentially and accidentally. This is a false rumor.

Andrew Bevan wrote:Well, the gentleman comes to the astrologer because he desires to know the truth. This is because a woman has come to him and said something that gives him reason to ask. The only reason the woman could have come to him with this incentive is because she probably thinks it his business and that there are circumstances that give him reason to care.

And your advice is don't bother??

I would suggest the gentleman was given a more constructive line of advice.

I don't think you mentioned that in the original post in those terms!!
So, it is that a lady is saying that the child is of the querent and the man wants to know if the child in question is his?
Edit:

or, it is someone said to someone?

This is more of 'rumor' or 'allegation 'question, I think !

PD

Andrew -

I don't disagree that Jupiter and the Moon are friends by nature, that they are angular, and that they are appropriately placed. I simply disagree that the conditions you listed are the same as reception, or that they lead to a child being legitimate. As discussed above, the authorities require an aspect, preferably one with reception.

The point that I was making is that Jupiter and the Moon need to at least be in mutual reception, because they are not in aspect. They are not in mutual reception, at least according to Abu Ma'shar, Ibn Ezra, and Bonatti, because Jupiter is only in one minor dignity of the Moon, not two. You are, of course, free to disagree with this definition of reception.

However, the sentences after "The Moon does not have any terms alotted to herself, as we know." do not speak to the issue of reception.

Just clarifying.

Best wishes,
Nina

The point that I was making is that Jupiter and the Moon need to at least be in mutual reception, because they are not in aspect. They are not in mutual reception, at least according to Abu Ma'shar, Ibn Ezra, and Bonatti, because Jupiter is only in one minor dignity of the Moon, not two. You are, of course, free to disagree with this definition of reception.

I agree, and I think it is good that points like this are being clarified because there really is a strong consensus of opinion amongst the traditional authors. Sahl, for example, is also very clear on this matter (Introduction 5.8 ) :

• But the reception of the planets comes to be when a planet is joined
  to a planet from its domicile or exaltation: then it receives it with a
  good spirit and perfect reception.
  
  And there is another reception below this (that is, less than it), namely
  when a planet is joined to the planetary Lord of the triplicity and
  bound, or to the Lord of the bound and face (that is, when it is joined to
  a planet who has two or more of these lesser dignities in its own place) and then there will be a true reception. Indeed if it had only one, there will not be reception there. (Dykes, pp.28-29)

This is also the approach that Lilly took, despite his confusing definition of reception in Vol I, where he uses the term ?reception? to define mutual reception. We find it in aphorism such as

• ?Consider if the Lord of the ascendant be joyned to an Infortune, who receives him not either by House or Exaltation, or by two of his lesser Dignities, and the Moon also at that time unfortunate, it signifies the Querent's death.? (p.408).

One planet receiving the other by face alone really seems to be meaningless in traditional works, and is not strong enough to allow a sense of mutual reception.

Andrew,

This is an interesting chart, not just because of the subject matter, but also because there seems to be two different possible approaches to answering the question: firstly, as you and Nina did, by looking to see "is the child mine?", and secondly, as PD and AS have done, to look at "is this rumour true?"

Does the querent have an instinct as to the truthfulness (or not) of the lady providing the rumour or idea?

The way I see it at the moment is that if the querent sincerely believed the "rumour" to be given in truthfulness, the chart can be judged by the first method. On the other hand, if he had doubts about the truth of it, the second method is appropriate.

Keren

Interestingly, in determining legitimacy, neither Bonatti nor Sahl discuss turning the chart and looking at the 11th house, the fifth from the seventh. I have followed along with their instruction, but wanted to point this out.

I don't know what they say about this, but wouldn't it make more sense to use the ruler of the 11th house? Using the 5th house ruler (the querent's children) don't we take it as a given that the child is his? The question is if another person's child is somehow connected with him, is it not?

If we use Mercury as the significator of the child, we see that both the querent (Sun) and his ex-partner (Saturn) are ruled by him. These two people have Mercury in common, he connects them. What's more, the Sun is approximately 13 degrees away from Mercury and if we take the longest time unit (years), since an angular house is involved and Mercury is in a fixed sign, this would take us back to the mid-nineties, where the alleged birth took place.

I'm not saying that this is the correct way of interpreting this, I'm just sharing my thoughts.