I may be mistaken, but I thought that "lighter" meant the swifter and "ponderous" meant the slower? Maybe Deborah can help us, since she's been working on the 'Annotated Lilly'. Some of his language confuses the reader.

That's right, this is talking about movement - lighter means swifter. This shows the party who tends to do the running (and is usually most easily impressed upon emotionally). It is also this planet which usually needs to be received, unless it can 'commit its disposition' on the other planet (which is comparative to one party 'forcing his or her will' on the other).

The idea of 'who loves who best' being judged simply by the sign placement of significators, is quite a red herring in this business. This is where all the confusion has crept in because it has been thoroughly confused with the notions of reception; but actually, it is a completely separate principle.

Motivation is shown by movement, not position, and all sources are agreed upon the principle that the planet which moves most swiftly to create the application indicates the party who is most keen. What we need to see is the party being applied to receiving the one which applies towards it.

The placement of significators is descriptive in another way, and adds more details, but from another level. In that, the placement of one person's significator in the house of another will help to describe the power play of the relationship. The theory is not original to anyone, because it is well known historically and discussed in many traditional sources. I agree with the ancients but I understand Lilly's observation - it raises a very interesting point about why relationships that are made easy for us are not always the ones that capture our interest. There is an informative principle here, but it has been stretched out of all proportion, given to a technique it does not belong to, and allowed to swallow up other important details of relationship issues. I'm not keen on trying to explain or argue against this with relevance to the concept of 'reception' because I don't even agree with the notion of tying the two principles together.

The discussion of reception and who loves best, who makes the moves, who gets to be the master, - this is something that I explain and demonstrate over 42 A4 pages in a booklet which is a chapter for the text I use for my students. I'm toying with the idea of making the whole book available for general release next year, or else I will release specific chapters from it, this being one of them. Until then I don't want to add more confusion by half-explaining principles that are simple to understand if properly explained. If anyone wants to know about the prospect of an early release of this section on relationships, please contact me privately.

Deb

I just found Kirk's original question (sorry, I was 'skipping' before):

Would Saturn running at full speed be swifter than Mercury about to change direction, or is Mercury always considered the swifter planet due to mean motion? In the quote from Lilly:

Quote:
The Lord of the l0th in the 1st, so he be a lighter Planet then the Lord of the 1st . . .

Lilly doesn't talk about a swifter planet, but a lighter planet. I take that to mean that Mercury is always considered the swifter planet compared to Saturn, that we are to disregard current speed. Am I right, anyone?

In a sense you are right. Mercury is naturally a lighter planet - so you can say it is essentially lighter. Its style of movement contributes to the characteristics we expect from someone who is signified by Mercury - and this kind of person is known for being more mutable, adaptable, communicative and responsive than someone who is described by Saturn. But if Saturn were currently moving more quickly than Mercury (because Mercury is stationing, say), then this would describe the Mercury person hesitating and the Saturn person plodding along to develop the relationship. We don't normally pair Mercury and Saturn but if we did this would probably suit Saturn anyway, who doesn't like all this quick movement. This kind of detail is very important when creating profiles of the people involved in the relationship.

Deb

PS - I also skipped back and read a lot to agree with in Paulo's post. The only exception is that I don't think we can over-relativize speed. Planetary speed and movement, and their cycles - these are the most important concepts to understand in order to get in-depth details from horary. Mercury turning retrograde creates refranation if Mercury is applying to Saturn; but if it was separating from Saturn, and then turned retrograde, we would have a mutual application, which is an indication that both parties want this, and are willing to make movements to make the relationship happen.

Deb wrote:We don't normally pair Mercury and Saturn but if we did this would probably suit Saturn anyway, who doesn't like all this quick movement.

Meaning that Saturn doesn't have it in his own nature, but whether he likes it or not depends upon how the planets apply to one another, or receive each other. Would that be correct? Mercury and Saturn are both essentially cold and dry, so not complete strangers?

I think so Andrew. I would say it is nearly all about the application, because reception adds something extra to consider about the aspect being made.

Hello,
Thank you all for the replies!

A question (triggered b Deb on committing disposition):
(I am ignoring term, triplicity and face here)

If Mercury is in Leo applying trine to Sun in Sagittarius, Sun receives Mercury by domicile but Mercury does not receive Sun - in fact it "rejects" it by detriment.

If Mercury is in Leo applying trine to Sun in Aries, Sun receives Mercury by domicile but Mercury does not receive Sun by domicile or exaltation but it does not "reject" it.

If Mercury is in Gemini applying sextile to Sun in Aries, Sun does not receive Mercury by domicile or exaltation neither does Mercury receive Sun by domicile of exaltation but Merucry commits his disposition to Mars because he is the applying one with dignitiy (domicile dignity). Is this correct?

BTW, what does it mean to have a planet committing his disposition to another? Does it mean that he allows the other planet to rule things under his ruling?

Thank you in advance

If Mercury is in Leo applying trine to Sun in Sagittarius

Hello,

Oh dear, that is stupid of me! Of all the planets, I have to choose Sun and Mercury who could only make conjunction aspect!

OK. Let's change the scenario:

A question (triggered by Deb on committing disposition):
(I am ignoring term, triplicity and face here)

If Mercury is in Aquarius applying sextile to Saturn in Sagittarius, Saturn receives Mercury by domicile but Mercury does not receive Saturn - in fact it "rejects" it by detriment.

If Mercury is in Aquarius applying square to Saturn in Taurus , Saturn receives Mercury by domicile but Mercury does not receive Saturn by domicile or exaltation but it does not "reject" it.

If Mercury is in Gemini applying sextile to Saturn in Leo, Saturn does not receive Mercury by domicile or exaltation neither does Mercury receive Saturn by domicile of exaltation but Mercury commits his disposition to Saturn because he is the applying one with dignitiy (domicile dignity). Is this correct?

BTW, what does it mean to have a planet committing his disposition to another? Does it mean that he allows the other planet to rule things under his ruling?

Thank you in advance

This is my perspective on the problem. If someone wants to offer another view, then please do! At any rate we are talking about finesses.

1) Mercury is in Aquarius applying sextile to Saturn in Sagittarius, Saturn receives Mercury by domicile but Mercury does not receive Saturn - in fact it "rejects" it by detriment.

- Perfection, but Saturn is beyond the boundaries of Mercury and Mercury is weakened in this place. Saturn is in a place where Mercury does not possess the correct knowledge, competence or speak the language. Saturn may represent Mercury contrary to Mercury?s wishes, view or signature. It?s like loosing perspective and consequences of a vote. Mercury is taken away from home.

2) If Mercury is in Aquarius applying square to Saturn in Taurus, Saturn receives Mercury by domicile but Mercury does not receive Saturn by domicile or exaltation but it does not "reject" it.

- Perfection, but after a struggle. A problem has to be solved. The square through signs of short ascension converts to a sextile. Mercury applies to his dispositor. It is like making a plan and agreeing on a budget.

3) Mercury in Gemini applying sextile to Saturn in Leo, Saturn does not receive Mercury by domicile or exaltation neither does Mercury receive Saturn by domicile of exaltation but Mercury commits his disposition to Saturn because he is the applying one with dignity (domicile dignity). Is this correct?

- Mercury in his own domicile has the power and resources to administrate the contract and there is a beneficial application, i.e. by sextile, but Saturn is detriment and in a state that reduces his ability to manoeuvre or deliver along his own terms. Saturn may not offer a lot of help, but Mercury may not need it and the contact with Saturn may be a mere reference or formality. Saturn is the weaker of the two.

When a planet commits its disposition to another planet, it means that the first planet is disposed by the second. If there are any other versions here, let?s just sort it out.

Hi Andrew

I feel like I've already made a billion posts to this forum about reception (!) so I don't think I have another one in me I thought I would just point out that what we find described by Lilly, etc, as 'committing disposition' is what Hand translates as 'pushing nature' in the post on the previous page. This is one of the reasons why I have never liked to see translators splitting the tradition by using new terminology, when there is already well known conventional terminology for which understanding needs to be preserved.

Deb

I feel like I've already made a billion posts to this forum about reception (!) so I don't think I have another one in me

I'm sorry I am such a late-comer to the discussion. It must be a topic of great interest.

From the previous page:

This shows the party who tends to do the running (and is usually most easily impressed upon emotionally). It is also this planet which usually needs to be received, unless it can 'commit its disposition' on the other planet (which is comparative to one party 'forcing his or her will' on the other).

That's interesting. In my mind I would simply say that if Mercury applied by aspect to Saturn in Gemini, then the decision and directions given were under the control of Mercury.

There a two matters being discussed here, really; - One is the labeling of astrological conbinations, meaning how they translate; the other is how these planetary combinations actually work in practice. I also understand that a different nation may understand and translate the meaning of a term diffently. With all our languages and various cultural backgrounds - should it be considered a hazard or a gift?

Thank you to all who replied to my questions on the previous page.

Andrew Bevan wrote:I also understand that a different nation may understand and translate the meaning of a term diffently. With all our languages and various cultural backgrounds - should it be considered a hazard or a gift?

That`s a good an worthwile question.

Tanit wrote: I have never heard this to be the case. If planet A is in detriment or fall it cannot receive planet B (or any other planet), but as long as B planet is not in detriment or fall itself, it can receive A detrimented planet if A is in B's domicile, etc.

Bonatti gives several examples about reception and for him it seems possible for a planet to receive another one although being in his detriment or fall. As an example he states: "Or the Moon was in the said third degree of Aries, and the Sun [..] was in the eight or ninth degree of Gemini (or Cancer or Leo in front of her), or in the eight or ninth degree or Aquarius (or Capricorn or Sagittarius behind her): so the Moon was being joined to the Sun by aspect, and he was receiving her from his own exaltation, and was committing his own strength to her."

Even with the Sun being in his detriment in Aquarius (or being peregrine etc.), he is able to commit his strength to the Moon.

He gives another example about Mars, receiving the Moon from a peregrine position in Gemini, where Mars is able to receive the Moon and at the same time commits "to her his own virtue and disposition".


There are also some interesting information in Masha`allaha`s "On Reception". In Chapter 8 he says: "If there were a malefic in the sign of the Midheaven, who had no dignity in it, and it received the Lord of the Ascendant or the Moon, the matter will be perfected; and if it will not receive one of them, it will not be perfected."

In Chapter 10 he tells us, that the Moon in Libra is received by Saturn in Aries and that this signifies the effecting of the matter. But as Saturn is in his fall and in a place of worthlessness, he receives the Moon from opposition and contrariety: "So Saturn is restricted in his own place. For that reason, we saw that this man will be restricted in his work, and will hate it on account of Saturn`s hatred which he has toward his own place. Because Saturn is the one who bestows the kingdom to him [..], and the querent`s nature and condition is just like the nature of Saturn and the condition of Saturn."

So a planet in his detriment or fall can receive another one and even can perfect a matter - but the outcome seems to be contrary to the expectations of the querent as Masha`allah informs us at the end of this Chapter.