Most of us have obviously overlooked this-

PS2.: Can anyone tell me why I can't post the image directly to the thread?? I put the image address here, select it, click on the IMG button, but the image is never visible, so I have to make it a link... :-(

Sorry, you can find more informations HERE. Yes, the -gif or .jpg image needs to be uploaded somewhere else on the Internet first. I suggest Imageshack simply because you don't have to have an open account to store pics on their sever and also because, in cae you use online chart drawing softwares for the pictures you share online, you can upload a picture from any web location without having to save it on your HD.

Would you please give a quotation for that sort of 'prohibition'? It's probably a certain parallel to definitions of void of course. So I can't find a prohibition like this mentioned by Ibn Ezra (he knows no application beyond the sign border this being the end) and by Dariot and Lilly either (they accept applications beyond the sign border).
Probably Ibn Erzra would deny, Dariot and Lilly would accept this square.(?)

The application is not the same as a perfect/partile aspect. Dariot and Lily as well as Bonatti do mention "frustration" as a form of denial. Abu Mash'ar and al-Biruni also mention it only they use the term "evasion"! Though, I'm sure many things are a lot more clear to you after reading the article suggested by AquaStella.

Thanks for the instructions aglaya, I will try this next post.

Johannes, I will keep your reading in mind, hopefully you are right! I guess all I must do now is wait, and give you guys all the updates, if and when they come!

Thumbs up to this great forum!

johannes susato wrote:Thank you, Aglaya, for your explanations! Even though I can't change my mind I'm sure you are as curious as me for the outcome of this question.


Johannes

Hi, johannes!
After reading this post, i'm starting to think that I may have given another incomplete explanation because- the point is- i do go agree that the moon is out of combustion, of course. )


But, I must say that, it wasn't until now that I realised it were you who mentioned "prohibition"- i actually thought I was answering to SunMachine's post, that's why I didn't separate the tow parts of my answer. Sorry for that!
Does this "change of mind" apply to the fact that you would consider an out of sign application of the main significators a sign of perfection then or have I again misunderstood something!?

johannes susato wrote:.....

Pankajdubey, this is one of the miracles in astrology for me: a square is 'like' a trigone. Can you help me by a quotation which explains this largely?

You are too easily surprised Johannes
Brother Lilly used it often- and there is a pictorial explanation somehwere on this site by Deb !

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1742

But in regard to the question the mutual reception of the essentially dignified significators are enough testimonies to give a Yes to the question in my opinion.

Johannes

Well! this is yet another can of worms but one that I am not unhappy about-I would like to see mutual reception by sign.

PD

aglaya wrote:

johannes susato wrote:Thank you, Aglaya, for your explanations! Even though I can't change my mind I'm sure you are as curious as me for the outcome of this question.
Johannes

Hi, johannes!
Does this "change of mind" apply to the fact that you would consider an out of sign application of the main significators a sign of perfection then or have I again misunderstood something!?

Hi Aglaya,
the "change of mind" is related to your mentioning a void of course Moon that doesn't exist any longer in this chart and is past. But here we are obviously agreeing meanwhile.

In the article AquaStella was so kind to recommend and link http://www.skyscript.co.uk/tobyn2.html you can find (read under "Evasion") the opinion affirmed by the authority of Al Biruni and Abu Mash'ar that there is no problem as to the perfection of a matter when the significators come to perfect their aspect after having left signs - provided that a third planet does not interfere. Thus the 'lost' square would be saved in this chart of SunMachine.

Johannes

PS: As to my knowledge and finding Lilly doesn't mention evasion in CA. Or do you know a quotation? And frustration in CA, p. 113 and 114, is not evasion but only when "Two Dogges quarrell, a third gets the Bone" (the intervening of a third planet).

Thus the 'lost' square would be saved in this chart of SunMachine.

Fingers crossed!

pankajdubey wrote:

johannes susato wrote:.....
Pankajdubey, this is one of the miracles in astrology for me: a square is 'like' a trigone. Can you help me by a quotation which explains this largely?

You are too easily surprised Johannes
Brother Lilly used it often- and there is a pictorial explanation somehwere on this site by Deb !

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1742

But in regard to the question the mutual reception of the essentially dignified significators are enough testimonies to give a Yes to the question in my opinion.

Johannes

Well! this is yet another can of worms but one that I am not unhappy about-I would like to see mutual reception by sign.

PD

Many thanks for the quote, PD, I'll read it tomorrow. I know Lilly is changing the meaning of a bad square in a good trine or sextile sometimes. Tomorrow I'll hopefully understand what J. Frawley calls "nonsense" and then rather desperately (or is this arrogance?) tries to explain: "The problem he [Lilly] faced was how some squares bring happier outcomes than some trines. What he lacked was the full understanding of dignity and reception that makes clear why this is so." The Horary Textbook, p. 90.

Incidentally King Lilly is a lot more 'humble' than you, PD, him postulating only "any essential dignity" on page 113 in CA.

Johannes

johannes susato wrote:

aglaya wrote:

johannes susato wrote:Thank you, Aglaya, for your explanations! Even though I can't change my mind I'm sure you are as curious as me for the outcome of this question.
Johannes

Hi, johannes!
Does this "change of mind" apply to the fact that you would consider an out of sign application of the main significators a sign of perfection then or have I again misunderstood something!?

Hi Aglaya,
the "change of mind" is related to your mentioning a void of course Moon that doesn't exist any longer in this chart and is past. But here we are obviously agreeing meanwhile.

I don't recall mentioning VOC Moon, the Moon in this chart is currently void but it is not VOC- I even mentioned its future application to Saturn (and the rest of the planets) as a possible indication of some contacts with the publisher (Saturn rules the 9th).

PS: As to my knowledge and finding Lilly doesn't mention evasion in CA.

Lilly uses the term "prohibition". I don't have the scanned version of the book or the book at hand now but, I think you should check the text starting from the page 110. that's where he mentions bodily prohibition.

aglaya wrote:

johannes susato wrote: Hi Aglaya,
the "change of mind" is related to your mentioning a void of course Moon that doesnt exist any longer in this chart and is past. But here we are obviously agreeing meanwhile.

I dont recall mentioning VOC Moon, the Moon in this chart is currently void but it is not VOC- I even mentioned its future application to Saturn (and the rest of the planets) as a possible indication of some contacts with the publisher (Saturn rules the 9th).

Sorry Aglaya, I meant your discussion of a combutstion!!! Thanks for your callback.

aglaya wrote:

johannes susato wrote: PS: As to my knowledge and finding Lilly doesnt mention evasion in CA.

Lilly uses the term "prohibition". I dont have the scanned version of the book or the book at hand now but, I think you should check the text starting from the page 110. thats where he mentions bodily prohibition.

AquaStella called the lost aspect "a form of prohibition".

The significators will not perfect the square in the common signs they are in, in the chart. The square will be perfected shortly after they both cross into the next cardinal signs. This is called "denial of perfection" due to "evasion". In this case it is Mars L10 which evades Mercury L1, so there is actually a form of prohibition.

Aglaya, your mentioning Lilly and his prohibition doesn't hit really because our problem here, whether a perfecting aspect just in the new sign is lost or not is not Lilly's prohibition which accords to the intervention of a third planet, see Lilly, CA, p. 110 and 111. But thank you in any case!

Regards
Johannes

Hi Johannes

I'm not sure what you want to know exactly. If this concerns the meaning of evasion - it is when the perfection of an aspect in the new sign is interupted by one of the planets going to a union with another planet first. Otherwise the aspect is counted, provided it is in orb as the planets roll over into the new sign. Lilly doesn't define the term evasion, but he appears to adhere to those principles in his horaries.

Hope that is helpful
Deb

Hi Deb,

you affirm my understanding of Lilly and of some of the ancients completely, thank you!

I only wanted to point to the fact that Lilly's prohibition doesn't reference the problem of evasion which term he doesn't mention at all as we know; and furthermore that Graeme Tobyn's explanations and quotes under "Evasion" in his review agree with this understanding as I mentioned in my posting above.

Thank you again for your helpful confirmation
Johannes

Hello people

Sorry I couldn't give a feedback before, for some reason I've been unable to log in here, tried to create a new login but it wouldn't let me, and when I asked for a new password to be created, nothing would show up in my inbox.

Anyways, I finally made it, and I can now say that the company did NOT call me, nor send me any books.

So, some info about the events that took place:

A month after I asked this question, I opened an arts & crafts shop (Mercury, my sig, moved into Libra) and totally forgot about the resume I sent to the company. If they sent me any books, I would take them to translate, but I think the fact that I had a new activity should be mentioned because of the evasion you guys saw here; both my significator and the job's significator were about to change signs, and I definitely went through a considerable change.

Thank you all for the contribution and sorry that I didn't reply before.

Rock n' Roll!