Geoffrey wrote:

johannes susato wrote: The strength of the planet of 5 fortitudes in his domicile is by this affliction (combustion) of 5 debilities burnt to nothing (= 0, as you counted correctly)!
It should be clear that Lilly's answer to the question: "if a planet is in its domicile but combust the Sun does that cancel out the affliction?"
would be "NO" (and not a yes, as you claim in your first answer above).

Well Johannes, I did say that mine was the "simple" answer. However, your ingenious logic has drawn attention to the possible problems of using the table of fortitudes and debilities of the planets in the simple way as I just did.

What about all the other accidental fortitudes and debilities listed on page 115 of CA? Do we just ignore them - and ignore the planet too - now that the planet is "burnt to nothing"? Is there no hope for the planet even though it may (for example) have help from a trine to Jupiter (well placed) and be on the ascendant? Your answer to these questions would appear to be yes. Would you agree?

Thanks

Geoffrey

Thank you, Geoffrey!

But no, of course I do not. I mean agree that my answer would be yes!
Of course we do not ignore "all the other accidental fortitudes and debilities listed on page 115 of CA"!

But in sequence:
You had written before (in your first text in this thread):

Geoffrey wrote: So, the simple answer from Lilly is... yes!

Geoffrey

I thaught I were allowed to think you gave Lilly's answer. If you did not want to do this, we agree insofar as this could not be the answer of Lilly, who surely never would accept the modern teaching of the quasi 'uncombust' Planet in his domicile.
And that the problem is really not as "simple", we agree again.

Probably it is this confusion of dignities and debilities on the one side, and fortidudes and debilities on the other side, which makes some mordern authors like Frawley say that "the combustion does not harm the planet" in his domicile.
But of course it does!

And this is why Lilly (CA, p. 111) and other classical authors say (without this confusion):
"[...]and you must know that the combustion of any Pla-
net is the greatest misfortune that can be."

And Lilly later, p. 113:
"[...] the significator of the
Querent combust, shews him or her in great fear, and overpowered by some great person."

You ask:
"What about all the other accidental fortitudes and debilities listed on page 115 of CA? Do we just ignore them - and ignore the planet too - now that the planet is "burnt to nothing"? "

I never said, that the planet is burnt to nothing, but I said:
"The strength of the planet of 5 fortitudes in his domicile is by this affliction (combustion) of 5 debilities burnt to nothing (= 0, as you counted correctly)!"

The strenght of a planet by his position in his house/domicile is not the planet himself.

So a Planet's essential and accidental dignities and debilities can be converted into the positive and negative numbers of all the according fortitudes and debilities with the result that even the strongest planet/querent is and remains, when combust, "in great fear, and overpowered by some great person", as Lilly says, or "is like a dying person" (Ibn Ezra).

The numbers of fortitudes and debilities can be counted up, essential and accidental dignities and debilities can not.

Johannes

Johannes wrote:

If the orb for affliction in application is given by 3 degrees then an applying planet can not yet be afflicted, when it is still 4 degrees away.

Everything is relative, though. Regrettably, we do not have a recipe how to judge the effect of scorching which would be correct and fit 100% of cases.

I advocated 3 degrees for an applying combustion and 2 degrees for a receding one based on my practice in judging soccer charts. Within the given orbs there indeed is a notable influence on the outcome of a game. In horaries, elections, natal, etc. you may slightly extend the given orbs.

Actually I didn't say that a planet is not afflicted at all if out of the given orbs; I just said that the effect of combustion is irrelevant (not notable, pronounced).

I was discussing a particular situation when I said that I would consider a planet 4 degrees away from the Sun but applying scorching more afflicted than a one 1.5 degrees away from the Sun but receding scorching. I just gave my assessment on the effect of both planets being scorched. Such situations when both significators are scorched happen but are relatively infrequent in comparison with ones when only one significator is scorched. In the latter case I would use the given orbs (3 degrees for applying and 2 for receding).

Of course, you should take into account the place (sign and house) where the combustion happens, the essential and accidental quality of the Sun, the planet suffering scorching (the Moon is one who suffers more than other planets, Mercury is relatively immune to scorching), not only the distance in zodiacal degrees but also the actual speed (temporal aspect) the relevant planet or planets are applying or receding from combustion and other considerations.

Thankyou Johannes, for your clarification. You would appear to be in the camp that regards being combust as an absolute property. If a planet is combust, it is sick and ineffective, as Lilly and other traditional texts say, regardless of its other dignities and fortitudes.

However, some "modern" authors regard being combust as relative in its effect. Being combust is a handicap, which can be offset to the extent that a planet can still have significant strength and efficacy if well dignified in other ways.

johannes susato wrote:

The numbers of fortitudes and debilities can be counted up, essential and accidental dignities and debilities can not.

What you say here is, of course, contrary to what Lilly says about the use of the table on page 115. Lilly does not actually give instructions on the use of the table, saying that he will show how it is used in a later example. And indeed, come page 178, we have our example.

It is clear in this example that Lilly is putting Essential Dignities and Accidental Fortitudes in the same bucket on one side of the equation, and Debilities and Accidental Debilities in the same bucket on the other side of the equation. Lilly goes on to count up the "Fortitudes" (Essential Dignities with Accidental Fortitudes) and takes from this sum the "Debilities" (Debilities with Accidental Debilites). The resulting number is the strength of the planet.

Lilly does not state that being combust is a special case to be considered on its own merits when judging the strength of a planet by the use of this table. A planet is either not combust, which gives it 5 points on one side of the equation; or it is combust, which gives it five points on the other side of the equation. Effectively then, being combust is worth 10 debility points - which is roughly equivalent to the (effective) 9 debility points for being retrograde.

Would you say the debilitating effect of being retrograde is similar to being combust....? I suspect not.

Having totted up the points though, you could be left with a planet which was still reasonably strong and effective, despite being combust, as with the example I gave earlier.

So, the table of Fortitudes and Debilities on page 115 does not seem to accurately reflect what Lilly says elsewhere about a planet being combust, or indeed what other authors of that era and earlier say about a planet being combust.

It would seem that Lilly is inconsistent about the effects of being combust, being an absolutist in some places and a relativist in others, and I suspect that this has resulted in a divergence of opinions today about how serious being combust is.

Best wishes,

Geoffrey

Geoffrey wrote: Well Johannes, [...] However, your [...] has drawn attention to the possible problems of using the table of fortitudes and debilities of the planets in the simple way as I just did.

Geoffrey

Your last explanations show me, that I was obviously mistaken to understand your sentence above was the end of our dissenting as to the table in CA, page 115.
Sorry not to have been clear enough in this matter, Geoffrey. So I shall try again to explain my understanding of Lilly tomorrow not at all seeing any inconsistency in his teachings as to this topic.

Best wishes,
Johannes

This may be a simple question for all you smarty pants but if a planet is in its domicile but combust the Sun does that cancel out the affliction?

In ancient astrology a planet in one of its 'chariots' ie domicile, exaltation or bound was seen as free from the destructive effects of being under the Sun's beams. Planets were also seen as outside the most destructive aspects of being under the beams if they were 'synodical' with the Sun. In other words in partile conjunction.

This idea became much more narowly defined in medieval astrology where the notion of cazimi was later restricted to just 17 minutes proximity to the Sun.

The notion of combustion is a later development of medieval astrology. Originally, there was only the 15 degree zone around the Sun where planets were 'Under the beams'. However, in ancient astrology the sign boundary had no role in providing protection for a planet. I dont know where Lilly derived the notion that the combustion could not cross the sign boundary. Astronomically, a planet in close proximity to the Sun will be invisible regardless of what sign it is in. Hence there is always a sense of 'hiddeness' about the way a planet manifests.

This topic has come up several times on the forum over the years. Probably the longest thread on the topic of combustion was this one dating back to 2004!

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

Mark

Geoffrey wrote:Thankyou Johannes, for your clarification. You would appear to be in the camp that regards being combust as an absolute property. If a planet is combust, it is sick and ineffective, as Lilly and other traditional texts say, regardless of its other dignities and fortitudes.

Combustion is one of the greatest afflictions of a Planet, but of course not without regard of its other fortitudes. I follow the Ancients as you can see in my example above where the dignity of being in his own house (5 fortitudes) is by combustion (5 debilities) 'burnt to nothing' (0 strengths). This could be improved by other dignities added as strengthsto this 'nothing'.

Geoffrey wrote:However, some "modern" authors regard being combust as relative in its effect. Being combust is a handicap, which can be offset to the extent that a planet can still have significant strength and efficacy if well dignified in other ways.

But this is exactly what the Ancients say, see above.

johannes susato wrote:
The numbers of fortitudes and debilities can be counted up, essential and accidental dignities and debilities can not.

Geoffrey wrote: What you say here is, of course, contrary to what Lilly says about the use of the table on page 115.

No, Geoffrey, and that this is exactly the repetition of Lilly's writings will become clear at once.

Geoffrey wrote: Lilly does not actually give instructions on the use of the table, saying that he will show how it is used in a later example. And indeed, come page 178, we have our example. It is clear in this example that Lilly is putting Essential Dignities and Accidental Fortitudes in the same bucket on one side of the equation, and Debilities and Accidental Debilities in the same bucket on the other side of the equation. Lilly goes on to count up the "Fortitudes" (Essential Dignities with Accidental Fortitudes) and takes from this sum the "Debilities" (Debilities with Accidental Debilites). The resulting number is the strength of the planet.

In p. 178 Lilly does the same as in p. 115: He turns essential and accidental dignit?es (not accidental fortitudes as you write!) in fortitudes, put in positive testimonies, and he turns essential and accidental debilities in debilities, put in negative testimonies. Thus it is simply not correct to say: "that Lilly is putting Essential Dignities and Accidental Fortitudes in the same bucket on one side of the equation, and Debilities and Accidental Debilities in the same bucket on the other side of the equation." "Put in the bucket" are the testimonies (+ 5 down to - 5) and only these abstract testimonies, called fortitudes and debilties are computed with, not the concrete dignities (as domicile) and debilities (as combustion, for example).

Geoffrey wrote:Lilly does not state that being combust is a special case to be considered on its own merits when judging the strength of a planet by the use of this table.A planet is either not combust, which gives it 5 points on one side of the equation; or it is combust, which gives it five points on the other side of the equation.

How could he doe otherwise handling abstract testimonies here? And how could it be otherwise in abstract counting?

Geoffrey wrote:Effectively then, being combust is worth 10 debility points - which is roughly equivalent to the (effective) 9 debility points for being retrograde.

Would this not be more 5 and 4 testionies?

Geoffrey wrote:Would you say the debilitating effect of being retrograde is similar to being combust....? I suspect not.

In negative testimonies: yes, in concrete kind of debilities: no.

Geoffrey wrote:Having totted up the points though, you could be left with a planet which was still reasonably strong and effective, despite being combust, as with the example I gave earlier.

Yes, we are in agreement.

Geoffrey wrote:So, the table of Fortitudes and Debilities on page 115 does not seem to accurately reflect what Lilly says elsewhere about a planet being combust, or indeed what other authors of that era and earlier say about a planet being combust.

It would seem that Lilly is inconsistent about the effects of being combust, being an absolutist in some places and a relativist in others, and I suspect that this has resulted in a divergence of opinions today about how serious being combust is.

The tables in p 115 and 159 are alwys the same and reflect the strenght of a Planet in testimonies. But it is not to be seen how and why these range of numbers for the Planets come about at all. So you have to look at the paricular dignities and debilities and when there is combustion, it's specilal effect is always acting, whatever the strength of the Planet might be.

Best wishes, hoping you can forgive my delay

Johannes

Thankyou Johannes, for your patient and detailed response. I will likewise earnestly meditate upon it.

Geoffrey

great responses...so much to take in...

Hi,


I think i could give some informations about combustion. I have it and deal with it in the real life.

Equal houses /sideral zodiac
ASC 22 Virgo
2nd house 22 libra

Sun 23.05 libra
Venus 22.45 Libra
Jupiter 19.04 libra
Moon 7.28 libra
Neptune 10.49 libra

10th Nov 1958 - Paris - Local time 5.10 AM