I prefer Bonatti's version of reception.

I don?t have any special preferences; I am only trying to understand what was in the head of Arab astrologers (Bonatti used manly Arab sources) related to reception.

So, what is your opinion?

Nice question. Provocative. There is a possible answer that might create a Tsunami among some of our members.
I will come later with the answer. I have to elaborate it.

Assuming that all planets aspect her. Domicile ruler = Mars, Trip ruler = Venus, Term ruler = Venus, Face ruler = Mars. Mars receives moon with perfect reception (via domicile rulership). Venus also receives moon with perfect reception (via Term and Triplicity rulerships). But Venus hates Scorpio (Venus is detriment in Scorpio). So, what is your opinion? Will get back later tomorrow...

If I were a radical, I would say that here we have another example of how awful Arabs understood astrology. I would say that in order to prove my extremist opinion we have to go back to the Hellenistic astrology, which was among other astrological systems, the main source for the development of astrology in Islamic world.

The first thing that would come up to my mind would be:

aporroia, effluvium ?emanation of the planets. Greeks spoke about the emanation of a planet from its sphere (zonai-in greek) to the lower sphere. The most important emanation is the one of Moon because it?s the closest sphere to Earth.
Antiochus and Paulus Alexandrinus speak mainly about the synaphe of Moon, which would be application of the Moon (the conjunction, and lato sensu an applying aspect).
The next logical step would be to say that to have an application of a planet from an inferior sphere is useful for a superior planet in order to accomplish its aporroia, effluvium. Now this aporroia must be realized in a good way, it should not be perverted (say for example by a bad schemata, or krasis).

Now comes another basic element in greek astrology. A planet in a sign is in some way determinated in its effect by the ruler of that sign ?oikodektor, is limited in its effect by the bound, term lord ?horiokrator, it?s helped by the triplicity lords to act properly- trigonokrator.

And there is another aspect that should be kept in mind: that generally an aspect from a malefic planet it?s not a good thing, especially when that malefic planet beholds the other one.

Now we come back to Arabs to see what was in their mind when created reception.
They definitely understood the necessity that one of the planets in reception must be in the other one?s dignity.
And it appears to me that they also understood the necessity to have an applying aspect.

But from this point the technique evolved in an exaggeration (like this opinion, perhaps)-or perhaps they knew it well but we are in error.
They started to mingle all sorts of dignity. The Arabs seemed to like to put all things together no matter what was the result.

So as a conclusion to this radical opinion that like a train passed before my eyes, I would say that the Arabs were good astrologers (especially because they synthesized different systems, and that they developed good techniques) and that I would interpret this technique in its intentions not in its effects.

So, in your example I would say that we mustn?t make a confusion between the relation of a planet with a sign (say Venus is in detriment in Scorpio) with relation of that planet with a term (say Venus lord of that bound in Scorpio).
There is no impediment to take in consideration the fact that the ruler of that bound, Venus is aspected by Moon. That is a good thing, and it?s not influenced by the fact that Venus is in detriment in Scorpio (in other words we shouldn?t mingle banana with orange)-if we want to relate to the whole sign then we should look to Mars the domicle lord and not Venus (this is the logical approach in my opinion). The simple fact that Moon is in the bound of a benefic planet is a good thing. If we have also an applying aspect to the ruler of that bound this is a better thing.

astrojin wrote: Before I reply to your query, I would like to mention my current understanding and practice of the dignities...

I do not refer strength or power of planets to their zodiacal state (i.e. essential dignities). Strength and power are referred to the accidental dignities.

There are a few meanings that I associate with planets essentially dignified/debilitated but there is one that (at least for me) I find most important:-

A planet who is essentially dignified is a planet that is full of resources so that it is free to exert its own agenda. Hence, it is "happy". This translates to favourable expressions of the planet in a chart.

<snip>

NOW, back to your example:-

Mars in Cancer and Moon in Scorpio. Both Moon and Mars are in fall. They are really low on resources and really unhappy. Mars loves Scorpio, hence he loves moon and wants to help moon but he can't - he can barely help himself!

Hi astrojin!

Thanks for this enlightening explanation of resources versus strength regarding essential dignities. I had always considered a dignified planet as strong until I read your post. Your post is very thought provoking! I have to reconsider my approach to essential and accidental dignities, now.

Does Mars in Scorpio not at least have the resources of triplicity? How would that fit into the picture?

Warm Regards,

-=[Ty]=-

The lady is the Querent here?

Hi Julie,
yes she is.

The question is about the relationship and the outcome? I'm reading the responses to your queries so if you settle the Reception by Fall issue, what will you advise the lady? She has sought your advice?

Yes she did. The couple have been together for about five years but for the past year or two she has felt that she has been doing all of the running while he no longer seems as responsive as she would like. She wanted to know if she would be happy staying in the relationship. (At least that's the gist of the question)

She is over invested and he is under invested. If he feels resment and the lady has 'placed him in difficult circumstance' surely he has placed himself there, and no one else is responsible for his feelings? I'm simply curious as to how this would be dealt with in a sensible, truthful and kindly fashion?

I pretty much agree with your assessment Julie and I said as much to her. When I mentioned the word 'resentment' on his part she smiled and nodded, so it seems that "rejection" is a good description of a planet being received into the fall of another.
As to how you approach this idea with a client all I can tell you is how I approach it, which is to simply question your client as to whether or not (s)he has noticed any sense of resentment or frustration on the part of the quesited. If you are reasonably sure of your ground then this question can initiate some very revelatory insights. Being honest and open with your client is of paramount importance and if there is some part of the horary about which you are unsure you should simply say so rather than just guess. Knowing that you are human can go a long way to gaining a rapport with a nervous client :-)

In this case I was able to encourage my friend that while it did not look as though she would get a great deal of satisfaction out of this relationship, her partner's frustration and resentment was more about his own situation and not about anything she was doing. I was also able to tell her that, based on the Moon's entry into Taurus in 14 weeks (angular, cardinal Moon, but slow) she would at that time be in a much more comfortable situation with far more resources with which to make positive decisions in her situation.Until then she would simply have to ride things out as best she could.

Again, thanks to everyone for all your help and the interesting discussion that my question provoked. Thanks especially to Astrojin for the explanation of the difference between 'resourceful' and 'powerful'; that's useful to know.

Cheers
=====
Pete

Hello again,

From Straylite:

Does Mars in Scorpio not at least have the resources of triplicity? How would that fit into the picture?

Well, ... Mars in Scorpio is in its own domicile rulership. He is full of resources without having to refer to his triplicity (trigon). Perhaps your question is Moon in Scorpio (where she is fall) and yet still has the dignity of being in her triplicity?

astrojin wrote:Hello again,

From Straylite:

Does Mars in Scorpio not at least have the resources of triplicity? How would that fit into the picture?

Well, ... Mars in Scorpio is in its own domicile rulership. He is full of resources without having to refer to his triplicity (trigon). Perhaps your question is Moon in Scorpio (where she is fall) and yet still has the dignity of being in her triplicity?

No, I meant Mars in Cancer. Mars rules the Water Triplicity. The Moon is not in Triplicity in Scorpio.

Straylite wrote:

No, I meant Mars in Cancer. Mars rules the Water Triplicity. The Moon is not in Triplicity in Scorpio

FYI, I use Dorothean scheme of Triplicity rulership and the water trigon has Venus, Mars and Moon as trip rulers. Hence, moon is the third trip ruler for water trigon (to be exact, the participating ruler).

According to Dorothean trip rulerships scheme, Mars is the second trip ruler of water trigon. Hence when Mars is in Cancer, Mars is in Fall and yet in its own triplicity for nocturnal chart (night chart).

Bonatti said that a planet in its own triplicity is like a man amongst allies.

If we use the concept of resources with essential dignities, a planet in fall can be interpreted as a planet with no resources (he is in a pit or depression). Using this concept and that of Bonatti's we can surmise that for a planet in Fall but also in its own triplicity, the native himself is without resources required to push his agenda but he has the right connection (allies) to help him or cushion him...

This does not apply to a day chart as the primary trip ruler of Cancer is Venus (Dorothean). This also bodes well with Hellenistic concept of sect because Mars is in sect for nocturnal or night charts. Hence, Mars is favourable to the native!

PS:
In Hellenistic astrology (according to Schmidt) Sun, Jupiter and Saturn are in sect in day chart and out of sect in night chart whereas Moon, Venus and Mars are in sect in night chart and out of sect in day chart.

The medieval concept of sect (reletive to horizon and gender of sign) are all rejoicing conditions (not definition for sect).

my words from a previous post:

He mentions that there is reception even when the first planet is in the triplicity, or term of the second one.

I have to give an explanation to this (or better say a rectification-mea culpa-) :
Reading Zahel again it is obvious that he mentions expressly that the second planet must have two or more of the minor dignities in the sign where the first planet is and not just one in order to have reception (so its different from the case of domicile and exaltation).
Say for example Moon in Gemini and in the bound of Saturn applying to Saturn.

That would be the first observation.

For the second one I need the help of another member trained in Latin (maybe Osthanes would be so kind to help me) to confirm my translation.

So, Zahel mentions citing Mesahala that Moon in vacuus cursu (void of course) after passing in the next sign and applying to a planet that is the lord of the first sign or in exaltation in the first sign, is also received by this planet. But if this planet it?s not either the domicile lord or in exaltation in the first sign then this planet will impede Moon.

Hi Sasha and all,

as I see it, your interpretation is right. Nevertheless, from Sahl's words another question arises, that is, whether the opinion of M?sh???ll?h is faithfully rendered. This is not a minor question, I suppose, even if the reformulation of inherited rules for interrogative astrology is largely due to Sahl - and that is why he should be considered as a founder of interrogative (i.e. horary) astrology. Sadly, we seem to have no opportunity to get an overall sight on the extant works and fragments from M?sh???ll?h's interrogative astrology, since besides his On Reception there are only scattered (and partly unpublished) pieces in Arabic, Greek and Latin.
The reason why I am so suspicious is that while in his On Reception M?sh???ll?h clearly delivers his magisterial opinion about reception in one fashion, it by no means is the same as his pupil's. The other point is M?sh???ll?h's characteristic conceptualization of 'light-pushing' and the framing of the outcome from the strength of the receiver, which is radically reworked by Sahl. So from our scanty evidences I would not for sure accept Sahl's rendering as faithful, although, not matter how thorough revision it may have been in about 825, it was his conception about reception (or, at least some of its tenets) which became canonical.

Thank you very much for your answer and comment.

Yes you are right it?s a big problem we have here:
1. Few incipient sources to compare;
2. lack of Arabic knowledge (I myself promised to go to an Arabic class as soon as I am getting out of the present projects).
3. lack of understanding of the ancient culture and civilization.
4. an so on

There is another important discussion that could be made about what can be understood by : pulsatio virtutis, dispositionis, or nature.
What?s your opinion about this terminology used in the Latin translation of Sahl?

He speakes about pulsatio of the virtutis, dispositionis or nature.
In the case of pulsatio virtutis Sahl gives the example of the Moon in Taurus applying to Jupiter. In this way Moon entrust its virtutis to Jupiter.
In the case of pulsation dispositionis and nature he gives as example: Moon in Aries applying to Mars. In this way again Moon entrust her dispositione or nature to Mars
I imagine that there must be a reason for using different words, and I have something in my mind especially something from Hellenistic astrology that could bring some light.

On the other hand even this pulsatio is questionable. I wonder what was the Arabic corespondent

Hi Steven,

it sounds really intriguing, even if Sahl must have been an experienced astrologer, since in the 820's and perhaps also in the 830's he served as a counsellor for Khur?s?n governor Ibn al-Husayn and later for Ibn Sahl, the vizier of Caliph al-Ma?m?n.

Hi Sasha,

I can absolutely agree with you and I could add many other items to your list, for instance, the astounding fact that the overwhelming percentage of the astrological literature has never been published, thus it can only be found in vulnerable (and often, in unique) manuscripts which are difficult to access even to scholars.
Concerning Sahl's terminology, we are happy to find the distorted Arabic terms for pulsatio virtutis and pulsatio dispositionis et naturae which are dapha alchia and dapha aredir, respectively. The Arabic originals are daf? al-q?wwah and daf? al-tadb?r.
Now, daf? means something like 'delivery' (so 'pushing' is a bit misleading), and q?wwah and tadb?r means something 'ability to act' and 'performance', respectively. (I must tell you I am not competent in Arabic, I just used a dictionary.)
Actually, the unknown translator chose pulsatio for daf? which thus roughly corresponds in sense to Greek parallag?. Virtus is an acceptable and clear translation, while tadb?r seems to have given him pains as he chose a hendiadyoin, that is, circumscribed it with two words, dispositio and natura. That later is telling.

Osthanes

Thanks Osthanes, you are quite a treasure!!!

Now, I have been digging too (believe me or not I spent good hours). I finally decided to take a serious look at my Arabic collection of scanned works to see whether I could find something useful. And surprisingly I found something.

But first I would like to present also some remarks made by the well trained master in classic languages and classic astrology Giuseppe Bezza about the significance of pulsatio:

Pulsatio: ?, in un'applicazione, la trasmissione di luce e di natura ad opera del pulsans verso il receptor.
Pulsatio is, in an application, the transmission of light and nature by the pulsans towards the receptor planet.


Pulsatio naturae: ? una pulsatio in cui il pulsans (il pianeta che compie l'applicazione) sta in una dignit? del receptor e, portandogli la propria luce, gli offre in dono la sua stessa natura. Per esempio Mercurio in Capricorno che si applica a Saturno, offre a Saturno la natura del Capricorno che ? il suo domicilio
Pulsatio naturae: it?s a pulsatio in which pulsans (the planet that makes the application) is in the dignity of receptor and, carrying its light to it, offers as a gift (donazione) its one nature. For example Mercury in Capricorn that applies to Saturn, offers to Saturn the nature of Capricorn which is its domicile.


Pulsatio virtutis: ? una pulsatio in cui il pulsans (il pianeta che compie l?applicazione) sta in una propria dignit? e comunica al receptor la propria forza.
Pulsatio virtutis : it?s a pulsatio in which the pulsans planet (the planet that makes the application) is in its dignity and convey/transmits to the receptor planet its one strength.

So it appears that according to Bezza?s opinion we are dealing with nature, and strength.


Now, I wasn?t able (yet) to find the Arabic text corresponding to the chapter that I tried to translate in my previous posts, but I found a fragment correspondent to the Latin chapter from the translation of Sahl?s introduction about the 50 judicial considerations:

The method used:
First I searched in the Latin texts of these 50 considerations the relevant terminology for our research: pulsatio, pulsatio naturae et dispositionis, pulsatio virtutis.
Then I looked at the consideration that contained this terminology in the Arabic fragment.
Final step: trying to translate the Arabic terminology (I am almost tabula rasa in Arabic and that gives me headache, but what the heak for the sake of art, we are leaving in the 21 century, a century of information and multiculturalism).

1. latin 34 consideration: Juppiter cum aspexerit malum mutat naturam suam in bonum?.

The Arabic 34 consideration (I will reproduce the whole 34 consideration so that someone trained in Arabic to have a full view over the text):

??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??
? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????
? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???
? ???? ????? ???????



?????? : nature, kind, quality, ease


So here it appears we have no problem.

As an observation I noticed that where the Latin translator used aspexerit (which could be in English aspect) the Arabic text speaks about
??? : which would be behold, look, consider, vide, believe, gaze, which in my opinion is quite a different from aspexerit used in the Latin translation.
And it can be seen also in other places that the Latin translator was not quite in accordance with the Arabic terminology. In other places it seems that the Latin text adds commentaries to text that were not implied by the Arabic text


2. Latin 35 consideration: Cum malum pulsat item iungitur malo??


The Arabic 35 consideration (I will reproduce the whole 34 consideration so that someone trained in Arabic to have a full view over the text):


??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??
? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????
? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???
? ???? ????? ???????



???? : I found to mean waft



3. Latin 42 consideration: receptor dispositionis cum fuerit occidentalis per?.


The Arabic 42 consideration (I will reproduce the whole 34 consideration so that someone trained in Arabic to have a full view over the text):

???? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????
? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??????
??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ? ???




??????? : I found in a dictionary with the sense of strategy. So it?s more likely the way how it is conceived the action of that planet, it?s a matter of management of its action.

Regarding receptor planet the word seems to be:

???? : the one that accepts, consents, is accessible, agreeing



I wasn?t able to find pulsatio virtutis in this Latin version of Sahl?s 50 considerations to which I have the Arabic fragment. I shall keep looking to this term and I will notify members if I find something.