But it matters very much to a lot of people that John Frawley says he is teaching the traditional method of reception when he must know by now that he isn't. It causes a lot of unnecessary problems and it's costly in a few respects.

I suspect its got to the point where John Frawley couldn't really backtrack on this issue at this point without major embarrasment. Its not a trivial issue. Its been fundamental to the delineation style he has taught others for years.

Moreover, this issue has gone well beyond being a personal issue about John Frawley. There is now a large crop of former students of John Frawley who are teaching this too. Some of them are quite prominent in their own right. So its not just an issue about students new to traditional astrology getting confused. Maybe, the better read, more erudite traditional astrologers are just too polite and subtle to openly challenge other professionals.
In fairness, the astrological community is not that big and the traditional astrological world still smaller. Telling other astrologers they have 'got it wrong' on a key area like this is obviously not something to undertake lightly. One thing seems clear to me. Venting our spleens here will change nothing.

Mark

handn wrote:I wish John Frawley had a forum so we could ask him that very question

You could try here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/therealastrology/

JF doesn't contribute directly to this forum but many of its members have studied with him. If you decide to venture in, I suggest you tread carefully and carry a big stick (purely for defensive purposes of course)

Venting our spleens here will change nothing.

Ficina will be transporting us off the pitch in her wheel-barrow.
No, it shouldn't have to come to that.

I don't mind discussing my thoughts and observations on the topic of rejections and deceptions as I applied and probably introduced the terms in 1985-86. At this time I was registering combinations in every chart I cast and had a new chart form laid out and printed to fascilitate for my needs.
Of course, if the matter being discussed is actually something else, then I don't need to get involved.

I think it would be good if there was a clear statement that the explanation popularised is not intended to illuminate the traditional principle of reception. Then if anyone wants to maintain it or claim it as an alternative technique, that?s fine. Preferably the terminology should be changed to avoid the ongoing confusion; although Noel Tyl reinvented the meaning of ?peregrine? and this caused no problems once it was understood that it wasn?t the traditional definition of peregrine.
This is not only a costly misunderstanding for students, but for other teachers too. I have to spend a lot of time emptying students minds of incorrect notions, so that they can see the traditional principle at work in the way it was intended. I do that when asked ? it?s not just about politeness, but that it?s pointless to try to change the opinions of those who don?t want their opinions changed.

You will note that in fact Lilly believed and exerienced the opposite of the first quote.

OK. It's narrowed down to one or the other. Who loves whom the most? On this site Deb has written:

The 1st house ruler in the 7th suggests the querent is the more ardent of the two. Conversely, the 7th house ruler in the 1st shows the quesited to be most keen.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/relationships.html


But Steven writes that Lilly believed:

. . . that when the Lord of the 7th hath been in the Ascendant, the Querent hath loved most . . .

Should I go with A or B? I think it probably makes a difference!

You will note that in fact Lilly believed and exerienced the opposite of the first quote.

Thanks for that quote. I believe I had read that before but forgot about it or overlooked it. Lilly's understanding makes some sense to me. I guess that concept would really blow Frawley's methods out of the water. It might have a lot to do with detriment implications. If L1 is in the 7th, it's likely to be in detriment, and how can a detrimented planet be very happy or loving in the scenario? L7 would receive L1 but L1 can't receive anything in its detriment.

I definitely have found that L1 in the 1st shows that the querent thinks of themselves first and foremost (or L7 in the 7th has the quesited thinking of themselves). I think most horary astrologers agree there, right?

You will also notice that when someone asks about a job, or some other subject besides 7th house matters, that their significator ends up in that house - they are focused on the house asked about and it's important to them. So the querent's significator is often in that house, vs. the house's significator in the querent's house (although that can happen too).

If you ask about a job, Lilly would say that the 10th's sig in your house or your sig in the 10th (either way) is a good sign:

Christian Astrology, CHAPTER LXXXII
The Lord of the l0th in the 1st, so he be a lighter Planet then the Lord of the 1st, though no aspect be betwixt them, yet shall he attain the Place or Office desired; but with more ease and lesse labour when the Lord of the l0th is in the ascendant, and is either going to Conjunction, Sextile or Trine aspect with the Lord of the lst.

L10 in the 1st is a stronger testimony of getting the job than L1 in the 10th. If it's the swifter body, it's also a better implication (you could say the job is the fonder). So if L7 is in the 1st, would that be more testimony that L7 loves more, especially if L7 is faster, but L1 in the 7th might also be a good sign (either way the two people are connected somehow). Not the same subject matter, but on a similar theme.

Should I go with A or B? I think it probably makes a difference!

I am thinking if you look at it from the job point of view (unless Lilly notices something else here too), the L10 in the 1st shows the querent has a stronger chance of getting the job and the job has interest, so L7 in the 1st would still likely show strong interest by the quesited, especially if they are swifter and applying to L1, unless something else in the chart points to something otherwise. But perhaps jobs are different, since he also says that the 10th sig in the 10th or beholding the 10th is a good sign, and in love horaries that usually points to self interest (when L7 is in the 7th, or L1 in the 1st).

Hi Tanit,

I'm totally confused now ? it's the missing book topic crisis all over again. I keep finding horary walls to slam my head against. Maybe it's a general masochistic tendency.

Deb's ?The 1st house ruler in the 7th suggests the querent is the more ardent of the two? looks most appropriate to me. The querent has 'gone over' to the quesited, it's as if s/he has entered and now occupies the quesited's space and territory ? and that gives the feeling of the quesited having a grip on and possible control over the querent's emotions. It's a matter of being under the spell of someone, or smitten with him or her. Likewise for L7 in the 1st.

Other indications may show whether it works out well or not and is a relationship worth pursuing, but a significator located across the way in the other person's house sure seems like a good way to show who is most 'under the influence'.




On another matter ? one that I'm embarrassed to bring up after all the years I've been blathering around here ? I'm still uncertain about 'swifter' planets.

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:

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?

Just my 2 cents on this matter...

I have cast several horaries with a certain condition, and this condition always relates to questions pertaining 1st/7th house matters. This scenario is Lord 7th conjunct the AC by degree. It's amazing how often this happens in love horaries that I answer to.

Anyway, I go with Lilly's understanding that when lord 7th is in the 1st, the querent, represented by Lord 1, is the fonder of the two, and on the contrary, when lord 1st is inside 7th, especially conjunct the DC degree, it is the quesited who is. But there is an implication to this take...

Suppose both are really "in love", would we see significators applying by opposition? Unfortunatelly, that situation I have seldom, if ever, seen in this kind of horary. At first sight that would be mutual reception neverthless, but by opposition. I think that, after all, represents a balance of passion impossible in reality, and it would be, actually, a sign of enmity. In several authors of greek philosophy, the balance is the gate to tranquility, wisdom and happiness, so the harmonic aspects are necessary for something to be fertile.

Anyway, I think that reception never overrules aspects. If the planets are applying, aspect is the most important thing to look after, only then should you look to reception, that is secondary. I understand that when lord 7th is inside the 1st, it means, plain and simple, that the querent - represented by lord 1 - receives the quesited by domicile, and that is a one way reception, so the querent (who receives) favors the quesited.

E.g. in a death related horary, when the star representing the one at risk, if received by the Lord 8th, is it not a testimony of survival (meaning that death shows mercy over the one dying)?

Obviously, the 7th ruler is empowered by angularity and reception, if posited in the 1st, gaining rights in relation to the querent, so it's an accidental dignity to the star inside the 1st, that may or may not favor the one asking. If there is a favourable aspect, like a trine, sextille or conjunction the relation may take place. If it is a opposition or a square, very unlikely. Reception is more of a bless to whom is received, the receiving one is the one that has obligations, lending power to whom he is obliged by receiving.

One thing that I distrust is that a planet in detriment can not be received. I think it can, or rather, would have to. What a star is not able to do is receive anyone properly from it's detriment (since from a detrimental position, it will be too weak to lend help, and often the aspect will be a tense and difficulty one). So, If a planet is in the 1st, and receiving a harmonic application from lord 7th (faster of the two) generally it would mean that:

1 - the querent receives (loves) the quesited
2 - the querent works (being the faster of the two) to make a relation out of his interest (if the quesited is the faster, then it shows intention from him/her to make it work out, but is unable due to being in it's detriment, ultimately harming the querent)
3 - the quesited is empowered by reception and angularity, although smithen by a feeling that's greater than it's own (detriment). Power intoxicates in this case, so the relation may well not take place if nothing else helps (accidental dignity for the querent being a example, or the favourable interference of a benefic).

Also, we should remember that the 1st/7th axis is the most difficult one, being the natural axis representing the joining of opposites for the querent, so it has some specific situations not existant in relation to the other houses, that only manifests this kind of opposition in the act of derivation from the 1st house.

In a sense, what I'm saying is that both the 1st/7th houses are inimical to relationships by direct application, and the best ones would be the 11th, 5th, 10th, 4th, 9th and 3rd... especially if the sign is fixed.

Kirk: I do not think that we should relativize speed so much. A slow Mercury is a slow Mercury, but it is still essentially faster than Saturn. If prevented from application due to going stationary, it's a frustration, correct?

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?

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.

I'm still uncertain about 'swifter' planets.

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:

This might be a good topic to start up for a better discussion. I am pretty certain it relates to the speed of the planet at the time of the question. If Saturn is at full speed direct and Mercury is stationary (let's say it's going retro soon), Saturn is swifter than Mercury in that scenario. Saturn is normally the slower body, but, in this hypothetical horary, Mercury is slower and, if there is an aspect, Saturn would be applying to Mercury while Mercury sits there (being ponderous? ) Actually, they would both be pretty ponderous, since Saturn is the slowest planet of all of them, it's just that Mercury is accidentally weakened for some hypothetical reason. Slowing down to go retro would be a weakening for whatever reason - illness, changing your mind, etc. I think Bonatti said something about it being akin to a rider galloping towards something and ends up giving up hope and changing course, etc (paraphrasing).

One thing that I distrust is that a planet in detriment can not be received. I think it can, or rather, would have to.

I don't think any of us meant to imply that? 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.

Here I said:

If L1 is in the 7th, it's likely to be in detriment, and how can a detrimented planet be very happy or loving in the scenario? L7 would receive L1 but L1 can't receive anything in its detriment.

This would mean that L1 is in detriment and cannot receive L7, but L7 can still receive L1 (assuming L7 is not essentially debilitated and there is an aspect).

I agree that an essentially debilitated planet would need help, and, in the YouTube reception video, Hand harkens back to Abu Mashar's "pushing dignity" concept for those planets in essential debility being able to gain strength from their dispositor if there is an aspect and the dispositor is essentially/accidentally dignified. There are also some other ways of gaining strength.

Yuzuru found this quote for me before:

from Abu Mashar?s "the abbgreviation of the introduction to astrology", ed. and transl. by Burnett, p. 26

30- pushing nature is if the planet A applies to the Lord (B) of the sign in which (A) is, or in its (B?s) exaltation or in its(B?s) term, triplicity or decan: then (A) pushes the nature of the planet B onto it (B).

31 - Pushing power is if the planet A is in its own house or its own exaltation or the other dignities we have mentioned, and applies to another planet (B): then (A) pushes A?s power onto (B).

32 - pushing two natures is of two kinds. One of them is if the planet (A) is in a sign in which it (A) has dignities, and it applies to another (B) which has dignities in it also. For example venus (A) when it applies to Jupiter (B) from pisces. The second kind is if a diurnal planet applies to a diurnal planet and the two are in a diurnal place, of a nocturnal planet applies to a nocturnal planet, and the two are in a nocturnal place.

33- Pushing councel is when a planet applies to a planet from whichever direction the application is: and if this is from friendship or compatibility or with reception, it is favorable; but if this is from antagonism or enmity, it is the opposite of this.

Tanit wrote:If L1 is in the 7th, it's likely to be in detriment, and how can a detrimented planet be very happy or loving in the scenario? L7 would receive L1 but L1 can't receive anything in its detriment.

When in love a person is both due to both loose him/herself and be weakened.
Then comes the question of reprociation.

The exchanges of opposites between planets that become in mutual reception work in a different way than planets that 'reject' or shy away from the location of the other.
Example: Venus in Scorpio in the 1st house. There is a difference between Mars location in Taurus or in Virgo.

When in love a person is both due to both loose him/herself and be weakened.
Then comes the question of reprociation.

That agrees with my earlier post in the thread, so we think alike a bit:

In a way, this house thing is confusing because a detrimented significator doesn't seem like a good influence or capable of a good love relationship because it is too debilitated to do much, but I guess it's true that love can make people weak too.

I am just wondering why Lilly's own observations show the opposite of what we would expect: he says that L1 in the 7th means that the quesited is fonder than the querent, which is the opposite of Deb's article and most of our original understanding (we would say that the querent is fonder). It also goes against other horary types, like the career section of CA because the job seems "fonder" when it sits in the 1st house (L10 in the 1st) vs. when the querent sits in the job's house. The detriment issue is what first came to mind to explain this 7th house subject matter annomaly.

In my own experiences, and I have had many dozens of love horaries from people (it is the most common question type, let's face it), I tend to disagree with Lilly and follow the normal rules, although I would say being in their house doesn't necessarily mean they love them more. It depends upon the chart as a whole and may not mean that the person is fonder, but just has the person's best interests in mind - they are focused on that person. OR, they may just be very focused on relationships in general (badly want a relationship), which doesn't mean they are in love with anyone in particular.