Skyscript Astrology Forum

The alchemist wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:Supposedly the reason Venus isn't burned is because being in a sign with control of its own resources in Taurus, much like being in one's own house, Venus is not peregrine in the desert without resources to protect against the Sun's rays; hence "a covered chariot" with Venus in the shade.

So, if Venus were in 29 Gemini and the Sun in 1 Cancer, it would then be considered combust.

It will be considered "hidden" either way. The question is whether it has resources to protect itself from getting burned and if Venus is in any of its own places (Domicile, Confines (terms), exaltation (some say trigon also) then it is still "potent" as suggested by Schmidt's recent translation of Antiochus.

zoidsoft wrote:It will be considered "hidden" either way. The question is whether it has resources to protect itself from getting burned and if Venus is in any of its own places (Domicile, Confines (terms), exaltation (some say trigon also) then it is still "potent" as suggested by Schmidt's recent translation of Antiochus.

It's interesting because according to Hellenistic astrology a planet with essential dignity seems to be able to protect itself from the affliction of combustion, whereas in Hindu astrology, for example, a combust planet loses all essential dignity, as far as I know. Of course, western astrology and Hindu astrology are two entirely different systems of work, yet... it would be great if we could lay down some definite rules based on actual experience and examples.

yuzuru wrote:Hi, Kirk

yes, Kirk, in natal charts the sun is affected by the conjunction.

Hi Yuzuru,

Thank you, That does complicate things. It would seem to mean that the Sun isn't all powerful, that dignity can save the planet somewhat, and that Mars handles combustion pretty well.

Maybe I should have posted this to the other current Combustion thread ? or should have started another one.

A few quotes for chariots:

Dorotheus of Sidon on the benefits of being ?under the beams?:
Carmen Astrologicum, Dorotheus of Sidon (trans. David Pingree, 1976), Book 5, Chapter 5, page 264:

If the Moon is under the Sun?s rays [and] its light is destroyed and it is not seen, then it is corrupted but it is beneficial for one who desires theft or treachery or something which is kept secret against him, and for every hidden or secret action which its master does not wish to be made public.

If i is an action which its master wishes to keep secret, commence it when Moon is immersed under the Sun?s rays as there is good for him, and it will be more concealed if he commences it at the withdrawal of the Moon from the Sun and [its] appearance from under the rays.

Dorotheus says that when Moon is under the rays of the Sun, then there is corruption of the Moon but it is a good condition to perform tasks that require stealth. He also says that it is better if the Moon is leaving the Sun (withdrawal from Sun).

Antiochus of Athens on Chariots:
Definitions and Foundations, The Astrological Record of the Early Sages (TARES) vol. 2, Robert Schmidt, 2009, Antiochus, Paragraph 14:

That stars are said to be in their own chariots when they are in their own domicile or exaltation or confines. For, such a star is mighty even if it is ending its course by arriving under the beams of Helios; and if they are arising or pivotal or look upon Selene, they show the nativity to be authoritative.

Confines = Terms/Bounds, Helios = Sun, Selene = Moon, Pivotal = Angular

Serapio on Chariots:
Porphyry the Philosopher, Introduction to the Tetrabiblos and Serapio of Alexandria, Astrological Definitions (trans. James Holden, 2009), page 63:

The stars are said to be in their own chariots whenever they are in their own exaltations.

and on page 69:

[He says that] the planets rejoice when they are in their own thrones, even if they are under the Sun beams, for the benefics increase their good things, and the malefic change into being benefic.

Porphyry on Chariots:
Porphyry the Philosopher, Introduction to the Tetrabiblos and Serapio of Alexandria, Astrological Definitions (trans. James Holden, 2009), Chapter 25, page 19:

Stars are said to be in their own chariots whenever they are posited in their own domicile or triplicity or exaltation and [are also] in their own terms. And a star will also be most powerful thus, even if it has come under the Sunbeams, for [then] it is even more powerful...

Rhetorius the Egyptian on Chariots:
Rhetorius the Egyptian, Astrological Compendium, Containing His Explanation and Narration of the Whole Art of Astrology (trans. James Holden, 2009), Chapter 43, page 25:

The planets are in their own chariots when they are found in their own domicile or exaltation or terms; and they rejoice in these places even when they are found under the Sun beams, for the benefics increase their good and the malefics are changed into a good influence.

James Holden commented that the term chariots used by Rhetorius comes from the Greek word lampene which designates ?covered chariot? ? a four wheeled vehicle with a cover rather than the harma which is the Greek word for ?chariot? ? the usual two wheeled war chariot.

Astrojin wrote:

Dorotheus says that when Moon is under the rays of the Sun, then there is corruption of the Moon but it is a good condition to perform tasks that require stealth. He also says that it is better if the Moon is leaving the Sun (withdrawal from Sun).

Yes, this idea is repeated often in discussions of electional astrology, but it seems like such a contradiction to what is often said about the planet being consumed, burnt and weakened by the Sun. A corrupt or weakened Moon would seem to have trouble doing anything. If the Moon is too weakened to help apply for a job then how could it be strong enough to help carry out secretive plans towards an enemy's downfall?

It makes more sense to think that the Sun has somehow taken on the operative powers of the Moon, including a degree of darkness and covertness due to the Moon's disappearance within the Sun's beams*. In this case it's about the Sun as much as it is about the Moon ? the Sun has been darkened, so to speak, and can act covertly. Combustion would seem to be just as much about the Sun's gain as the planet's loss. Such a view could make the use of combustion much more complex and less conflicting than has been the case. After all, these combustion discussions do tend to go round and round . . . .



* Edited to add: The Moon is the light of the nocturnal sect, my idea here being that the Sun has taken on the darkness and mystery of night.

Hello,

To Kirk:
Perhaps corrupt moon is good for corrupt people doing corrupt things? He he he...

Seriously though, I did a few elections for questionable tasks before (no details please!) where the instigator requires complete stealth and in these cases I do not elect combust Moon but rather under the beams ascendant lord who is also in its domcile. The logic being that is, in its own domicile, the ascendant lord has enough resources to accomplish his deed and being under the beams, to accomplish this in secret. I also make sure that the ascendant lord is leaving the Sun but is not visible 9 days after the election day (to ensure no public exposure). They seem to work but a few examples are not going to prove anything but it is my conviction that combustion is not just about power loss or consumed (or transfered to Sun) but can also mean hidden or being invisible provided that the combust planet has certain resources or protected from being burned i.e. in its own domicile or exaltation.

So let us summarize these arguments about combustion:
1. There are astrologers who believe that combustion is the worst debility a planet could suffer and even if the planet is in its own domicile, it is still burned and "destroyed". I personally do not think that this is so because I do not see this being born out in natal as well as horary charts. I also believe that burning is not the only signification of combustion because there are other meanings depending on situation (invisible, hidden, overpowered, etc.).

2. There are astrologers who simply downplay the power of combustion and say that it is similar to just another debility which can easily be overcome. However, we do see that in some charts, combustion does work its malice and so we still have to differentiate when combustion is efficacious and when it is not.

3. There are also astrologers who believe that combustion will work its malice but there are also cases where a planet may be "protected" from being burned.

Summary on being protected from burning through combustion:
1. Some astrologers state that Mercury whose positions are very near the Sun may not suffer combustion as much as other planet due to it being combust many times (the idea of getting used to it!).

2. Some astrologers advocate that Mars does not suffer combustion due to Mars being hot and dry (like Sun). I am not among the astrologers who advocate this because the idea that fire can't really burn fire due to similarity of nature does not appeal to me. Reminds me of a story asked by a sceptic to a religious teacher, "If the devil is created out of fire, how then would he suffer hell in the hereafter because hell is also made of fire?", to which the religious teacher then slapped the sceptic really hard. When the atheist asked the teacher the reason for him being slapped, he replied, "If my hand which is made of skin can create such pain on your face which is also made of skin, it is not illogical for fire to hurt another fire..."

3. Some astrologers say that planets combust in Leo or Aries are not burned because they are received by Sun. I would say that although not burned, it is still overpowered by Sun.

4. Some astrologers say that a combust planet is not burned when it receives the Sun. This is actually similar to the next argument...

5. Hellenistic astrologers (references given in the previous post) would say that a planet is not burned when it is traveling under covered chariots. The problem comes when defining being under covered chariots (Serapio says whan a planet is exalted, Antiochus says when a planet is in its own domicile, exaltation or term, while others include triplicity as well).

I still feel that a planet in its own domcile or exaltation are protected from the burning effect of the Sun (not sure about term and triplicity because I do not see this being born out in practice). Well I guess I could use the fourth or fifth reason above to justify this theoretically.

Hi Astrojin,

Thanks for the (again!) very informative reply. It looks like we agree that combustion is much more complex than some seem to think, such as those in your category #1.

To continue just a bit with this combust Moon example as an illustration of how many considerations could possibly come into play: The combust Moon is the period of the dark of the Moon. At night this would mean that neither the Sun nor the Moon are providing light. There is plenty of lore concerning the dangers and fears during the dark of the Moon. In olden times this would make for a very dark night and a good time to lurk in a corner and wait for your enemy to pass by, your knife in hand. Such thinking could very well be at the bottom of this electional 'rule', metaphorically at least ? especially effective in a nocturnal electional chart.

Once again, my point is that combustion has got to be much more complex than the Sun beating its glowing breast and proudly roaring as it overpowers, yet again, some poor little planet. That's so . . . B-movie he-man. Know what I mean?

The synodic cycles of Mercury and Venus break down into 6 paired marking points (two conjunctions, two elongations, and two stations) which delimit 6 intervening phases.

To make a long story short, the synodic cycle of Mercury shows why the native thinks he?s right. Mercury conjunction natives think they?re right because they are faithfully reproducing what they have learned from their Parents and society; they are ?good? children who later become ?good? citizens. They are disciplined but repressed: they don?t ask too many questions, nor confront their (nor other people?s) feelings openly.

Mercury elongation natives, by contrast, think they?re right precisely because they haven?t bought into their Parents? or society?s thinking, but rather have doped out all the angles for themselves. They?re clever and perspicacious ? but they also lack the surety and force of will of the conjunctions. This is because they can see all sides of an issue, as well as other people?s points of view, which diminishes their own self-certainty.

About Mercury and venus' Combustion,you can read the wonderful post by Bob Makransky in act:
http://actastrology.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=26