Skyscript Astrology Forum

Cor Scorpii wrote:

I'd say this wholly depends on the position of the Sun.
If in Aries or Leo, it would also push its power upon the applied to planet, thus receiving/strengthening it.

Very interesting. Even if the planet was combust the Sun? All the sources I have read indicate combustion is weakening (unless the planet is in an essential dignity according to the Greeks) You obviously find planets taking the strength of the Sun when synodical of the Sun (within 1 degree according to Greeks and Persians) or cazimi ( 16/17 minutes in the later medieval renaissance tradition). But your suggesting planets can be strengthened by a highly dignified Sun separated further than this? What source(s) are you taking this idea from Goran?

Tom wrote:

The reasons for combustion are said to go back to visual astrology. When a planet is within 8.5 degrees of the Sun either way, it cannot be seen.

As I am sure you know its more complicated than this in reality. This is just a simplification developed in the medieval tradition. In hellenistic astrology there was no 'combustion' but simply a state of being 'under the beams'. Although the Greeks also simplified the complicated astronomical reality by settling on an orb of 15 degrees for a planet to be under the Sun's rays.

Tom wrote:

OK but no planets can be seen during the daylight hours regardless of their distance from the Sun (Sometimes we can see the Moon and even Venus during daylight hours but that's rare). It could be argued that planets far from the Sun that cannot be seen in the daylight hours can be seen at night, but combust planets can never be seen. But even that is a bit of a stretch.

I think this notion ( for shorthand I will just call it 'combustion') fits into a much more comprehensive emphasis on the entire solar phase cycle of planets and stars go through.

Tom wrote:

Lilly says combustion is not in effect when the Sun and the planet are in different signs, but he is the only one. Yet his position makes more sense if we don't use out of sign aspects.

Problem here is Lilly himself did use out of sign aspects. So I think there is a contradiction in his and many other medieval astrologers position. On the one hand they would use aspect orbs that crossed sign boundaries but not allow combustion to cross a sign boundary.

The Greeks never suggested being 'under the beams' stopped at a sign boundary. Moreover, the negative effects of combustion were regarded as largely mitigated in hellenistic astrology if a planet was in one of its 'chariots' ie domicile, exaltation or bound.

Tom wrote:

But it makes sense on another level, too. We don't use visual astrology any longer. In fact by Ptolemy's day, according to Lee Lehman, astrology had pretty much gone indoors. Why the hangover for this concept?

Because it works? OK if that were true, it would be a valid argument, but is it? I have my doubts.

I dont pretend this issue doesn't throw up some awkward issues. I never found any difficulties accepting the idea in horary but matters often seem more complex in natal astrology.

The point about us moving away from visual astrology is interesting. Arguably this process has occured since the Greeks developed a number of symbolic and mathematical rules which take us away from pure observational astrology.

I have actually been discussing the issue of visual vs non-visual astrology on the philosophy forum in regards the recent discovery of trans-Neptunian objects. I have argued there that the traditional rulership scheme doesn't just have the advantage of history and a logical philosophy behind it. If we work with non-traditional planets we can also suggest an astrological hierarchy stemming from the fact the 7 traditional planets were visually observed for millennia. The new bodies may be material objects in our solar system but they remain invisible to us. I therefore dont think the visual dimension of astrology can be so easily dismissed.

I think its important to appreciate just how ancient the notion of combustion is. It predates hellenistic astrology and can be found in Ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamiam star lore. So the issue of a planet or stars solar phase goes back to a cyclical understanding that long predates sign boundaries.

Deborah Houlding put this very elegantly in a post she made many years ago on Skyscript:

It would be misleading to consider the Greeks as the originators of the concept. The symbolic interpretation that we apply to a combust planet was firmly established in early Babylonian astrology and oriental star lore. It?s probably the oldest and one of the most consistent astrological principles ? that a planet (or star) loses its strength and power as its visibility is lost in the Sun?s light, that it is stripped (and purified) through conjunction with the Sun, and that as it emerges from the conjunction its reappearance symbolises the tentative renewal of vitality and a new cycle of experience.

The earliest existing nativity is a Babylonian cuneiform text recording a horoscope drawn on the 29th April 410 BC. This mentions Mercury as invisible because it had ?set?, (ie., entered its heliacal setting, where it cannot be seen by day or night because of its closeness to the Sun). Where planets had set, they were not considered capable of exerting an influence. The Egyptian integration of the symbolic principles of ?combustion? can be identified as early as 1278 BC by reference to an inscription found upon the tomb of Seti I, but it probably extends much further back in history. The inscription, (which states that as a star dies it is purified in the house of Duat, from where, after 70 days of invisibility, it is reborn), was used by Neugebauer (The Exact Sciences in Antiquity), to show that the 70-day ritual used in Egyptian funeral rites was based upon the 70-day period of invisibility that Sirius endured when it ?set? into the Sun. The re-emergence of Sirius coincided with the summer solstice and the annual inundation of the Nile during the period of the development of the calendar, so was used as a signal to start the New Year festivities.

The ancient Egyptian astrological perspective differed from that of Hellenistic Greece because by comparison there was much less emphasis upon the planets in favour of the stars and constellations. But the principle of death, weakness, lack of strength and inhibited freedom that is traditionally ascribed through combustion perpetuates a viewpoint that appears to originate from their philosophy. At the moment it looks that way, though earlier undiscovered or unexploited references may well exist elsewhere.

Since the use of the symbolic significance of union with the Sun predates the development of the zodiac, there is of course the argument that in its original form ?combustion? derives from observational astrology in which sign cusps play no part.

Mark

I'm still perplexed by combustion and how to interpret it in natal astrology.

Combust planets often manifest themselves powerfully in natal charts. Both the house placement of the Sun and the combust planet as well as the zodiacal influence seem to strongly influence the persons whose nativities I have read who have combustion.

But once again perhaps it is as if the Sun is taking on the combust planet's qualities. I am unsure. Perhaps there is a way to delineate the manifest difference between the effects of a planet placed similarly but not combust and the same placed combust.

Mark wrote:Cor Scorpii wrote:

I'd say this wholly depends on the position of the Sun.
If in Aries or Leo, it would also push its power upon the applied to planet, thus receiving/strengthening it.

Very interesting. Even if the planet was combust the Sun? All the sources I have read indicate combustion is weakening (unless the planet is in an essential dignity according to the Greeks) You obviously find planets taking the strength of the Sun when synodical of the Sun (within 1 degree according to Greeks and Persians) or cazimi ( 16/17 minutes in the later medieval renaissance tradition). But your suggesting planets can be strengthened by a highly dignified Sun separated further than this? What source(s) are you taking this idea from Goran?

Mark[/quote]

cor scorpii has mentioned this a few different times on the horary channel. i think it is a mashallah quote if i am not mistaken.. i have sun in aries with mercury in aries in the suns beams.. does this mean i am now thinking straighter then i ordinarily would? LOL..

James_M wrote:

mashallah quote if i am not mistaken..

Thanks. I dont go into the horary forum much. Probably his work on reception. So I imagine its an issue of reception being assessed as being assessed as outvoting the effect of combustion!

Interesting. It reminds me very much of how Nina Gryphon interpreted the Aries ingress for the US Presidential election last year. She correctly predicted Obama would be re-elected using this chart.

Gryphon stated:

We see that Mercury rules the 10th house of the king, and it is retrograde. Just as in the 1880 horoscope, it is possible that the 10th house ruler retrograde indicates a return of the president to power for another term. More importantly, Mercury applies to a conjunction with the Sun in Aries. The Sun is extremely powerful in Aries, as it is the sign where the Sun is traditionally exalted and therefore very strong. It is favorable for Mercury to apply to it, even though such closeness to the Sun is called combustion and is normally problematic. In the last 132 years, in the Presidential election context, a planet?s application to the Sun in exaltation has been helpful, not harmful for the candidate symbolized by the applying planet.

http://gryphonastrology.com/blog/2012/0 ... tion-2012/

Mark

Mark wrote:

Very interesting. Even if the planet was combust the Sun? All the sources I have read indicate combustion is weakening (unless the planet is in an essential dignity according to the Greeks) You obviously find planets taking the strength of the Sun when synodical of the Sun (within 1 degree according to Greeks and Persians) or cazimi ( 16/17 minutes in the later medieval renaissance tradition). But your suggesting planets can be strengthened by a highly dignified Sun separated further than this? What source(s) are you taking this idea from Goran?

Actually a fairly old idea and a very astrological one as well, I'd add.
As James has already pointed out, it's in Masha'allah's On Reception but also in Ibn Ezra's The Book of Nativities and Revolutions I skimmed through the other day.

Nina Gryphon's findings certainly seem to confirm Masha'alalh's views

Goran

There are many considerations to judge combustion :
One of them, is the nature of the planet. here, we have Jupiter which his nature is hotlwet that means he is moderate . And because he is so theres no malefic effect to the Sun at him
Then, the conjuction is benefic, but because the descendent place is suitabele for Jupiter , and unsuitabele for The Sun, so that reduces the benefics of jupiter

Finally, any planet conjuncts the Sun , he becomes combust
But always the lesson is by the results

If combustion really weakened a planet, then why did the ancients believe that a malefic with the sun corrupts the sun? The malefic in this case should have no power of its own to act and should be under the sun's command. Jupiter too should technically be ineffective. It makes more sense to me to look at the sun. If a benefic, the orders are benevolent. Otherwise, the sun acts like a despot.

I wonder how a weak sun in libra and aquarius can combust a planet and if the malevolence is doubled because the sun here is a malefic by default. And on the topic of cazimi, i doubt that a planet cazimi in these two signs is really that great. Ot does it act like a malefic?

Also what about combustion in the cadent houses. We prefer to see the malefics cadent because they then are powerless. Shouldnt the same apply to the sun and combustion?

If combustion really weakened a planet, then why did the ancients believe that a malefic with the sun corrupts the sun? The malefic in this case should have no power of its own to act and should be under the sun's command.

When you think about it astrologically, there's no contradiction.

If you're analyzing the Sun in its significations, then the conjunction with the malefics will indicate harm for them i.e the Sun's significations.

If you're investigating some malefic combust by the Sun, this will indicate something problematic/weak/hidden in its natural/accidental signification. The same goes for the benefics.

Goran