Skyscript Astrology Forum

Deb,

I guess I had a simplistic view of combustion that lead me to think that it always meant a no answer it it was involving any of the significators.

So if combustion doesn't mean an automatic no, but means just that the combust planet loses all or most of its power to act, then it only means a no if the significator needs its power in order for the question to get a yes? Is that right? In the example of the mother who's son was dead that would be the case.

How would you deal with a money question, where I am the Sun and the money I am looking for is combust? Up to now I would say that I wouldn't get it.

About my friend who told me this, I asked him if he wanted to get involved in this discussion and he said he was too busy. Sorry, I would have prefered to have him join it too. He's real, I'm not making this up.

Oh deary me. You know you have an attitude problem, don't you?

It's not a problem. I am living proof that the proper ASC for America's chart is Sagittarius! Always optimistic.

Best

Tom

Dear Deb,

You mentioned that Ben Dykes had acquired some information from Project Hindsight about a combust planet being placed in its own sign. As I have Venus in Taurus, conjunct Sun in Taurus, combust, in the 7th, Venus also ruling the Ascendant and having the most amount of Essential Dignity in my chart, I would be really interested in, and grateful for, any further information that Ben gives you on this subject.

Many thanks, Stephanie

Hi Stephanie,

Ben is a forum member but I know he has been very busy of late. I'll write and ask if he can find this in his notes.

I also noted a couple of references from CA last week which might have some bearing on this discussion:

?The Lord of the Ascendant and of the Figure Combust, doe undoubtedly declare death, unlesse there is some reception between the Sun and them, such a chance happening, and the Moon proving Fortunate, after all hopes of escape, a little hopes remaines.? ? p.256
[This is, of course, in situations where you are looking for signs of death!]

"Every Planet that is Retrograde, sheweth slownesse: If the Lord of the ascendant be Combust, he shall never come out; or if he be not then received of the Sun, he shall dye in prison." ? p.462

I know that I noted another reference from a classical work last week so that I could return to it later, but for the life of me I can't find it right now or even remember which text it was in. Hopefully I'll find it when I crawl out of this pile of papers on my desk

(Its merit to the discussion were, I believe, arguable or I would have posted it right away).

Hi Deb,

You seem to be able to pull up relevant citations from CA effortlessly. I have an index, but I've never been able to find all the good stuff you have at your disposal. Is there a more complete index to CA available (I have Carol Wiggers' index) or is your memory that good, in which case I will be forced to muddle along.
Secondly,

If the Lord of the ascendant be Combust, he shall never come out;or if he be not then received of the Sun, he shall dye in prison." ?

Are there circumstances where this is possible? If we limit combustion to planets in the same sign, I think Mars in Aries combust "be received of the Sun" but that's about it. The only other way would be if the planet combust is in rulership, and acts like a mutual reception. This is a stretch, because if he wanted to say that, he would have. I'm not real clear on the phrase "received of the Sun" in this context. Any help would be appreciated.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I am constantly adding to my own index whenever I note something interesting. Of course it?s very often not until something comes up for discussion like this that you realise what relevance some of the comments might have!

But I?m not really that clever Truth is I did a lot of research last week on another matter and in the course of it I jotted down some extra bits that I realised were coming up for discussion. What really frustrates me is when I make all these notes on paper and then lose my bits of paper ? leaving me knowing that there is an important reference out there, but realising I?ll probably have to do another weeks? work to find it again!

If the Lord of the ascendant be Combust, he shall never come out;or if he be not then received of the Sun, he shall dye in prison." ?

Are there circumstances where this is possible?

Yes, if for example the combustion occurs in Leo or Aries, the afflicted planet would be received by the Sun by sign or exaltation.

Thank you so much Deb. I would be very grateful indeed if you could do that.

Best wishes, Stephanie

Hi Stephast,

The information I learned from Bob Schmidt (from Project Hindsight) and Demetra George (associated with them, but with Kepler College) is that according to the Hellenistic astrologers who thought this all up, a planet that is combust while in its own domicile will not be harmed.

The way they (the Greeks) explained it was that a combust planet in its own domicile was like a person in a chariot -- except that the Greek word being used is a "covered chariot". So such a planet is traveling in a covered chariot, safe from the beams of the Sun. This means it will not be burned up. This is what I got from the conference, though there may be more to understanding just how a planet in such a covered chariot would operate (and the first book in their new series, on Astrological Definitions, probably has more). But the bottom line seems to be that a planet will not be afflicted. The significations of the Sun and the planet will combine normally.

Ben

according to the Hellenistic astrologers who thought this all up ...

Who thought what all up? Astrology? The principle of combustion? The notion that a planet loses its strength in its union with the Sun is embedded into the very heart of ancient astrology, and was a major feature of the Babylonian and Egyptian contributions. The Hellenistic astrologers were the inheritors of this tradition and the majority of their texts (at least the ones that I have studied) perpetuate that view, seeing the cycles of the planets as they set and rise into the Sun as the foundation from which their accidental strength emerges. We obviously need more information about these sources, what they say exactly and how authoritative they should be considered. Even the phrase ?covered chariot? is suggesting that the effect of combustion is operating, because it implies the invisibility of a planet masked by the Sun?s light. My argument isn?t that combustion is always going to harm (see my earlier posts), but it does still operate. So far, the only reference that I have seen to suggest a planet can escape the condition of combustion as a principle is Al Biruni?s, where he says Venus can avoid combustion if it?s latitude is high so that it is not rendered invisible by the Sun?s light. That does make sense.

Obviously we need to get more information on this but I don?t think we should be rewriting 2000 years of a fairly consistent tradition just yet.

Thanks for the info Ben

As Deb said, thank you very much for the info Ben. I am more than grateful. And I have to say, that as one who actually has her Venus in Taurus, combust the Sun, ruling Sun and the Ascendant, I don't feel one little bit as though my Venus is 'burnt up'. :D But as you say Deb, it will be interesting and its clearly important to find out more.

Once again Ben, thank you so much for your quick response.
Regards,
Stephanie

Hi Deb,

I was probably being too flip. By "thought all this up," I mean the intricate terminology and concepts that suddenly sprang up in Greek horoscope delineation. Apparently some of them are directly related to the Greek legal tradition. So far as I understand we do not know exactly what the Egyptians did in terms of practical horoscopy, or what their terminology was. Even the semi-mythical Egyptians to whom the tradition is attributed (Hermes, Asclepius, etc.) were living (so far as I can remember) were living in Greek Hellenistic Egypt. So whatever they did pick up, they then made their own.

Clearly the notion of combustion comes from the experience of actually seeing the Sun's rays. My introduction to some of the Greek vocabulary at ISAR suggests that familiar terms like application, separation, and so on, come from Greek concepts via Arabic and Latin, but that the Greek vocabulary was very extensive and we are only now recovering it and seeing how it was applied. So maybe this business about being in a covered chariot, which suggests a protection from a Sun that is still casting hot rays, is a useful point that was omitted from the tradition for one reason or another. The real test is -- does it work?

Ben

Your reference to chariots reminded me of a note I had for Antiochus of Athens and so I have found a reference that is significant here:

Antiochus of Athens (presumed 2nd half of 2nd century BC). (From the PH 1993 text Antiochus of Athens, The Thesaurus, p.31:

Planets are in their own chariots when they should be found in their own house (sign), exaltation, or boundaries (terms). And they rejoice at these places even if they are found under the beams of the Sun. For the benefics augment good things, and the malefics change to benefics.

No mention of being covered here ? I would be interested to see a reference to that to establish whether it does mean covered as in being protected from the Sun, as opposed to covered as in ?hidden? meaning rendered invisible by the Sun. Classical astrologers usually referred to planets as matutine or vespertine or absconsae meaning 'hidden' (Firmicus says the Greeks used the term afaneis for hidden)

The meaning of this seems pretty clear in denying the harmful effect I?ll admit. But this is saying that a planet isn?t harmed by combustion even if it is in its own terms, which is taking this to another level of ambiguity.

An argument I would make against this being taken up too readily is the fact that it also conflicts with the Hellenistic concept (I say Hellenistic, it?s actually much older and later than that, but it certainly applied in Hellenistic astrology) of planets being favourable when in their correct phase, and the advantages gained by being oriental or occidental, (or matutine, vespertine or absconsae), which is pretty major. Most of the classical authors tell us that a planet is most ?favourable? (Ezra calls them ?lucky? when in this position, other authors call them strong), when departing from a union with the Sun. Why? Because this perpetuates the much more ancient origin of the observational astrology that founded this. In your earlier post you said:

So far as I understand we do not know exactly what the Egyptians did in terms of practical horoscopy, or what their terminology was.

It?s not disputed that Egyptian astrology was heavily shaped by the notion that the stars and planets experienced the ending of a cycle as they underwent their heliacal setting, and that they were considered to be reborn at their helical rising where they emerged refreshed at the start of a new cycle. This was a very strong principle for the Egyptians (and the Mesopotamians too) and had a tremendous influence upon their culture and calendar.

I have written about this in more detail at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/heritage/egyptians.html

Hellenistic astrology continues this philosophy in stating that planets which are separating from the Sun, and have passed the influence of the Sun Beams, are considered to be refreshed in energy and at the peak of their positive influence. When they are reuniting with the Sun they are weakened and dried. It?s hard to dismiss this latter concept, which is so consistent and readily apparent in Hellenistic astrology, without questioning the whole basis of all the Hellenistic understanding that extends from it. Yet if this principle holds, then a planet is going to undergo a transformative process in its union with the Sun no matter how dignified it is. Hence I can only return to my view that it may affect the interpretation of the nature of the combustion, but it is still going to experience a quality of combustion nonetheless.

Gosh, I don?t shift my opinions easily do I? But I hope you can understand why I feel that having a deeper understanding of the philosophy that has introduced the term in the first place is much more important than any simplistic rule or snapshot definition. Especially as these vary from author to author, as we can see from the quote I gave from Firmicus earlier.

I'll continue to add any references that touch upon this matter. I know I have seen some recently that discuss the limits of combustion with varying opinion, some suggesting that the orb of influence for Mars is greater than that of the other planets. And I definately saw a classical reference recently which defined cazimi (being 'at one' with the Sun) as operating within 1 degree instead of 16 minutes.