Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Dr H.

Now what kind of bad? Zoller taught that combust planets signify things/people which are hidden, or people who are sick. Since Mars is the Ascendant lord and placed in the 6th of illness, sickness is especially applicable in this case.

Yes, that is Zoller?s usual point of view, and I agree at the point that a hidden illness can happen since the configuration is in the 6th house.

Type of illness. Top of the list of Mars/Virgo illnesses are ulcers because this illness combines Mars' heat with the intestinal tract. Other possibilities include exhaustion from overwork, injuries/exhaustion from exercise fanaticism, surgical adhesions from cesarean births, etc., Both Sun and Mars ruled by Mercury/Virgo gives a busy-body fanaticism to the configuration. An overworked accountant?

I don?t know: Astrodatabank does not provided this kind of information. To say the truth I was trying to pick up the chart again...and sorry, but I was not able to find it again!

I

would like to delve deeper into exactly how combust planets approaching the Sun are 'bad.' Studying this first with Venus approaching the Sun using the Mayan approach on the Venus synodic cycle, Venus is highly excitable when it approaches the sun, for example, sexual excitability, or said another way, the inability to exercise sexual restraint. The phrase 'like a moth to a flame' is applicable

.

Well, this kind of comment is interesting because says exactly the opposite thing said in the first part of the post. Now the combust planet is supposed to act in his more raw nature. So this planet is not able to disguise, isn?t it? And he is not able to act in a hidden way if he is, like you said about Venus, " like a moth to a flame"

The same concept applies to other planets including Mars. Combust planets approaching the Sun appear to lose all rationality and cannot 'help themselves' from acting out their most raw impulses. In this case, there is an 'inevitability' of Martian actions and a 'higher probability' that the individual will manifest Mars/Virgo illnesses despite having been warned about them.

Again, where goes the hidden thing?

I don't have my mundane references at hand but if I remember correctly Abu Mashar states that a combust Mars is one sign of war, echoing the inevitability of Martian actions just mentioned. As an example, refer to the 7 Aug 1940 Jupiter-Saturn waxing square (1st of three) which features a combust Mars in Leo. Leo the sign of Gaul, or modern France/Belgium. Here a significator of the inevitability of WWII in my opinion

I?m inclined to agree: but the reason why this kind of thing happens may be suported by a different theory. Or the Sun gets afflicted or, as some modern astrologers says, it happens a mix between the nature of the Sun and the one of Mars.

best

Clelia

I should have been more clear. I was only using essential dignity or debility when I said strong or weak. Saturn in Aries is a weak malefic. Saturn in Libra is a strong malefic. Once we place the malefic in a house then we can see his potential for good or ill.

And what is best: to have a weak malefic in the chart or a strong malefic?

I can?t agree with this point, Tom. The Astrodatabank gave me only 5 in 126 cases of death by War or Terrorism with Aries ascending.

What I meant was that a combust ascendant ruler is one indication of a violent death or it symbolizes a violent death. Whether or not things work out that way is another matter. I did not mean to imply that everyone or even many people with Mars, Lord ASC combust would die violently. It's a red flag, not a sure thing.

Now I got what you meant. In addiction both Ascendant?s rulers are together: Mars and Sun. I still imagine that the Sun can be afflicted by Mars.

Clelia

Can you please explain how the sect is used to give testimony?

Schmidt likens the concept of sect to that of belonging to a political party - sort of like democrats and republicans in the USA. The aspectual relations between the planets and the places / offices / temples they are responsible for are what drives which planets have control of a given place. See my second post above about Valens's example as proof, how he resorts to the Moon because Venus was in aversion to Taurus.[/

quote]

Yes, thanks: your last post explains that.

Clelia

Hi Clelia

my question on combustion with malefics concerns not only the malefic and his strenght, but also if the Sun himself is afflicted by the conjunction with a malefic.

No, the Sun is not afflicted by the malefic. The weakness that a planet suffers during combustion philosophically relates to the end of its synodic cycle, where the vitality given to it by the Sun in the previous cycle has become exhausted. As the planet arises out of combustion, its energy is renewed, but it is still weak and vulnerable (like a baby ? it has been seeded with life and vitality, but needs to grow a little before it can become effective). Hence the benefics cannot be benefic and the malefics cannot be malefic ? in all cases the combust planet is simply weak and unable to express its essential strength. The Sun is the source of the vitality and is never afflicted by its conjunctions with other planets ? the benefics cannot benefit the Sun in their conjunction, and the malefics cannot hurt it.

I know that Antiochus and some others (perhaps following him) talk about a planet in its own dignity being protected from the Sun, but this is counter to the older philosophy which generates the whole principle of combustion ? that the vitality and animation of all the planets is originated by the Sun, which acts as a pulsating heart to the cosmos and passes influence to them (in the same way the Moon distributes the influence throughout the Cosmos). I have seen other traditional authorities strongly disagree with the notion that a planet can be protected from combustion because of its sign placement, and I agree with them. But I?m sorry to say that I didn?t note the references. Hopefully I'll find something relevant again soon and will come back and add the ref later.

Hi Tom,
With regard to the joys of the planets in signs, if you have Al-Biruni?s text he describes them in ch.498 - you can see the section on Google Books via THIS LINK- That link is actually very useful, even for those of us who have the text, because it is searchable.

I have seen other traditional authorities strongly disagree with the notion that a planet can be protected from combustion because of its sign placement, and I agree with them. But I?m sorry to say that I didn?t note the references.

Abu Mashar

I, 179. The reason why people who say that a star which becomes burned in its own domicile or elevation does not offend, are mistaken.
Some people say that when a star becomes burned in its own domicile or in its own elevation it does not cause offence. However ,when Saturn, which is cold and dry becomes burned, it is similar to stone which being burned by the fire, decays and breaks .When Jupiter becomes burned it is similar to gold that melts and when it moves in the rays of sunlight its pure substance takes on a red hue. Then, when Venus and the Moon become burned they are similar to the quicksilver that if we throw it into the fire, the fire escapes from it like from something different from its nature and is not able to tolerate it.

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi ... afore.html

Hello again

Clelia Romano wrote:. But my question on combustion with malefics concerns not only the malefic and his strenght, but also if the Sun himself is afflicted by the conjunction with a malefic. If the Moon would be afflicted by Mars, why the Sun will not? If the answer is positive the houses/signs ruled by the Sun, i.e. Aries and Leo would be afflicted. Clelia

I would say yes, the Sun is damaged. Ephestio says that Mars inclines the Sun heat to destruction.
And Ptolemy about children not reared

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb54.htm

So Mars invisible after his setting gives a very long drought. (I have not the source, it's something from CieloeTerra entourage)

Moon is mostly afflicted by Saturn, because of opposite hairesis, as the Sun with Mars,

p.s I saw Deborah post

I agree with her that here the problem is more Mars than the Sun, because the phase to the Sun is very important in considering a planet.

margherita

Clelia,

What I suggest are raw impulses of a combust planet's function when it approaches the Sun is not inconsistent with hidden. Raw impulses can be acted in private out of the public eye.

Hi Deb!

I tried to quote your post but it was said "the post does not exist!" May be it was combust?
you wrote:

In my opinion, no, the Sun is not afflicted by the malefic. The weakness that a planet suffers during combustion philosophically relates to the end of its synodic cycle, where the vitality given to it by the Sun in the previous cycle has become exhausted.

This is a new and refreshing perspective! Thank you for bringing up this idea. For me it was a real insight! THIS makes sense! You don?t know how much your words clarified my doubts. I have to think a lot about that.
So the problem of combustion has not to do with visibility, hu?

Hence the benefics cannot be benefic and the malefics cannot be malefic

?

And how do you see the situation of the houses they rule? Is it a good thing to have a malefic combust, if he rules "bad houses" because the ruler can?t do any harm? If the answer is positive, in the case they rule the 10th, for example, being combust and weak would be a terrible thing for carreer( provided that other planets were not giving their testimony, of course) ?

In all cases the combust planet is simply weak and unable to express its essential strength. The Sun is the source of the vitality and is never afflicted by its conjunctions with other planets ? the benefics cannot benefit the Sun in their conjunction, and the malefics cannot hurt it.

It is coherent:-)

?

that the vitality and animation of all the planets is originated by the Sun, which acts as a pulsating heart to the cosmos and passes influence to them (in the same way the Moon distributed the influence throughout the Cosmos).

I maintained the quote, because it is really beautiful!

I have seen other traditional authorities strongly disagree with the notion that a planet can be protected from combustion because of its sign placement. I?m sorry to say though, that I didn?t note the references. They certainly exist and I?ll add them here when I find them again.

Many thanks for the important contribution, Deb. It really brought a new light on the topic!

Clelia

Yuzuru - thanks for the ref!

I am going to write that down. My trouble is that I usually find one thing whilst looking for another, and then later I remember reading things but its all a blur for sources. I've seen a few similar references which suggests that this has always been a point of controversy, so worth taking the trouble to reference.

RegulusAstrology wrote:Clelia,

What I suggest are raw impulses of a combust planet's function when it approaches the Sun is not inconsistent with hidden. Raw impulses can be acted in private out of the public eye.

Thank you for clarifying this point! :-)

Clelia

yuzuru wrote:

I have seen other traditional authorities strongly disagree with the notion that a planet can be protected from combustion because of its sign placement, and I agree with them. But I?m sorry to say that I didn?t note the references.

Abu Mashar

I, 179. The reason why people who say that a star which becomes burned in its own domicile or elevation does not offend, are mistaken.
Some people say that when a star becomes burned in its own domicile or in its own elevation it does not cause offence. However ,when Saturn, which is cold and dry becomes burned, it is similar to stone which being burned by the fire, decays and breaks .When Jupiter becomes burned it is similar to gold that melts and when it moves in the rays of sunlight its pure substance takes on a red hue. Then, when Venus and the Moon become burned they are similar to the quicksilver that if we throw it into the fire, the fire escapes from it like from something different from its nature and is not able to tolerate it.

http://www.cieloeterra.it/eng/eng.testi ... afore.html

In the medieval literature there is something called "peregrination" which is fundamentally the opposite to being in domicile, exaltation or any of own places. A peregrine planet is a "wanderer" - sort of like Valens' "being away from home lot" which is a harsh, Saturn / Mars lot, cast out into the desert where the Sun can get at it. When in its own domicile, it is in its own house and Schmidt says that it has its own resources along with it for protection. It does not seem consistent to me to ignore what peregrination means without also including the concept of domicile because in one case the planet is away from home, in another it is in the place of a sect mate where it has help from others, or it has no help at all (peregrine). These two concepts imply each other and if one is true then the other is as well because you can not have a "being away from home" without having a home. And if a home can't protect you, then what good is the concept of domicile? One has to be divorced from the anthropomorphic paradigm to think contrary to this.

Hi Margherita:

Thanks for answereing back!

I have to sleep one night on all the new ideas

love

Clelia

margherita wrote:Hello again

Clelia Romano wrote:. But my question on combustion with malefics concerns not only the malefic and his strenght, but also if the Sun himself is afflicted by the conjunction with a malefic. If the Moon would be afflicted by Mars, why the Sun will not? If the answer is positive the houses/signs ruled by the Sun, i.e. Aries and Leo would be afflicted. Clelia

I would say yes, the Sun is damaged. Ephestio says that Mars inclines the Sun heat to destruction.
And Ptolemy about children not reared

http://www.sacred-texts.com/astro/ptb/ptb54.htm

So Mars invisible after his setting gives a very long drought. (I have not the source, it's something from CieloeTerra entourage)

Moon is mostly afflicted by Saturn, because of opposite hairesis, as the Sun with Mars,

p.s I saw Deborah post

I agree with her that here the problem is more Mars than the Sun, because the phase to the Sun is very important in considering a planet.

margherita