How about switching viewpoints from the combust planet to the Sun regarding the chart native? So, regarding qualities of the native himself or herself, rather than questioning whether combust Mercury is weakened we can see how the Sun is increased ? takes on qualities and capabilities ? through Mercury. Therefore, the native's will and drive toward future personal development (Sun) are increased through the skills of Mercury.

We can still regard Mercury as weakened when he is, for example, lord of the 2nd or 7th houses, thereby showing hidden or debilitated states regarding finances and marriage. In this case we are looking away from the native and to the life circumstances.

We had an interesting discussion on cazimi a while back on this thread:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4348

Some hellenistic sources refer to Mercury 'rejoicing ' when synodical with the Sun.

More generally, I have found the dispositor of the Part of Fortune often very revealing about career.

Hi all,

I saw this thread and thought I'd just add a few words about the Abu 'Ali translation. The Latin text clearly says, "so that he would EVEN burn...". The Latin word is "etiam," "even." It's an intensifying word. In fact the Latin "so that" is "ita ut," where "ita" is also a kind of intensifying and emphasizing word. So that is what the Latin says.

It is possible that in the manuscript Bonatti used (I don't have Bonatti in front of me right now), there was an abbreviation which looked either like "etiam" or "non" (not), which would make it ambiguous as to who was right. But one has to ask how the Sun could be "with" the significator without it either being under the rays or burned up. If it were only under the rays, you'd expect the text to say, "so that it is under the rays but not burned up," or something like that.

I'm not trying to address the truth of the passage here, but only what makes sense from a translation point of view.

Best,
Ben

Having lived without the Internet for 3 weeks and 1 day I probably shouldn't be posting without first getting caught up on discussions, but that doesn't seem to stop me from rushing right in. On page 3 of the Combustion and / or Affliction thread (which I haven't finished reading) Deb wrote:

. . . the concept of domicile is also an expression of a planet?s relationship with the Sun. The synodic philosophy is very ancient but it was also at the heart of Arabian and Medieval natural philosophy as an explanation of how planetary influences are passed through 'celestial light'. In a nutshell, all planetary vitality originates from the Sun, which is (as Valens says) ?the light of the mind? or (as Paulus says) ?The Creator of the whole??. Ibn Ezra puts it beautifully: ?the Sun signifies life, for he is the greater luminary and the light of all the bodies?. So even though the combustion process is one that sees a temporarily loss of power, it is not one from which they need ?protection? because it is through this process that their power is regenerated.

But the loss of visible light is also important, since ancient astrology associates brilliance with power and the loss of brilliance with the loss of power.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=30

I've used this quote because it helps focus my initial post of this thread. The relationship is synodic, but these discussions seem to center on the combust planet with little about the Sun itself. If light and vitality is given to the planets from the Sun it seems that understanding the rest of the relationship would require consideration of what the Sun gets from the planets. I could imagine the possibility of ancient thought seeing the Sun as taking back its changed light and vitality from the planets by way of combustion, and thereby taking in the experience of each planet during its recent cycle. The planets are sent out, they return back and inform the Sun ? the Sun is strengthened and increased through receiving the experience of the planets.

It is said that a god dies when there is no one left to worship him. Similarly, we have in the Old Testament ?I the Lord your God am a jealous God?. The Sun/God has its needs. A king needs ministers and subjects who bow and scrape. Maybe the Sun needs to periodically consume the planets in order to take in the now altered vitality that it had sent outwards. Likewise, a person with a combust natal Mercury possibly needs to enter a Mercury-oriented vocation in order to give the Sun what it needs, reflecting what the person needs in order to develop, strengthen and expand.

My apologies if anyone has already made this point in either of the two threads. I do get impatient.

Thanks for the clarification Ben.

Mark wrote:

Some hellenistic sources refer to Mercury 'rejoicing ' when synodical with the Sun.

But the synodical contact is obviously referring to the Cazimi principal rather than the general state of combustion, so I?m not sure that helps this discussion.

Given that the Abu Ali comment is affected by the possibility of confusion in transmission, does anyone know of any other ?fortifying? comments in other traditional sources? If not, I would be suspicious of the reliability of that one remark, even if Bonatti hadn?t questioned it.

Deb

PS, welcome back the forum Kirk

Thanks so much for the kind reply, it was very appreciated.

Just I'd like to add to Estebon that the problem is that significators of profession are Venus, Mercury and Mars and among these, Venus and Mercury are always quite near the Sun, so if we want consider them when they are invisible too, it means in practice we always should consider, so it would be quite useless choosing.

This is Ptolemy about career

For it will be needful to look both for the planet that has made its morning appearance closest to the sun, and that which is at mid?heaven, particularly when it occupies the application of the moon;

I found a very good example, this is the way I would read - anyway as I told, for me this method sometimes works, sometimes not and we are obliged to take everything. In this case I think it's a good example of the working example.

River Phoenix, the famous actor
Mars is invisible and so we can easily discard.

Mercury and Venus.

Both are in the western side where they are stronger, and both are in their domicile.
But Venus is quite fast and visible, while Mercury, very slow, is going to its station in a few days.

Venus in this chart is very strong, it occupies its sign, in phase to the Sun.

Mercury should be invisible because its arcus visionis is lesser than the given value for setting.

So here the planet which gives profession is VENUS, which is proper for an actor.

Then we can add some note about Jupiter, on the Ascendant, sextile to the Sun, ruler of the MC: which -according Ptolemy- If Jupiter testifies, they will be athletes, wearers of the wreath, persons deemed worthy of honours, and men who derive advancement from women.

Well I think it's proper for River Phoenix, he was not the kind of guy we meet in the bus every morning

But let us say this is rare case, sometimes I become mad....

margherita

Marguerita, why is mars invisible in River's chart?

Dione T wrote:Marguerita, why is mars invisible in River's chart?

Mars is very near to the Sun...

Anyway in CieloeTerra they recommend to their students a little free software called PLSV

http://www.alcyone.de/plsv_short_description.html

which stands for PLANETARY, LUNAR, STELLAR VISIBILITY

This is for Mars
Mars makes its heliacal rising on the 17th September.

In CieloeTerra they use it a lot, because heliacal phases are very important, as we are discussing in this thread.

I know now there is another software produced by Rumen Kolev, it's expensive but it looks very nice seeing screenshot.

margherita

margherita wrote: Mars is very near to the Sun...

I thought you meant combustion (though they are a sign apart) but apparently you do not. Thank you for explaining and for the link.

Dione T wrote:

margherita wrote: Mars is very near to the Sun...

I thought you meant combustion (though they are a sign apart) but apparently you do not. Thank you for explaining and for the link.

No, in fact. Generally it is required that the planet is in its heliacal rising, or at least some phase to the Sun.

margherita

margherita wrote:
Just I'd like to add to Estebon that the problem is that significators of profession are Venus, Mercury and Mars and among these, Venus and Mercury are always quite near the Sun, so if we want consider them when they are invisible too, it means in practice we always should consider, so it would be quite useless choosing.

This is the clincher in my practice. We are talking about Professional
Significators being combust. Not generally combust planets. Margherita's statement is the clear understanding of what is implied when calculating the professional significator. Further, combustion should be considered in a different manner when delineating Mastery.
I'm not saying any of you should do it, I'm just saying that I do.
The reference is clear enough for me, without trying to find transmission errors.
If we treated every Specialized Technique by Generalized Astrological Rules then there would be no delineation and no real prediction. Somewhere we need to just practice it.

Deb wrote:
Given that the Abu Ali comment is affected by the possibility of confusion in transmission, does anyone know of any other ?fortifying? comments in other traditional sources? If not, I would be suspicious of the reliability of that one remark, even if Bonatti hadn?t questioned it.

Deb

I don't see Ben's remark as a suspicion of reliability. It seems that Bonatti either had a bad copy or Holden took a short-cut. We are never going to get all the ancient authorities to agree completely on any one thing. I do think it a broad jump from Ben's post to say "Given that the Abu Ali comment is affected by the possibility of confusion..."