I have just found a definitive text on Reception which makes it all very clear, using the traditional sources: Reception by Steven Birchfield on http://www.worldastrology.net/articles/reception.html .

Hey, siraxi, I saw this site first ! (see above)

Y
(no one read what I post )

See also:

http://coa.hubcom.net/wzmrdeg.htm

(no one read what I post )

Oh yes we do!

This is a wonderful thread full of information I'm still trying to absorb. Thanks to everyone.

Since we are referring links left, right and centre at the moment, you may be interested in this one which includes an earlier article on reception:

http://www.stormpages.com/ejourney/arti ... /index.htm

(Sorry if I've blown your cover here Tom )

Sorry if I've blown your cover here Tom

I barely remember writing that. It must have been as a favor for someone. It is a bit old.

Tom

Still full of good, basic information with some nice little examples though. I found it some time ago and had saved the link. Nice little surprise to find something by one of "ours" elsewhere

dear guys,

hope i'm not butting in here...i know this is an older thread and all, but earlier today i got wrapped up reading the different threads that interested me, this one being one of them. the info here is WOW! it made me see reception in a different light. and those links...especially that one that says:



1. Dignity shows the power to act.
2. Reception shows the inclination to act.
3. Aspect shows the occasion to act.



that's crystal clear! very nicely put.

the thing is...after reading through this thread 3 times, im still SLIGHTLY confused as to the accepted line of thought. let's take this example: if the sun is in taurus and the moon is in aries (for a day chart) there would be mixed reception in that the sun is in the moon's exaltation and the moon is in the day triplicity of the sun. i THINK most people would say the sun receives the moon by exaltation (and therefore gets all the nice little benefits of the exaltation) and the moon receives the sun by triplicity (and therefore reaps the benefits of the triplicity). right?

after reading this thread though something clicked! especially with whoever gave the simple but brilliant example of venus being in capricorn. saturn likes that, saturn is all about venus when she is in his sign...which is pretty much the opposite of what i said above, correct? (it's been a long day, guys, please bare with me.)

it just makes a lot more sense to me the 2nd way. let me give an example of 2 significators from a recent relationship chart i did:

SHE - moon libra 5
HE - saturn cancer 23

this chart was actually from may. anyway, after doing the research i determined there to be much reception between the 2:

moon is in saturn's exalt; saturn in moon's ruler
moon is in saturn's exalt; saturn is in moon's face
moon is in saturn's triplicity; saturn is in moon's face
moon is in saturn's terms; saturn is in moon's ruler
moon is in saturn's terms; saturn is in moon's face

i hope i listed all that out right. i copied from my notes on the chart and didnt double check.

anyway...so i see here that saturn actually favors the moon twice by exaltation. so he really exalts her. then saturn also likes the moon by triplicity once and terms twice. as for the moon, she loves (respects) saturn twice, and she accepts him by face 3 times. this is right, right? i really understand it this way...it's backwards from how i think most people describe or understand reception, but this makes sense to me.



thank you for any thoughts!



sincerely,
chrissy

Hi Chrissy

let's take this example: if the sun is in taurus and the moon is in aries (for a day chart) there would be mixed reception in that the sun is in the moon's exaltation and the moon is in the day triplicity of the sun. i THINK most people would say the sun receives the moon by exaltation (and therefore gets all the nice little benefits of the exaltation) and the moon receives the sun by triplicity (and therefore reaps the benefits of the triplicity). right?

That?s not a very good example because there?s mutual reception by exaltation between the Sun and Moon there. But I think you have described this is correctly.

I couldn?t quite understand your second example I?m afraid, or why you are allowing Saturn to receive the Moon twice. Saturn is giving the Moon a reception because he receives her into his exaltation (that he also receives her into his triplicity and terms makes the reception especially strong). So if the Moon is applying to Saturn by aspect he will be attentive to her and he?s not likely to harm her (even though he?s Saturn and might otherwise be malefic).

With these positions the Moon is also receiving Saturn into her sign and face, so there is a strong mutual reception, showing they are both receptive and welcoming to each other. And that means that although they are moving towards a square aspect, any hostility that the square might have implied will be diminished. They will both be receptive to the contact and give what they can to help each other.

The Libra updates will include a detailed article on Lilly?s use of reception so hopefully that will clarify your remaining doubts. In fact the article is already in place, waiting for me to make the links to it, so if you want to take an early view you?ll find it at : http://www.skyscript.co.uk/reception.html

It's good that this makes sense to you. I think when something 'clicks' it generally feels right.

Deb

Deb,

As I have just finished reading your article about receptions, I want to say "Aha! Great!".It is a brilliant and illuminating article.Thanks

I believe it is a "must read" article for all levels of horary students.

I agree. I was certainly taught many years ago that mutual reception meant reception at the same level of dignities and mixed reception was differing levels of dignity. But it seems clear from reading traditional texts that what is meant by mutual reception is simply that both planets are involved in reception. I guess it's a bit like mutual attraction where both people are involved in an attraction to each other but one may be more attracted than the other.
I also didn't have a clear enough understanding that reception doesn't have to be mutual. I had my copy of CA with me when I read this article and it does clarify some of Lilly's explanations a lot more. It's amazing how clear some things become when someone points them out to you.
Great article and very useful.

Wouldn't it be amazing also if somebody 're-writes' the Christian Astrology in modern English with added explanations like in Deb's article (maybe Deb herself or Deb et al) and maybe also enriched with some similar up-to-date examples?

I'm serious.That would be a GREAT work and a lasting contribution to the devoted students of the art of horary.

Deb did a version CA a few years back. I don't know how readily available it is at the moment but it is the one I use and the best as far as I am concerned. I'm not so sure it is a good idea to 'modernise' it too much as it may detract from the sense of tradition about it. I do know what you mean though. I have thought of something similar. Perhaps a book something along the lines of 'A Modern Guide to Lilly,' with easy to understand explanations and modern examples of charts. I know many authors have claimed in their books that their guide is Lilly but I haven't really seen a book that sticks purely to Lilly's principles as set out in CA.

I accept that ultimately the point of the thread is to nut out the understanding of ?reception?. But as a subtext to that I?ve been nutting out my understanding of Frawley?s approach in light of the apparent differing approach discuss in this thread, and I?ve come to the following conclusion:

It?s all about the usage of language ? something which is often a confusing thing.

Now to be clear, I consider myself a newbie to reception and have learnt my horary and use of reception via Frawley?s books. I think what is missing from the discussion of the Frawley approach, is that Frawley does use reception as discussed by Deb, he just doesn?t use the word ?Reception?. Also most of us are so busy running around looking at what plant loves what, that we forget to stop and use this important step, that Frawley does actually use ? Reception ? ok, can?t quote it from the book as don?t have it to hand, but remember it clearly from his lecture and workshop.

So back to the example taken from Lilly ? with the main signifiers being Jupiter in Taurus and Mercury in Cancer.

If I approach this from the ?Frawley? method of a love horary, the yes, I would read it as Jupiter LOVES Venus and Mercury LOVES the Moon.

? this first stage only indicates the ?who?s interested in whom? bit ? it doesn?t, as has been pointed out, give any consideration to the respect or lack thereof that the parties may or may not have for each other. So is Frawley being to simplistic? I think not. Why? Because I also clearly recall him also taking the examination further and pointing out that one must also consider the level of respect between the two parties ? my words ? I believe he said something along the lines of ?what they actually ?think? of each other as distinct from the emotional query at hand? ? So what does one party think of the other parties intellect and emotional self ? etc etc

Anyway, whilst the word ?reception? was never used, having read the thread, I can see this is what he meant. So as a second stage to this the reception is also to be considered. Jupiter ?receives? Mercury in exaltation ? so whilst Jupiter (quesited) LOVES Venus, he also thinks highly of Mercury (he likes/respects the way she thinks), perhaps beyond what would be realistic (exaltation), Mercury (querent) however, does not receive Jupiter (quesited), so has no opinion as to whether or not she likes the way he thinks.

So the upshot by applying Frawley, the student is only doing half the job if they are only considering which planet loves which, as Frawley clearly takes it further and also uses receptions.
So, step one - the Querent is running on self interest (Mercury disposited by Moon), Step two - Reception ? is she receptive of him ? No ? why? Mercury doesn?t receive Jupiter.
Looking to the Quesited ? Step One - his main ?love? focus is the querent as a woman and emotional being ? Jupiter disposed by Venus and in the sign of exaltation of the Moon. Step Two - Does he receive her? Yes! He holds her in exaggerated esteem ? Jupiter receives Mercury by exaltation.

Broken down to real simple terms.

Mercury LOVES the Moon (herself). Does Mercury like the way Jupiter thinks (quesited as rational being) ? Reception ? She holds no opinion because Mercury doesn?t receive Jupiter.

Jupiter LOVES Venus and EXALTS the Moon ? He can?t believe his luck! Does Jupiter like Mercury as a rational being? ? Reception ? Yes, but again the exaggeration of exaltation, because Jupiter receives Mercury into Exaltation.

Bottom line ? He?s open to her, she?s not open to him.

I also recall Frawley doing various examples where he looked at the fact that whilst one party was ?in love? with the other, they hated the way they thought, or hated the way they expressed themselves emotionally.

Anyway, I feel I have digressed into a defence of Frawley ? which I guess in part it was, but also in part to nut out what I had learnt from Frawley?s books in the context of the seemingly ?alternate? discussion on reception.

Hope I?ve made some sense. As it?s all a bit rushed.

Ann