I think he's quoting Bonatti? Reception can only occur from a position of dignity.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/perfection.html

Right you are, PallasAthene, but the linked article of Deb is not really helping me in this special matter because she is just dscribing the other direction. Or I clipped something. In the article are more links which will be studied tomorrow. Perhaps they throw a light . . Thanks anyway!

Thanks for this very long qoute, Goran. It helps a lot and as yet your sight seems to be verified by Bonoatus.

May I ask whether you translated this text?

Rob Hand translated it here, Johannes.

There's something similar in Sahl, but I can't remember where.

Thank you, Olivia,
a very interesting reading indeed! Compared with other authors - for example Ibn Ezra, Abu Mashar or Al Biruni - Bonatus seems to me to be a little extreme as to receptions.

Bonatus seems to me to be a little extreme as to receptions.

Maybe just at first glance to me, his explanations make perfect sense - a debilitated planet is unable to receive or bring anything to perfection because of its inherent weakness/corrupt nature. Bonatti isn't saying anything radically different from his predecessors - in fact, Al Biruni

uses a special term to describe a combust or retrograde significator, whether for the querent or quesited. He calls the planet 'suspect' - if the significator shows any promise, it is unable to deliver it - and extends the term to include other conditions: a planet in detriment or fall, cadent, inconjunct the ascendant, afflicted by malefics or generally in receipt of inimical aspects.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/tobyn3.html
Rob Hand explains this on the example of Gandhi's chart where he says that his Moon in Leo isn't received by the Sun in Libra because Sun is in the sign of its fall.(The Blast Astrology Conference, Arizona, 2006)

Regards,
Goran

Hi Johannes

I wonder if you now see how the table and what I wrote on that page expresses the principles as Bonatti explains them? I had made my own translation of the passage but decided that what people needed to see, in a nutshell, is the bottom line statement on what this means in application. Because what Bonatti says is very much in line with what Sahl, Ezra and the older authorities say, and it is the same approach that Lilly takes too. Hence, if anyone has a problem with understanding this passage, then they have something about their understanding of the traditional concept of reception that needs to be adjusted.
I didn't know that Rob Hand had made this passage available on the web - it's great that you can go there and check more fully what Bonatti says, and I'll add that link to the 'perfection table' page too.

Paul,

Take a scenario where Mars in Leo signifies the querent, and quesited (say a job, a lover, a university accepting you or whatever) is the Sun in Libra.

Who likes who and why?

Cor Scorpii answered this, so hopefully you understand it now. The reason most new students get confused is because they have become accustomed to think that "a planet loves the planet whose sign it is in" or something along those lines. That is a very misleading approach that tries to make the principle simple but acutally causes huge confusions, because as you can see, sometimes it might be the case, sometimes it is not the case at all.
Reception describes the way that an aspect finds expression, so it is not a good idea to try to make something out of reception until you first understand the more fundamental principle of the aspectual application. In general terms, the planet that is moving most quickly to make the aspect perfect represents the party that has the greatest impulse or motivation to make something happen. But you can't assume that will always be the one with most love either - if the aspect is difficult, this will describe the person who is 'bursting' to have an argument; if the aspect is separating, this will be the one who wants the relationship to end because they "need more space", etc., etc.
What we really want to see - and this is where reception becomes extremely useful in relationship matters - is one person's significator applying towards the other by a friendly aspect (indicating an attraction towards joining with the other person) and that aspect being received by the significator that is being applied to (showing that they 'receive' the attention willingly, and respond to it by giving something to it themselves - ie, committing their virtue/disposition to it).

Deb

Reception has become the single most confusing thing about learning horary for me. It's frustrating because underlying it all I think "well this can't be this hard, there's some basic approach I'm either missing or not doing right".

Thanks Deb and Cor Scorpii for your information. I shoudl have mentioned the whole applying aspect bit, I understand that and the nature of the aspects etc. but didn't mention them for brevity and so as not to risk obfuscating the matter.
My understanding of this is/was more like Johannes' wherein he suggests that, in my example of Mars in Leo and Sun in Libra, Mars cannot receive the Sun as the Sun is coming from a place that Mars is debilitated. However the Sun CAN receive Mars becaue Mars is coming from a place that the Sun has dignity. If I understand it right, this is ALSO what cor scorpii was suggesting where he says "However, the querent(Mars) rejects what the quesited has to offer because it comes to him out of the house of its enemies(Libra is the sign of Mars's detriment). "

So going back to the like/love scenario (I know you all hate it, but bear with me) if this was true, then we coudl say that Mars doese not like the Sun, but the Sun DOES like mars. Is this correct? So in my example where Mars represents the Querant, and Sun represents a job (for example) you could say that (all other things being equal, I'm being purposely simplistic) the job will like the Querant but the Querant will not like the job, with a perfect sextile being made you might say that the company would offer the querant the job but the querant may refuse it (or at the very least not like doing it).

So if I'm right in understanding this, to simplify this into a 'rule' you might say that planet A likes any planet that is in a sign that planet A has dignity. Going back to my example Sun like Mars because Mars is coming from a place that the Sun has dignity. Mars does not like the Sun becaue the Sun is coming from a place that Mars is debilitated.

PLEASE correct me if this is wrong, because this has been my understanding and the source of my confusion. When I say all these things, assume I mean that all other things are equal and there is an applying aspect etc.

I appreciate what seems to be suggested here as well (which makes sense) is that it is really the 'applying' planet who has the most 'interest' (be that argumentative or love etc).

Looking forward to the reply to the above.

I'm looking at a chart where Venus (quesited) is in triplicity of Mars, (querent) but Mars is in no dignity of Venus. So querent loves best? And not the other way round?

Mars cannot receive the Sun as the Sun is coming from a place that Mars is debilitated. However the Sun CAN receive Mars becaue Mars is coming from a place that the Sun has dignity.

Whereas the first sentence is correct, the second is not - again, debilitated planet cannot receive another, although it may be situated in a place where the debilitated planet has a mayor dignity by domicile/exaltation or by combination of two lesser dignities(triplicity, term and face).

When I say that Mars rejects what Sun has to offer this implies that Sun is the one who is making an attempt/striving to establish a contact with Mars; however, coming out of the sign of his detriment, Sun's intentions/offers are harmful for Mars+Sun is in itself essentially debilitated, so we have a twofold confirmation of the negative outcome to this contact. It would be the same if Sun were situated in Aquarius, for example - in this case, the opposition aspect between the two would make the situation even worse.

So in my example where Mars represents the Querant, and Sun represents a job (for example) you could say that (all other things being equal, I'm being purposely simplistic) the job will like the Querant but the Querant will not like the job, with a perfect sextile being made you might say that the company would offer the querant the job but the querant may refuse it (or at the very least not like doing it).

You might judge it that way, but I wouldn't necessarily say that the job "likes" the querent because the querent's planet is in the dignity of the planet signifying that job; but that the job comes to the querent easily and he doesn't have to make an effort to obtain it - it is already 'in his hand' if he is willing to take it, so to speak.

Regards,
Goran

Thanks Goran

I appreciate my example wasn't the best as the Sun is debilitated. I wasn't aware that a planet which is in itself debilitated could not receive another plant when I posted the example first.

"so we have a twofold confirmation of the negative outcome to this contact."

If the question was "Will the job be offered to the querant" in these examples and there's an applying aspect etc, would your answer still be negative? After all we have an aspect being made? My initial thoughts on this would be that the job would be offered, but the querant would refuse it.

A job would be offered, of course( the applying sextile aspect between the significators) but the querent would reject it - that's how I would judge it.

Ok thanks for all your help (and also Deb and everyone else).

I think I understand reception now! Or at least better than I did!