Hi Clelia

So the problem of combustion has not to do with visibility, hu?

Yes, the visibility is important too. It?s all connected in the symbolism ? just as we normally expect the colour, light and brilliance of the planet (or star) to have meaning. The planetary light alters according to phase, and the principle is always the greater the light the more forceful the astrological influence. When the planets are conjoining the Sun they are far from Earth, so even when they become visible, the light is at its dimmest, reflecting the weaker expression of their influence.

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) ?

If I were looking at the 10th to judge a career matter and its ruler was combust, (and there were nothing else to consider ? although there always is !) I would expect that to relate to some kind of vulnerable weakness, or change ? the end of one position if the combustion was applying, or the start of a new position that is not yet secured.
I agree with Dr H?s comment too, that planets moving towards combustion can indicate a lack of control, but I see the principle of weakness as reliable and constant. The other aspects are important for describing how a planet behaves when moving into combustion ? remember that this is symbolically a ?death? (followed by renewal) for the planet; and just like humans, these deaths are not always passive or serene. So an planet that is about to experience combustion is increasingly weakened, but can react with malice or panic (metaphorically speaking), but a planet that is separating from combustion, has lost its malice, but (to begin with) is too weak and sensitive to express its full influence.

Clelia Romano wrote: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

The malefics turn violent when they don't get their way and don't willingly go into the rays of the Sun. The question then becomes is the malefic overpowered by the Sun and purged of "impurities" yet (in the impious degrees)? Each planet has its own character in the way it faces death. Take Hitler's chart for example - with Mars and Venus on heliacal setting in the 8th.

Hi Curtis

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.

I don't think so, since 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. I like the point about the planet continuing to have an internalised energy though.

Deb wrote:Hi Curtis

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.

I don't think so, since 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. I like the point about the planet continuing to have an internalised energy though.

I think there must be more than one context here. I find it difficult to reconcile the concept of synodic renewal with the idea of protection from combustion. I've seen some who seemed to get this protection and some who didn't (perhaps a nocturnally combust planet is better off?). I know malefics behave differently in the charts of eminent nativities and it may be something like this. The average person with a problem malefic bears the burden on their own, but the eminent, such as heads of state, their malefics tend to function by bringing down everyone around them until they themselves fall (if at all). There is also what is good for the planet, is not necessarily good for the native and vice versa...

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... 86&start=0

Just to throw an example here. Both in my delineation and Steven's the death of the father at an early age came up. The testimonies amount to more than the combustion of Mars, like the distance of Saturn and some other things, but in his take on the cause of death, Steven stated that it was probably a heart attack. Although one can not say for sure if it was or not, if Mars (rupture) is not able to hurt the Sun (father by position and universal significance, although a nocturnal chart; heart) this could not be (otherwise I did not understand his delineation properly). I find it odd to think that a planet merging with the Sun is so weak it can not exert any influence, since it is indeed at it's weakest magnitude, but can still barely be seen during the night (as during the day the Sun rules alone, and does not share).

Even in a total eclipse area, with the Sun at its weakest, his light is faintly present.

For some reason my last post is missing some comments that I thought I had made about the final aspects before combustion adding detail about whether the ?setting? (ie combust) planet closes down its cycle with serenity or violence. I don?t have time to rewrite now but Curtis?s idea of malefics bringing down others as they fall is not one that I have any problem with.

Paulo your reference to mystery chart 18 gives us an interesting example to consider, since we are talking about someone who experienced the death of his father as a child. The chart has Mars closely combust the Sun in the 4th house and I assume your argument is that Mars must be afflicting the Sun (so cannot be weak), because you are taking the Sun as the significator for the father. Here is the way I see it: the 4th house cusp is in Capricorn and it is a night time chart so Saturn signifies the father by house-rulership and natural signification. Saturn is situated within 5? of the descendant (the setting angle) and the Moon is in the 8th house applying next to the unreceived sextile of Saturn ? I think the indications of ?father death? are very strong, and emphasised by the fact that Saturn is disposed by a combust Mars, which suffers the combustion in his house. Hence I see the combustion of Mars in the house of the father as a natural signature for loss of the father figure.

In regard to whether Mars is weak or not, check the other houses it governs: the 2nd and 7th houses ? we know that he died penniless and had at least six marriages, so even though Mars is in Capricorn (essentially exalted) it was not an effective planet, but one that managed its affairs weakly and with a sense of loss. However, I have seen combust Mars signify literal as well as symbolic deaths and the nature of the death accords with the natural expression of Mars ? for example accidents, martial type illnesses, burns etc. So as I said above, even though Mars in combustion brings the signification of an ending, it acts in its own way. But it is weak in that it can?t impress its influence upon others, or give its disposition to them ? hence the principles such as return of virtue.

quoting Deb:

have seen combust Mars signify literal as well as symbolic deaths and the nature of the death accords with the natural expression of Mars ? for example accidents, martial type illnesses, burns etc. So as I said above, even though Mars in combustion brings the signification of an ending, it acts in its own way. But it is weak in that it can?t impress its influence upon others, or give its disposition to them ? hence the principles such as return of virtue.

It?s interesting that we are talking about the end of the synodic cycle of a planet meaning death, and today the Moon is initiating a new cycle, so she is combust. But I chose this special part of Deb?s post, because when I initiated this discussion I had doubts relating to a chartin which Mars was n Virgo, in the 6th house, entering in combustion. The chart pertained to a person dead in a flight that crashed against the WTC, at 11th of September. The Ascendant was Aries. So the ruler of the Ascendent was weak being combust ( besides being cadent) and the Sun, the exaltation ruiler of the Ascendant was weak as well, accidentally.
I think that Deb?s words explained well the situation.

Clelia

I agree almost with everything has been said here, but still I'm not sure that Mars does not affect the Sun.

Here, as Clelia pointed out, are in front about two different threads, one about Mars and the other about the Sun.

About the qualities of Mars there is no doubt that the phase to the Sun is very important. They teach this in Cieloeterra because there is no author - and Ptolemy in the first place- who does not mention the phase.
A phase is the first thing to see in a planet, because as Deborah wrote everything on the Earth depends on the Sun.

But what about the Sun? The Sun is giver of life. If Sun is damaged there is not life at all.
This is the meaning I believe of the chapter about "children not reared." But it's difficult to read without any guide. I saw (not here obviously) the funniest reading of Tetrabiblos.

But Lilly puts it in plain words. CA III, 103, If the native is like to live long or not.

If both the Lights or one of them, especially that of the time, be afflicted in any angle by the malignant aspect of an Infortune (wherein you must observe, that the Sun is most afflicted by his being in Conjunction with Mars, the Moon by her Conjunction with Saturn; but the Sun is more afflicted by Saturn in his Opposition, and the Moon by Opposition of Mars;) if together, I say, with the affliction of either of the Lights, the Lord of the ascendant be Combust, or dangerously any otherwayes afflicted,without doubt the Child then borne will not live long, &c.

Now in this chart we should say that this is night chart, so Sun is not the light of the time, but in every case not a good sign.

margherita

margherita wrote:I agree almost with everything has been said here, but still I'm not sure that Mars does not affect the Sun.

............
But Lilly puts it in plain words. CA III, 103, If the native is like to live long or not.

If both the Lights or one of them, especially that of the time, be afflicted in any angle by the malignant aspect of an Infortune (wherein you must observe, that the Sun is most afflicted by his being in Conjunction with Mars, the Moon by her Conjunction with Saturn; but the Sun is more afflicted by Saturn in his Opposition, and the Moon by Opposition of Mars;) if together, I say, with the affliction of either of the Lights, the Lord of the ascendant be Combust, or dangerously any otherwayes afflicted,without doubt the Child then borne will not live long, &c.

Now in this chart we should say that this is night chart, so Sun is not the light of the time, but in every case not a good sign.

margherita

Did Mata Hari consult Lilly

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Mata_Hari

Look at Sun-Mars and Moon -Saturn.It seems she got shot because facts did not come in the way of a good story

It can also give more energy than one can contain:

http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Emerson,_Keith

PD

I have a bit of catching up to do. I'm travelling and rarely near a computer long enough to respond to anything and of course my references are at home.

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

I would say strong malefic. I define strong as the planet being able to "act like itself." A strong Mars gives Courage. A strong Saturn gives self discipline. A weak Mars is a bully. A weak Saturn is too strict. I'm taking the Christian theological position that nothing created is evil, therefore Mars and Saturn cannot be evil, but evil can be done with them by a person who chooses that route. Again this is strictly based on essential dignity. Accidental dignity or debility will affect how a strong or weak malefic manifests in the life.

On the joys, it occurred to me much later that I had read things like "Saturn rejoices in Aquarius." I've also seen things like "Venus rejoices in the 5th house." Still the phrase "joys of the planets" most often refers to the house scheme, not which of two houses ruled is more comfortable for that planet.

Tom

margherita wrote:
But Lilly puts it in plain words. CA III, 103, If the native is like to live long or not.

If both the Lights or one of them, especially that of the time, be afflicted in any angle by the malignant aspect of an Infortune (wherein you must observe, that the Sun is most afflicted by his being in Conjunction with Mars, the Moon by her Conjunction with Saturn; but the Sun is more afflicted by Saturn in his Opposition, and the Moon by Opposition of Mars;) if together, I say, with the affliction of either of the Lights, the Lord of the ascendant be Combust, or dangerously any otherwayes afflicted,without doubt the Child then borne will not live long, &c.

I had a client back in the mid 90's who had Saturn opposite his Sun and Mars opposite his Moon. He became blind in both eyes shortly after birth.

Hi Margherita:

But Lilly puts it in plain words. CA III, 103, If the native is like to live long or not.

If both the Lights or one of them, especially that of the time, be afflicted in any angle by the malignant aspect of an Infortune (wherein you must observe, that the Sun is most afflicted by his being in Conjunction with Mars, the Moon by her Conjunction with Saturn; but the Sun is more afflicted by Saturn in his Opposition, and the Moon by Opposition of Mars;) if together, I say, with the affliction of either of the Lights, the Lord of the ascendant be Combust, or dangerously any otherwayes afflicted,without doubt the Child then borne will not live long, &c.[/

quote]


You?re ponting out one important thing: Lilly considered that the Sun could be afflicted by a malefic not only by aspect but by conjunction.

I don?t know what to say .
I really liked the idea that the combustion is the end of a cycle for a planet.

But nobody likes to see a chart with the Sun conjunct a malefic.
May be it not a rational thought, but it is a deep seated feeling we have.

As Tom said in the beginning of this thread, the discussion on combustion every now and then shows up. It is still a controversial matter, in my opinion.

best

Clelia