Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi Kirk, yeah I am done with contributing thoughts on combustion, and I?ll explain why here whilst balancing that comment about my focus. Although horary is a special area of expertise for me, there is no distinction between my view on this in horary or any other type of astrology. I judge many other types of charts and have probably done as much natal analysis as most other members of this forum, because I?ve been around a while and I do a lot of practical astrology. These principles work; they just have to be properly understood.

When I started out in astrology it was generally taught that principles concerning essential dignities and accidental fortitudes were only applicable to horary, and not natal work and other techniques. (Also that horary wasn?t even ?proper astrology?). I endured a lot of hostility to my ideas when I first started publishing traditional rationale, but now most astrologers can see how bizarre it is to think that the fundamental principles of planetary assessment would be put to use in one branch of astrology but not another. Hence, what you?ve suggested takes me back 20 years.

What I?ve touched upon above is the traditional philosophy, recognised by traditional astrologers of many ages and applicable to all their branches of astrology. So no, I don?t think there is a conflict of view between natal and horary astrology although I think that if someone has a confused view of how the principle manifests it might not be apparent how it upholds in different ways according to different contexts.

I?m not sure why you see this as a ?combustion battle? ? if the principle doesn?t appeal to you then why keep raising it? The Sun is big and almighty ? take a quick look at the sky by day and then look at the difference by night ? everything changes with the presence of the Sun. But I don?t want to knock my head against other heads until they hurt, so I?ll just put my ownstatement of how I see this into something which explains the principle from the ground up, rather than trying to offer it as a twist on what other contemporary astrologers are teaching.

Cheers
Deb

Deb,

I love the combustion idea! I want to keep it and use it. I don't know how to do it yet. It does seem to lead to contradictions, as I mentioned. And it clearly is a source of disagreement among people who are very knowledgeable. I do feel that the Sun is in some way 'fed' through combustion, and that tells me the Sun has its needs and vulnerabilities. I need to keep working on it.

Another thought: In our modern secular age we may be tempted to make the astrological Sun a little too God-like. I can't see the medieval astrologers letting such a blasphemous thought creep in. To equate the Sun with God would have been quite a sin. For them there was simply God who was in charge of the celestial and terrestrial realms, so the astrological Sun got to have its weak and vulnerable side, open to influence. Maybe we need to keep pagan theology in mind. Their gods could have weaknesses and vulnerabilities. The Sun of combustion may need the image of a Greek god more than the Christian God.

I just need to keep working through it. I may be an annoyance, but I get frustrated when I read conflicting views stated with strong feelings of certainty.

Thanks, Deb, for taking the time.

Hence, what you?ve suggested takes me back 20 years.

A sort of vanishing cream effect.

Kirk wrote: The Sun of combustion may need the image of a Greek god more than the Christian God.

God(s) would be more like it. Polytheism was more in back in those days.

zoidsoft wrote:

Kirk wrote: The Sun of combustion may need the image of a Greek god more than the Christian God.

God(s) would be more like it. Polytheism was more in back in those days.

That's what I had in mind: an image like one of the Greek gods.

A sort of vanishing cream effect.

One very last Ps then ... Traditional astrologers didn't make the analogy between the Sun and the heart (or the macrocosm and the microcosm) lightly. Think of celestial energy flowing in and out of the Sun and being re-energised by it in the same way that blood flows through the heart and is re-oxygenated by it.
Although it is the heart that refreshes and reactivates the blood, heart needs the blood as much as the blood needs the heart, and the quality of the blood affects the quality of the heart ...

Although it is the heart that refreshes and reactivates the blood, heart needs the blood as much as the blood needs the heart, and the quality of the blood affects the quality of the heart ...

Which brings us to the age-old question: What came first, the heart or the blood?



Someone was bound to bring that up.

Despite that, I know the chart that started this fairly well, and the woman is married. But - I think I can see where the lot comes into it. Mind, the lot is NOT the only determiner of marriages. Nor is the story at an end, at least I don't believe it is. I'm awfully glad that Spica and Arcturus are there, too.

That's one of the reasons we practise traditional astrology isn't it? Because ultimately there's more compassion to it than the modern variety, some alternatives, and advice that can be usefully given.

Kirk, start with your own chart - you must have a combust something somewhere (hopefully not the lot of barley or the like unless you're a farmer), and see what effect it's had. Yeah, I know, I know, the Sun needs to be on the dispositor, but I'm tired tonight.

But even then, you can't take it in isolation. Still, lots count for something, and so does combustion. I can see that in my own chart, and I can see it in clients' charts, and I do believe combustion combusts even when someone's got Venus in Libra on Spica conjunct the Sun, or the Sun in Aries and Venus in Taurus a degree and a half apart. (And even though I can see that combustion combusts, I still breathe a sigh of relief that those planets aren't the other way round. What can I say? I'm weird.)

Curt, I love your theories and your historical background on this (and hope to see a paper from you, at least, on the subject), though the Hebrews would have seen it a somewhat different way (I won't get into much niggling here, it's not worth it, let's just say that nouns and reification weren't a big part of old Hebrew, even the biblical kind). It doesn't matter, it's still just as profound.

Deb, I love the way you drew out the heart analogy.

steven wrote:
And these are just a few. So I can't agree in the least with that assertion that Valens is weak in delineation. Delineation is judgment and that is what Valens spends so much time talking about; how to judge the outcomes of the significations; whether it was reputation or acquisition or length of life etc.

I was referring more specifically to the chart examples where he gives a long list of planets and then says something like "the native died in the 53rd year being trampled by quadrupeds". There is typically a lot of analysis and one or two definitive statements in each of the 120 or so chart examples. You have taken it out of the context that Olivia was dealing with in which there was an implied comparison between a modern approach where a few simple techniques would say a whole lot, versus someone like Valens who will say something like" if the planet is of the sect, witnessed by benefics, with the chart support being brilliant, etc then (insert one definitive statement here)... In other words there are far more conditions being used to get at a specific statement of fact. So you really have to draw on a lot of different tools to say one thing. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

steven wrote:
And these are just a few. So I can't agree in the least with that assertion that Valens is weak in delineation.

Also, I never said that Valens is weak on delineation. I said that he was sparse on delineation and by that I mean that Valens has a higher ratio of technique : meaning. I think that Valens is very exacting and profound, but it is very different than modern texts where there are pages upon pages written about the nature of Saturn without any account whatsoever of Saturn's state.

I feel compelled to point out that Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a grocer, has mercury, lord of MC, combusted in Libra, fall of sun.

Deb wrote:Not chance Curtis, I agree - but an extension of it; so it follows the philosophy and is part of it, extending from it rather than predating it. But that's a big subject and I only have little time, so I was a little vague deliberately I'm just flagging my disagreement to the point whilst knowing I can't properly justify my disagreement at this time, so that I don't feel obliged to express my disagreement whenever the principle gets discussed in the forum. Hope you understand.

Digging around I have found what bothered me about the assertion that the exaltations came from Bablyonian origin. The bit nisriti (or secret places) do not match up to the example charts where exaltations should have been found:

http://horoscopicastrologyblog.com/2008 ... astrology/

Given as I stated before, that the Thema Mundi pretty much locked in the arrangement of concepts in a schematized manner that makes it fairly obvious when an astrological concept falls out of place, is there some other rationale other than the "secret places" that can account for the exaltations coming from Babylonian origin?

Hi all!

It is very interesting subject from one side, but from the other side it is one of those subjects which leads to the battlefield of opinions of 'to burn or not to burn that is the question', the famous doubt of Hamlet.

I think that Venus in 25, Sun in 29 Libra, she will push her chariot's power to the Sun, it is like a host excepting the King in its home, even though the King is not feeling quite well in that place.

But the thing is that Venus will not reach the Sun in Libra; Sun would already be in Scorpio when she'll make exact conjunction with it, and this is not a perfect reception. What she offers to push to the Sun, is not being accepted for the mere reason that Venus is no host of Sun anymore when this happens, host becomes Mars and Venus will be in detriment there. What she can offer to the Sun in Scorpio is debility.

This is for the reception thing in this particular example offered in the beginning of the discussion here.
As for 'whether the Lot can be combust', I recently thought it can't. But than Abu Ali surprised me that he would not ignore the fact that the Lot is combust or "under the Sun's beams".

In "On Judgments of Nativities", in chapter 29 of Dykes translation in Persian Nativities I, where Abu Ali speaks about the religion of the native, on the Lot of Faith he says:

"But if it were with the Sun (not, however, being under his rays), the native will be wise, esteeming (his) name and a good reputation)"

It is supposed that "On Judgments of Nativities" is a book made out of the notes which Abu Ali scribed listening (or reading) his master Masha'allah.
So, these Persian astrologers would notice if the Lot is under the beams of the Sun, just the same as they would notice if some planet is under the beams of the Sun.

But as in the case of the planets, I don't think that the lot will be inoperative. I think it would be "at leisure", as Robert Schmidt translated the Greek word "achrematistikos". What this means?

Speaking about the places conducive to business, Serapio not only that divided the Places conducive (chrematizos) to business, but also a conditions when a planet is conducive to business, that is, when it makes appearance for example.

So, making an appearance is similar to, as a planet is getting out of its "leisure", out to conduct its business. Being "at leisure" does not mean that the planet will do nothing, but will do less probably, as a lazy man drinking beer and watching football games, he can do some things (like drinking beer lol), but his laziness is limiting him.

Abu Ma'shar in Libri Mysterium gives interesting metaphor:

"When Venus is free from the sunbeams, it is like a woman who being already subjected to needs and to torments and to diseases, recovers health;"

(Bezza/Dudziak translation).

So, going out of the Sun's beams is like a 'recovering'. Like the football players after an injury, they are making some cardio trainings while they are injured, but when they are fully recovered, they are prepeared for business (game).

Ptolemy advises us to look at the planet which makes an appearance by transit, telling us that these planets brings "intensification" of the things.

But why would the lot be capable of being burned just the same as the planet?
I suppose that this is a matter of visibility. The lot is not visible to the other planets to conduct a business, to make interactions, and being regarded.

Lots are mathematical derivations, and has numerological value. They are not real physical astral phenomena like the planets and fixed stars.
Therefore the naturalists from the renaissance questioned the usage of them.

Houses are also mathematical divisions of the sky around us, but we can see how Schoener looked at the close aspects which planets make to the house cusps. So, we can see that the old astrologers would look at interaction between the real astronomical phenomena and the derivative or mathematical one. If the Lot can be aspected badly, why would not be influenced by the Sun's beams too? If a planet can be influenced by the beams, the lot can be influenced too.

I'm a believer that astrology is a kind of philosophical language which is translated from the astronomical phenomena, with a doze of mathematical-numerological (Pythagorean if you like) usage of number. The interactions of the real astronomical phenomena and the number or derivative numerological phenomena exist on a very subtle level, which these ancients noticed, acknowledged and used.

So yes, I believe that a Lot can be combusted, and this will make him "at leisure", not so operative, or intensive (or Loud if you like), as if it were free from the Sun's beams and visible.

These are just my thoughts.
But there are so many more experienced astrologers then me here, and I may be wrong. These were just my philosophical ramblings

Best,
Ile