Skyscript Astrology Forum

Dear All:-)


I was thinking about reception and I came to some ideas I?d like to discuss.
First of all, reception is basically rulership. If a planet rules a sign and is on another, there is a relationship based in reception between him and the dispositor of the sign.
The relationship of the ruler and the planet ruled is nothing more than a reception, mutual or not.
It happens a really deep relationship, since that the events in a house will depend of its dispositor.
Masha'allhah, Zahal, Bonatti, said that reception takes away all the malice. But how it can be true in the case that the planets are in dangerous" or negative houses?
Maybe (and I?ll put a big MAYBE here, because who am I to contradict the weight of Masha'allha Zahal, Alchabitius and others?) ... but it is a question that I raise and it has some support in the charts I have examined. Is it possible that reception had been a beautiful theoretical concept, since in theory the idea that a planet and another one being exchanging houses gives an idea of harmony and good profit coming from this kind of intimate relationship? It is something to think about.
Let?s see: if a planet receives another and is received, it means that both will offer their matter to each other in order to realize the goals of each other. The received planet will help to materialize the intents or goals of the one who receives him. The other, on another hand, will also materialize the things and intentions of the first planet.
I would attach a hypothetical chart here , but I have yet to manage the resources of the site , so I urge you to make an effort to realize what I mean..
Imagine Mars is in Sagittarius in the 8th house and Jupiter in Scorpio in the 7th house. What happens? The 7th house matters are the reason of the
8th house( partner's money, inheritances, but also death). The 7th House is the house of partnerships and open enemies, and is in opposition to the ASC. Jupiter, a benefic is there, but ruled by Mars. This is a case in which Jupiter is a accidental malefic (for being opposed to the ASC and ruled by a malefic in the 8th, to which he obey)
On the other hand, the 8th House, i.e. inheritance, death, taxes, etc.., has its reason in the partnership and open enemies, matters of the 7th house. They do whatever the other wants for good or bad.
What I want to say in a nutshell is that reception is a positive thing between planets in a good houses (now putting aside celestial dignities) Otherwise, the reception may be harmful.

I?ll really appreciate to know your ideas about that!

best wishes

Cl?lia

Very stupid question: How could planets be in reception in that scenario?

Mars in Sag won't be able to see Jupiter in Scorp. I don't think you can have a reception without aspect. You might have a generosity, which seems to me - in practise, at least - to be quite a lot weaker than reception.

But I may be misunderstanding you. I do take your meaning, though. There are times when a one-way reception is far preferable to a mutual reception, and sometimes it's just as well to keep certain planets unconnected completely!

Clelia Romano wrote:What I want to say in a nutshell is that reception is a positive thing between planets in a good houses (now putting aside celestial dignities) Otherwise, the reception may be harmful.

I guess that depends on the zodiacal state of the planets involved. You cannot leave essential dignities outside of the equation. I don't believe that two planets in mutual reception have to behold each other for the reception to work, the fact that two planet are in each other's houses must mean something, but how this will work out in the end depends on the essential and accidental state of these planets, if there are any aspects involved (because that will show definite and concrete action and events), and also on the houses that they rule.

I guess that depends on the zodiacal state of the planets involved. You cannot leave essential dignities outside of the equation. I don't believe that two planets in mutual reception have to behold each other for the reception to work, the fact that two planet are in each other's houses must mean something, but how this will work out in the end depends on the essential and accidental state of these planets, if there are any aspects involved (because that will show definite and concrete action and events), and also on the houses that they rule

I agree to the point that

the fact that two planet are in each other's houses must mean something,

.

Studying 320 suicide?s charts one by one I saw much good essential planets working harmfully anytime they were linked by reception ( or rulership). For example the ASC being Scorpio, and the Sun being in the ASC using whole signs, but by quadrtants in the 12th. Mars is in Capricorn, so in this case there is aspect by sign( but not by degree). In the 7th just upon the cusp we have the Moon in conjunction with Jupiter in Taurus, both disposed by Venus in Sagittarius. Venus is in conjunction Mercury, the ruler of the 8th. Strike one ( because of Mercury and Strike 2 because Moon and Jupiter were in the 7th, in opposition to the ASC)
Strike 3: Mars was receiving the Sun, universal significator of life.

I have many many examples when you see the old rule working, the good or bad of a house depends on the ruler of the house.
BTW, generosity, if I understood Abu Mashar, has to do with this kind of reception, not by aspect but by dignity.

Thanks for your contribution!

Cl?lia

Clelia Romano wrote:

Olivia wrote:Very stupid question: How could planets be in reception in that scenario?

Mars in Sag won't be able to see Jupiter in Scorp. I don't think you can have a reception without aspect. You might have a generosity, which seems to me - in practise, at least - to be quite a lot weaker than reception.

Maybe it is a stupid question, but someone have to ask them or astrology and science would never develop.

I can always be counted on for that

I do take your meaning, though. There are times when a one-way reception is far preferable to a mutual reception, and sometimes it's just as well to keep certain planets unconnected completely!

was thinking something like that. But I went a little further: perhaps the most important thing to take into account in judging reception is that the good or bad depends on the houses where it happens, maybe more than on planets?s dignities.

Cl?lia

I was actually thinking the same thing. For example, you don't want reception between your 1 and 8 rulers if you can help it.

If it has be be, then have 8 receive 1, under no circumstances have 1 receive 8. And mutual reception seems just as bad, if not worse, though I'll still argue that with aspect it's far more noticeable.

I've got one of those charts where everything is received - including my besieged ascendant ruler. Then I read Rob Hand's book on sect, and he uses Franklin Roosevelt's chart - Roosevelt may have been president, but he didn't have a particularly good life, and he's got everything received.

I've a young client who has a besieged and highly dignified 7 ruler, Mercury, conjunct Mars in Virgo, in near-partile trine to a highly dignified Saturn in Capricorn that rules his 1st house of Aquarius. To say that his life is unhappy would be a bit of an understatement.

I'm actually starting to wonder if the more dignified the planet is, the worse it can be - depending on the house rulership - because I keep seeing these patterns over and over.

But I still don't see half the mess without aspect as I do with aspect. It could be that I haven't paid enough attention to it, but...

Hello,

The concept of reception (and mutual reception) has been discussed thoroughly and too many times in this forum but as the clich? goes, ?it is better to discuss and not come to a conclusion than to come to a conclusion without discussing it completely?.

It is my believe that the application and delineation of reception, mutual reception and mutual generosity can only be discerned by looking at all of the following concepts; pushing, returning and reception in all of its variants. I?ll be using MashaAllah?s Book On Reception (Works of Sahl & MashaAllah, trans. Ben Dykes, Cazimi Press, 2008), Abu Mashar?s Abbreviation and Greater Introduction (Introductions to Traditional Astrology, Abu Ma?shar and Al-Qabisi, trans. Ben Dykes, Cazimi Press, 2010) and Avraham Ibn Ezra?s Beginning of Wisdom (trans. Meira Epstein, Arhat, 1998).

In the discussion below, A is the lighter planet (faster moving planet) and B is the heavier planet (slower moving planet).

Pushing:
In ?pushing?, we must have an applying conjunction or aspect (the traditional Ptolemaic aspects) and it is always the faster moving planet that ?pushes? something to the slower moving planet.

Hence,
1. When A is neither in the same sign nor in whole sign aspect to B, there is no ?pushing?.

2. When A is in the same sign as B or is in whole sign aspect to B, there is no ?pushing? if the conjunction or aspect is separating.

When A is in applying conjunction or aspect to B:
1. A is not in one of his own essential dignities and A is not in one of B?s essential dignities, then we have A pushing management or counsel to B. In this case, A pushes his signification to B.

2. A is not in one of his own essential dignities, A is in one of B?s essential dignities, then we have A pushing nature to B. In this case, A pushes his planetary nature onto B.

3. A is in one of his own essential dignities, A is not in one of B?s essential dignities, then we have A pushing power, strength or virtue to B. In this case, A pushes his ?resources? onto B, in other words, B would benefit from the strength of A.

Essential dignities here can mean one of the five essential dignities but domicile and exaltation would definitely be stronger.


Reception
1. When A is in applying conjunction or aspect to B and A is in one of B?s essential dignities, then B receives A. Ben Dykes calls this classical reception. [This is the most common reception that many authors discuss about and it is the best combination because there is mutual connection i.e. A pushes nature to B and B receives A].

2. When A is in applying conjunction or aspect to B and B is in one of A?s essential dignities, then A receives B. Ben Dykes calls this reversed classical reception. [In this case A will be doing two things i.e. A pushes management or counsel to B and A receives B]. Observe that both faster and slower moving planets can receive another (unlike pushing where only faster moving planet pushes the other).

3. When A is in applying conjunction or aspect to B and A is in one of B?s essential dignities and also B is in one of A?s essential dignities, then A receives B and B receives A. This is called strong mutual reception. [In this case A pushes management or counsel to B, A receives B and B receives A].

4. When A is separating trine or sextile from B and A is in one of B?s essential dignities and also B is in one of A?s essential dignities, there is weak mutual reception by whole sign. Note that Abu Ma?shar limits the aspect to sextile and trine only!

5. When A is not in whole sign aspect to B and A is in one of B?s essential dignities and also B is in one of A?s essential dignities, and both are in signs that are connected by equal daylight (antision) or ruled by the same domicile lord (like engirding) or connected by equal ascensions (contrascions), there is also weak mutual reception.

6. The concept of ?Generosity? as quoted by many members here is the one defined by Avraham in Ibn Ezra, i.e. when two planets are in each other?s domicile, or exaltation, or some other rulership, even though they do not join nor aspect one another.

In the first three cases of reception above, essential dignities here can mean one of the five essential dignities but domicile and exaltation would definitely be stronger (as in pushing). Abu Ma?shar also wants that if the lower dignities are involved, you should have two of them (to make the reception stronger). MashaAllah seems to restrict to domicile and exaltation in his definition of reception.

Note that when Abu Ma?shar discusses on the topic of ?Returning?, it is actually a case of failed pushing (and not a case of failed reception!).

In your example (Clelia) you have Mars in Sagittarius and Jupiter in Scorpio. Scorpio and Sagittarius do not aspect ach other (whole sign) and there is no connection via equal daylight, equal ascension or like engirding. Hence, there is no pushing and reception (neither strong nor weak reception). However, the example fits the definition given by Avraham Ibn Ezra i.e. Generosity. I would imagine that Jupiter is in Mars? house and Mars is in Jupiter?s house but they cannot connect with each other (not by seeing, not by hearing, no by telephone, not by email, etc.). Hence, they will be nice to each other not because they want to be nice to each other but because each has a silent understanding of not wrecking each others? houses!

Examples:
In the following examples, I would be considering the domicile and exaltation dignities only for simplicity. I am also ignoring pushing two natures (as this is ambiguous) and postponing the discussion on Returning.

1. Moon (5Aqu) applying to Jupiter (10Ari). Moon pushes management or counsel to Jupiter.

2. Mercury (10Aqu) applying to Saturn (12Sag). Mercury pushes nature to Saturn and Saturn receives Mercury.

3. Moon (8Can) applying to Mercury (10Ari). Moon pushes power, strength or virtue to Mercury.

4. Moon (8Can) applying to Jupiter (10Ari). Moon pushes power, strength or virtue to Jupiter and Jupiter receives Moon.

5. Venus (10Pis) applying to Jupiter (12Tau). Venus pushes nature as well as power/strength/virtue to Jupiter. Jupiter receives Venus and Venus receives Jupiter (strong mutual reception).

6. Moon (10Can) applying to Jupiter (12Can). Moon pushes nature as well as power/strength/virtue to Jupiter. Jupiter receives Moon and Moon receives Jupiter (strong mutual reception). Note also that both planets are in their own essential dignities!

7. Moon (10Pis) separates from Jupiter (8Can). Weak mutual reception by whole sign.

8. Mercury (12Sco) separates from Mars (7Vir). Weak mutual reception by whole sign.

9. Mercury in Cancer and Moon in Gemini. Weak mutual reception by equal daylight (antiscion).

10. Mars in Leo and Sun in Scorpio. Weak mutual reception by equal ascension (contrascion).

11. Mars in Aquarius and Saturn in Capricorn. Weak mutual reception by like engirding.

12. Mars in Libra and Venus in Scorpio. Ibn Ezra's Generosity.

Examples with questions:
1. Moon (8Sco) applying to Mars (10Cap). Moon pushes nature to Mars. Mars receives Moon. It seems that Mars receiving Moon is OK but would Moon push her nature when she is in her depression?

2. Moon (8Can) applying to Mars (10Sco). Moon pushes power, strength or virtue to Mars but Moon is pushing to her depressed sign. What does this mean to the power pushed by Moon? Would she want to do the pushing? Mars ?rejects? Moon because she is in his enemy?s house (the reverse of reception). What would this ?rejection? do to the power pushed by Moon? Btw, both are proud where they are as both are in their domiciles. However, both are of the same sect and the aspect is the best aspect friendship (trine).

Thank you for the very useful sources, astrojin!

Can anyone provide the differences between signification (counsel/management), nature and resources for pushing?

In ?pushing?, we must have an applying conjunction or aspect (the traditional Ptolemaic aspects) and it is always the faster moving planet that ?pushes? something to the slower moving planet.

3. A is in one of his own essential dignities, A is not in one of B?s essential dignities, then we have A pushing power, strength or virtue to B. In this case, A pushes his ?resources? onto B, in other words, B would benefit from the strength of A.

I must have misunderstood the concept, but I always thought that the planet applied to could have pushing power when they were essentially dignified and receive the applying, and the applying was applying non-dignified and not receiving the applied to. I believe Robert Hand also mentions this in his "Reception" YouTube, and he makes no distinction between who is applying, just that the one dignified and receiving is pushing strength, dignity, etc. I thought this meant that the weaker planet (or the essentially poor one, basically) needs the strength of the other to push something onto it (to make it more positive). But from the sounds of your quotes here, the push is also from the weaker planet in a scenario just because they are applying? So why does an applying planet push even when they are weaker? What does that mean exactly because I thought of a push as a force, and a weak planet cannot force (at least not well/effectively)?

So the "push" concept implies that the swifter is offering or bringing something to the slower? The inferior goes to the superior and the superior agrees or not (the steward-king relationship)? If so, how does that differ from reception? Or does it actually mean the applying planet makes (forces) the applied to do something?

Plus, an inferior cannot really push a superior (at least not well)? Say Venus pushing Saturn? Can she really alter his energies even if she is positive and receives him and applies to him? Venus bends to Saturn's will by nature, not vice versa.

And Moon and Mercury are both changed dramatically by whatever they are aspecting, due to their changefulness. Lilly, for example, mentions how Mercury in Aries separating from Mars in Aries acts as Mars in Aries would upon meeting the next planet (Mercury next applying to conjunct Saturn in Aries).

I also wondered if a superior can seek the inferior out, hence perhaps them sometimes pushing...

When I was introduced to this concept in the forum, someone mentioned my natal Venus in Aries conjunct Mars in Aries (Venus applying) and said that Mars pushes his disposition onto Venus and forces her to do things (he pushes strength). So this sounds like a classical reception and not a push influence from your sources: A applying to B in one of B's dignities. I am confused now... I need to find the other thread on this.

I hope I made some sense here. I am quite tired...

Hello,

When I first studied reception, I was taught that Reception and Pushing (or rather, committing disposition) are equivalent (except in some minor details). Later, when I was reading through John Frawley's books (RA, RAA and Horary Textbook), I saw that Frawley reverses the "who likes who" part when compared to, say Lilly - which of course, adds to the confusion. I was struggling through the difference of a planet committing disposition and a planet receiving another because I cannot see them as being equivalent. When I read Abu Ma'shar's "The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology", edited and trans. by Charles Burnett, ARHAT's publication, I knew that they had to be different (which I suspected all along). Abu Ma'shar discusses four types of "pushings". Following this, he then discuses the concept of Returning. Further down his list of definitions, he discusses the concept of Reception. So, I made my own working definitions that I have been testing all these years.

When Ben Dykes released his Introductions to Traditional Astrology, Cazimi Press, 2010, he translated not only the Abbreviation but he also translated Al-Qabisi?s introduction and excerpts of Abu Ma?shar?s Greater Introduction to make clear the concepts that Abu Ma?shar discusses in his Abbreviation. On top of these, he also gave many examples explicating the concepts to the best of his abilities and I found that his explication is very similar to mine. So, I could simply refer others to this book as a major reference to Pushings, Returning and Reception (rather than accepting my peculiar take on these concepts!).

Firstly, pushing is not the same as reception. The fact that Abu Ma?shar listed them in different places in his Abbreviation and Greater Introduction verifies this (and there are the definitions themselves which are very different!). Another point of interest is that Abu Ma?shar listed the definition of Returning following the definitions of Pushings. Hence, the conclusion that I made that Returning is the failure of pushing and not the failure of reception (as mentioned in the previous post).

From Tanit:

I must have misunderstood the concept, but I always thought that the planet applied to could have pushing power when they were essentially dignified and receive the applying, and the applying was applying non-dignified and not receiving the applied to.

Reading Ben Dykes? translation of Abu Ma?shar (and his examples), it is quite clear that when A applies to B, A is doing the pushing. The essential dignities of A (whether in one of its own essential dignity or in one of B?s essential dignities) or lack thereof determines what A is pushing (and not whether he pushes or not for the faster moving planet always pushes something when applying to another). If A is in one of B?s essential dignities, B receives what A is pushing (A is pushing nature in this case).

From Tanit:

Plus, an inferior cannot really push a superior (at least not well)? Say Venus pushing Saturn? Can she really alter his energies even if she is positive and receives him and applies to him? Venus bends to Saturn's will by nature, not vice versa.

A faster moving planet pushes a slower moving planet because he is faster! But this does not mean that the slower moving planet will be ?moved? by the faster moving planet. The faster moving planet is pushing something to the slower moving planet. Imagine a slower moving planet staying in one place (for simplicity) and the faster moving planet coming to him to push something to him. I think this is why Lilly said that the faster moving planet is the one ?more eager?. I also think this is why Sahl looks at the condition of the slower moving planet to see the outcome of a horary question (in various places of his Book ?On Questions? - see Works of Sahl and MashaAllah, trans. By Ben Dykes, Cazimi Press, 2008). When two planets apply to each other and will perfect the aspect, the condition of the slower moving planet will determine the final outcome of the matter because if its condition is really bad, the matter will go forth (perfection) but later dissolved. This is because the faster moving planet has committed or pushed the matter to the slower moving planet and it is up to the slower moving planet to determine the final outcome following perfection. Now, if the slower moving receives the faster moving planet, the faster moving planet is definitely pushing nature to the slower moving planet which is very good for horary (the one Ben calls classical reception).

From Tanit:

I thought this meant that the weaker planet (or the essentially poor one, basically) needs the strength of the other to push something onto it (to make it more positive). But from the sounds of your quotes here, the push is also from the weaker planet in a scenario just because they are applying? So why does an applying planet push even when they are weaker?

The slower moving planet will only gain the strength of the faster moving planet when the faster moving planet is pushing power to the slower moving planet (not pushing nature or counsel/management).

From Tanit:

Lilly, for example, mentions how Mercury in Aries separating from Mars in Aries acts as Mars in Aries would upon meeting the next planet (Mercury next applying to conjunct Saturn in Aries).

With all due respect to Master Lilly, I think this should only be applied when Mercury is transferring light from Mars to Saturn.

From Tanit:

I also wondered if a superior can seek the inferior out, hence perhaps them sometimes pushing...

Perhaps on rare occasion when a superior is faster than an inferior (as it usually happens with Sun and Mars)?

From Tanit:

When I was introduced to this concept in the forum, someone mentioned my natal Venus in Aries conjunct Mars in Aries (Venus applying) and said that Mars pushes his disposition onto Venus and forces her to do things (he pushes strength). So this sounds like a classical reception and not a push influence from your sources: A applying to B in one of B's dignities. I am confused now... I need to find the other thread on this.

If Venus is in Sagittarius applying to Jupiter in Sagittarius, Venus is pushing nature to Jupiter and Jupiter receives Venus in his domicile but Venus is not detriment.

In your case, Venus is in Aries applying to Mars in Aries: Venus is pushing nature to Mars and Mars receives Venus in his domicile. But there is another complication here because Venus is also detriment! So, when we delineate Mars, we would have to consider that it also has a Venusian nature impressed on him (albeit it will be a detrimented Venusian nature) but Mars still calls the shot because he is in his own domicile.

When we delineate Venus, we will have to remember that she is detriment (and so would have some problems due to her debility) but Venus will be helped by Mars because Mars receives her (Venus in the domicile of Mars). Usually Venus would be unhappy in an environment of Mars but because Mars receives her, she would be fine in the matters connected to Aries because she gets her resources from the domicile of Aries (Mars).
Delineation example: If Mars signifies profession, you would have a martial profession but will also have a detrimented Venus nature e.g. a successful surgeon (Mars in Aries) who will also apply an alternative post-surgery treatment (detriment Venus) to your patients or a successful criminal lawyer (Mars in Aries) who will bend the rules (detriment Venus) to win in court. If Venus signifies profession, you could be a counselor (detriment Venus) who is not very successful in the mainstream world but somehow is successful in treating war vets with PTSD...

Another thing: Usually Venus will be afflicted if a malefic conjuncts, squares or opposes her. In this case, Venus is afflicted by conjunction with Mars BUT the affliction is abated because Mars receives her (as ?reception abates all malice? ? reception NOT pushing abates malice!).
BTW do you have many short term relationships?

From Tanit:

Can anyone provide the differences between signification (counsel/management), nature and resources for pushing?

At the moment I can only give what Ben suggests in his book. Pushing nature: the nature of the pushing planet is impressed upon the pushed to planet. Pushing power: the resources/power of the pushing planet is pushed to the slower moving planet which benefits the slower moving planet. Pushing management/counsel: the signification of the pushing planet is impressed onto the pushed to planet. I have yet to see whether this bears out in practice.

I was actually thinking the same thing. For example, you don't want reception between your 1 and 8 rulers if you can help it.

Why not if it abates all malice?

I wonder if much of the "debate" on reception is even necessary. To divide it up into reception, disposition, generosity, etc is hair splitting in the extreme. One planet influences the other. If there is an aspect, it influences it even more. If it is mutual they influence each other. That's it.

Grumpy post of the day.

Tom, the simple answer is that they are all different and have different effects. But not recognizing that means that they all become "influence", ignoring the several differences, like for instance, in horary if a planet will kill or not, or the personality of a person, or directionality of influence, etc, etc, etc

Tom wrote:I wonder if much of the "debate" on reception is even necessary. To divide it up into reception, disposition, generosity, etc is hair splitting in the extreme. One planet influences the other. If there is an aspect, it influences it even more. If it is mutual they influence each other. That's it.

I totally agree with you. After this, it is only an issue of interpreting the combined influences and their effect on the affairs of the native.