skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

planet in domicile
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1430

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geoffrey wrote:

Well Johannes, [...] However, your [...] has drawn attention to the possible problems of using the table of fortitudes and debilities of the planets in the simple way as I just did.

Geoffrey


Your last explanations show me, that I was obviously mistaken to understand your sentence above was the end of our dissenting as to the table in CA, page 115.
Sorry not to have been clear enough in this matter, Geoffrey. So I shall try again to explain my understanding of Lilly tomorrow not at all seeing any inconsistency in his teachings as to this topic.

Best wishes,
Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
This may be a simple question for all you smarty pants but if a planet is in its domicile but combust the Sun does that cancel out the affliction?


In ancient astrology a planet in one of its 'chariots' ie domicile, exaltation or bound was seen as free from the destructive effects of being under the Sun's beams. Planets were also seen as outside the most destructive aspects of being under the beams if they were 'synodical' with the Sun. In other words in partile conjunction.

This idea became much more narowly defined in medieval astrology where the notion of cazimi was later restricted to just 17 minutes proximity to the Sun.

The notion of combustion is a later development of medieval astrology. Originally, there was only the 15 degree zone around the Sun where planets were 'Under the beams'. However, in ancient astrology the sign boundary had no role in providing protection for a planet. I dont know where Lilly derived the notion that the combustion could not cross the sign boundary. Astronomically, a planet in close proximity to the Sun will be invisible regardless of what sign it is in. Hence there is always a sense of 'hiddeness' about the way a planet manifests.

This topic has come up several times on the forum over the years. Probably the longest thread on the topic of combustion was this one dating back to 2004!

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=716&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1430

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geoffrey wrote:
Thankyou Johannes, for your clarification. You would appear to be in the camp that regards being combust as an absolute property. If a planet is combust, it is sick and ineffective, as Lilly and other traditional texts say, regardless of its other dignities and fortitudes.
Combustion is one of the greatest afflictions of a Planet, but of course not without regard of its other fortitudes. I follow the Ancients as you can see in my example above where the dignity of being in his own house (5 fortitudes) is by combustion (5 debilities) 'burnt to nothing' (0 strengths). This could be improved by other dignities added as strengthsto this 'nothing'.

Geoffrey wrote:
However, some "modern" authors regard being combust as relative in its effect. Being combust is a handicap, which can be offset to the extent that a planet can still have significant strength and efficacy if well dignified in other ways.
But this is exactly what the Ancients say, see above.

johannes susato wrote:

The numbers of fortitudes and debilities can be counted up, essential and accidental dignities and debilities can not.
Geoffrey wrote:

What you say here is, of course, contrary to what Lilly says about the use of the table on page 115.
No, Geoffrey, and that this is exactly the repetition of Lilly's writings will become clear at once.

Geoffrey wrote:

Lilly does not actually give instructions on the use of the table, saying that he will show how it is used in a later example. And indeed, come page 178, we have our example. It is clear in this example that Lilly is putting Essential Dignities and Accidental Fortitudes in the same bucket on one side of the equation, and Debilities and Accidental Debilities in the same bucket on the other side of the equation. Lilly goes on to count up the "Fortitudes" (Essential Dignities with Accidental Fortitudes) and takes from this sum the "Debilities" (Debilities with Accidental Debilites). The resulting number is the strength of the planet.
In p. 178 Lilly does the same as in p. 115: He turns essential and accidental dignitíes (not accidental fortitudes as you write!) in fortitudes, put in positive testimonies, and he turns essential and accidental debilities in debilities, put in negative testimonies. Thus it is simply not correct to say: "that Lilly is putting Essential Dignities and Accidental Fortitudes in the same bucket on one side of the equation, and Debilities and Accidental Debilities in the same bucket on the other side of the equation." "Put in the bucket" are the testimonies (+ 5 down to - 5) and only these abstract testimonies, called fortitudes and debilties are computed with, not the concrete dignities (as domicile) and debilities (as combustion, for example).

Geoffrey wrote:
Lilly does not state that being combust is a special case to be considered on its own merits when judging the strength of a planet by the use of this table.A planet is either not combust, which gives it 5 points on one side of the equation; or it is combust, which gives it five points on the other side of the equation.
How could he doe otherwise handling abstract testimonies here? And how could it be otherwise in abstract counting?

Geoffrey wrote:
Effectively then, being combust is worth 10 debility points - which is roughly equivalent to the (effective) 9 debility points for being retrograde.
Would this not be more 5 and 4 testionies?

Geoffrey wrote:
Would you say the debilitating effect of being retrograde is similar to being combust....? I suspect not.
In negative testimonies: yes, in concrete kind of debilities: no.

Geoffrey wrote:
Having totted up the points though, you could be left with a planet which was still reasonably strong and effective, despite being combust, as with the example I gave earlier.
Yes, we are in agreement.

Geoffrey wrote:
So, the table of Fortitudes and Debilities on page 115 does not seem to accurately reflect what Lilly says elsewhere about a planet being combust, or indeed what other authors of that era and earlier say about a planet being combust.

It would seem that Lilly is inconsistent about the effects of being combust, being an absolutist in some places and a relativist in others, and I suspect that this has resulted in a divergence of opinions today about how serious being combust is.
The tables in p 115 and 159 are alwys the same and reflect the strenght of a Planet in testimonies. But it is not to be seen how and why these range of numbers for the Planets come about at all. So you have to look at the paricular dignities and debilities and when there is combustion, it's specilal effect is always acting, whatever the strength of the Planet might be.

Best wishes, hoping you can forgive my delay Very Happy

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thankyou Johannes, for your patient and detailed response. I will likewise earnestly meditate upon it.

Geoffrey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AquariusMoonPerson



Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Posts: 82

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

great responses...so much to take in...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spark



Joined: 17 Oct 2014
Posts: 4

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,


I think i could give some informations about combustion. I have it and deal with it in the real life.

Equal houses /sideral zodiac
ASC 22 Virgo
2nd house 22 libra

Sun 23.05 libra
Venus 22.45 Libra
Jupiter 19.04 libra
Moon 7.28 libra
Neptune 10.49 libra

10th Nov 1958 - Paris - Local time 5.10 AM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated