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:
The Life & Work of Vettius Valens
by Deborah Houlding
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 zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

On Reception
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Horary & Electional Astrology
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ouranos



Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Posts: 565

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:24 am    Post subject: On Reception Reply with quote

Clélia Romano is a Portuguese astrologer
In 2010 she published a book in Portuguese named 'Foundations of Traditional Astrology' followed by 'The Practice Od Traditional Astrology'(2013) 'Astrological Predictive Techniques'(2015) and in 2017 'The Lots and Other Subjects'.

She has this interesting article on Reception here
https://www.astrologiahumana.com/eua/artigos/
'Masha'allah's teachings in Horary Astrology' based on the translation of Robert Hand 'On Reception'

Quotes:
"...one of the 'considerations' frequently forgotten, that we need aspects to use reception. The reception between two planets without an aspect simply doesn't work, at least as far as I was able to understand in the present book." (Masha'allah uses whole signs, but he also uses degrees")

"...The fact that Mercury in Aries is received by rulership by Mars in Virgo and as well receives Mars in Virgo by rulership and exaltation does not means that they have authority to perfect the matter, unless another planet between both of them transfers the light of one to the other."

What I find interesting in her article is when she says 'we need aspects to use reception'.
Essentially, the 2 conditions must be met to make it work
An aspect + Reception

If I had to qualify it, I would say that a reception without an aspect would be like a 'smypathetic' relationship. I like you but there isn't much I can do for you.

She has other interesting articles in pdf Portuguese that can be Google translated.
_________________
Blessings!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmeliaS



Joined: 07 Apr 2020
Posts: 266

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ouranos, thank you for sharing your knowledge always. This does offer some clarity on Masha'allah's teaching. Valuable to me.

I once surveyed the major astrologers from the 13th to 17th century on whether mutual reception, without an aspect, perfects a matter or not. My summary is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive but I would post it here for study purpose as inspired by your own generosity.

https://imgur.com/a/2GiqAML

(Link opens to an image hosting website. There are 3 images.)


Last edited by AmeliaS on Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1579

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reception is a subject that comes up time and again and has experienced
vivid deates here on the forum.

Essentially there are two definitions of reception:

The one, and ancient one, claims an aspetct to be an essential part of
reception.

The other, newer one, does not claim an aspect for reception, i.e. a
reception is given, whether there is an apect - additionally - or not. So
reception can be with or without an aspect.

Ibn Ezra seems to be the first authority who mentions a reception without
aspect. He names it generosity (quotation will follow soon).

William Lilly and Morin de Villefranche were the first, who defined
reception and mutual reception completely without aspect.

Following the teachings of Lilly only very few and only some very special
matters can be brought about by mutual receptions alone. In the vast
majority of cases aspects are essential; and then, and only then,
reception and mutual reception are great helpers for the perfection of the
quesited.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1579

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:

Ibn Ezra seems to be the first authority who mentions a reception without
aspect. He names it generosity (quotation will follow soon).

Now:
Generosity is when two planets are in each other's domicile, or exaltation, or some other rulership, even thouhg they do not join nor aspect one another, there is [still] reception between them.
Avraham Ibn-Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, p.125. Translated by Meira B. Epstein.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ouranos



Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Posts: 565

Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2021 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Generosity is when two planets are in each other's domicile, or exaltation, or some other rulership, even thouhg they do not join nor aspect one another, there is [still] reception between them.
Avraham Ibn-Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, p.125. Translated by Meira B. Epstein.


Of course, that is what I said that reception can be without aspect.
Do they say that it is enough to 'perferct' the matter inquired about?

Please, show me a case where you have 2 significators in mutual reception but no aspect between the 2 and the Moon does not collaborate.
_________________
Blessings!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ouranos



Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Posts: 565

Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I once surveyed the major astrologers from the 13th to 17th century on whether mutual reception, without an aspect, perfects a matter or not. My summary is neither exhaustive nor comprehensive but I would post it here for study purpose as inspired by your own generosity


Thank you Amelia for sharing your file.

I don't have a definite stand on this but I just wanted to share the view of Clélia Romano on the subject. I have seen too many times people looking at a reception or mutual reception and stopping their judgment there thinking that this would perfect the matter.
We have more recent generations of horary astrologers who have been successful in reading charts without the idea of reception and they clearly point to the aspects.
I think the truth must be somewhere in between. Incorporating reception helps you 'qualify' the relationship between the querent and the matter sought after. Without neglecting the aspects. And the Moon as a story-teller of course!

Cheers!
Ouranos
_________________
Blessings!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmeliaS



Joined: 07 Apr 2020
Posts: 266

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 8:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ouranos wrote:
I think the truth must be somewhere in between. Incorporating reception helps you 'qualify' the relationship between the querent and the matter sought after. Without neglecting the aspects.


I think it's similar for me. I think of the lack of aspect as one noteworthy testimony in itself. Mutual reception without an aspect between major significators works to additional advantage to the querent if the Moon is aspecting to another planet strongly. Sometimes it is a pleasant surprise, you and the interviewer getting on like a house of fire, that sort of thing.

But it doesn't in itself (most notably without support of the Moon) guarantee results in my experience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1579

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clelia Romano:
For example, the reader can observe that I pointed out as one of the “considerations” the fact, frequently forgotten, that we need aspects to use reception. The reception between two planets without an aspect [2] , simply doesn’t work, at least as far as I was able to understand in the present book.

My point is, that Romano simply seems to mix the understanding of
a) what a reception is according to Masha'allah, and
b) and what is needed for the perfection of a quesited matter.

Other than in Lilly's or Morin's new definition of reception, that older one and that of Masha'allah needs an aspect or conjunction to be a reception at all:

Masha'allah:
[...] reception occurs because of exaltations and domiciles; that is, [it occurs] in such a manner that one of the seven planets is in the exaltation or domicile of a second planet, and that first planet is being joined to the second according to one of the seven recognized aspects; or they are both in one sign, and one of them is in the exaltation[or domicile] of its comrade and joined to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ouranos



Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Posts: 565

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johannes,

The quote you give from Masha'allah describes a reception with an aspect, which is essentially what Romano says.

I have yet to see an astrologer who based his practice on reception only.

Maybe I can clarify how I see it.
One of your friend has an opportunity to buy a house for a revenue.
He ask you 'Would you like to invest with me?' = He receives you.
But but but, the aspects do not work. Maybe you are living abroad and you can't come back to sign the papers. Maybe you just froze your money somewhere else. Or maybe you are not interested. = The aspects

Amelia
Have you seen examples of receptions by placement where it was enough to perfect the matter. For example, L7 in ASC with reception but without aspects?
_________________
Blessings!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1579

Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ouranos wrote:

The quote you give from Masha'allah describes a reception with an aspect, which is essentially what Romano says.

If you read carefully, you'll see the difference:

Masha'allah:
Reception = being in another planet's special dignity + Aspect.

Romano:
Reception = being in another planet's special dignity.


Last edited by johannes susato on Sat Oct 16, 2021 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ouranos



Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Posts: 565

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am quoting you who is quoting me who is quoting Clelia and I don't see anywhere where she is not using reception with aspects.

Quote:
Clelia Romano:
For example, the reader can observe that I pointed out as one of the “considerations” the fact, frequently forgotten, that we need aspects to use reception. The reception between two planets without an aspect [2] , simply doesn’t work, at least as far as I was able to understand in the present book.


Sorry Johannes but I don't see why you don't understand what she says. (Mercury retrograde!)
_________________
Blessings!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1579

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't blame Mercury, Ouranos. Very Happy

My text should be clear enough, I thought, but I'll try to give another
perspective, a little later, because the matter is interesting enough in
my opinion.

For now let me thank you for your quotations, because they show, that
Masha-allah does claim the position of only one of the planets in main
dignities of the other he is in aspect or conjuncion with, but no such a
mutually position of the two planets.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmeliaS



Joined: 07 Apr 2020
Posts: 266

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ouranos wrote:
Amelia
Have you seen examples of receptions by placement where it was enough to perfect the matter. For example, L7 in ASC with reception but without aspects?


I don't have an absolutely clear chart that is either positive or negative, but here is one on a business deal that I can share. The matter didn't perfect. There is obviously more than one negative sign in this chart, but the Querent's money (Jupiter in domicile) has a mutual reception with a planet that co-represents the Quesited's money (Venus in the 8th, also ruling 7th). As said the deal didn't come through. No money was made whatsoever. Not a dime.


Last edited by AmeliaS on Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ouranos



Joined: 28 Mar 2020
Posts: 565

Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2021 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you Amelia!

Early we learn to read charts
Later we read charts to learn.

Smile
_________________
Blessings!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1579

Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AmeliaS wrote:

... chart that is ... on a business deal

Amelia, to understand your chart correctly, could you quote the concrete
question, please?

Thanks in advance!


Last edited by johannes susato on Sun Oct 17, 2021 10:39 am; edited 1 time in total
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 1, 2  Next
Page 1 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