Skyscript Astrology Forum

Interesting discussion on Heston and Hendrix Tom. However, natal charts are like statistics. You can always find one to prove your point.

The first time I read your first post I assumed the same as Deb. I read John's quote as just using a similar turn of phrase that Culpeper is noted for to argue the point about combustion. Having read it more closely a few times, I still think that. Last year, when we were having a discussion about combustion, I went through 'Astrological Judgement of Diseases' fairly carefully to ascertain what Culpeper had to say. I think he mentioned combustion twice and only in passing. There was no discussion about it at all, just a comment on a combust planet in a chart. I am almost certain John did not get his argument from that book. He was simply using Mr Reason and Mr Experience as his authorities to be a little bit colourful in his explanation. I did not take him to mean that Culpeper had said this anywhere at all. John used this same turn of phrase in a talk I attended to prove a point about something else, which I think was mutual reception. He was attempting to explain his version of mutual reception, which wasn't quite the same as how many of us (including myself) were taught. Unfortunately, as is the case now, Mr Reason and Mr Experience were unable to convince me on that occasion either.

Although slightly off topic, this is pretty much what the considerations before judgment tell us: "As above so below, every now and then."

I have heard you say this before (and I know this is something John has said a number of times). However, I have never been quite sure of what it meant. I have no idea how either of you came to this conclusion. It?s one of those nice little catchphrases that John is famous for but what do you really mean? You seem to be suggesting that the considerations before judgement almost make a mockery of astrology and the philosophy of macrocosm/microcosm. 'As above' etc. either works or doesn't work and we can't have it both ways. Considerations imply that we are attempting to have it both ways. That is certainly what I get from John's explanation. Considerations do not imply that sometimes astrology works and sometimes it doesn?t. They are simply guidelines to watch out for. I know there is a chance here that I have misunderstood but I am also aware of John?s discussion on this topic and his attitude towards most considerations, dismissing them as unnecessary.

Astrology is not 100% consistent and never will be.

Is it astrology that is not 100% consistent or is it our ability to apply astrology correctly that is not 100% consistent?

Because I'm the man and I get to make the rules.

Perhaps you missed it Tom so you can be excused for thinking that this is still true. However, a week or so ago, BBC newsreader Michael Buerk, announced that, and I quote, ?Life is now being lived in accordance with women?s rules.? He is incredibly unhappy about this bit of news claiming that the shift in power is ridiculous and that society needed to admit there is a problem. Can?t see one myself.

Still, being a woman, I don?t really find it necessary to quote any authorities when I am able to think for myself and quote my own authority.

Hi Sue,

You can always find one to prove your point.

Exactly. That's why I said there would be cries of "unfair!" The other problem is that isolating one or two things and assigning them to the point we're trying to make may not be a fair reading as there are so many points in a chart to take into consideration. But looking at charts is usually more interesting than simply discussing theory, so I tossed them in. I was attracted by the almost total difference in life style among the two men and,, more importantly, I got to make snotty remarks about rock music!

Although slightly off topic, this is pretty much what the considerations before judgment tell us: "As above so below, every now and then."

I have heard you say this before (and I know this is something John has said a number of times). However, I have never been quite sure of what it meant. I have no idea how either of you came to this conclusion. It?s one of those nice little catchphrases that John is famous for but what do you really mean?

I'm referring to those who would look at a horary chart with, say, late degrees rising, and stop what they're doing immediately and say "Sorry I can't read this. There are 28 degrees on the ASC. Come back when the Universe is more accomodating." In other words it applies to people who use the considerations to avoid reading the chart.

This implies that there are times the cosmos cooperate and times it won't. "Late degrees rising in Boston? I'm not talking." In other words, the cosmos operates in horary every now and then. This of course is not true in natal astrology, or mundane or anything else. Therefore that while the considerations may well show us to exercise caution, they do not prevent the horary chart from being read. Every chart can be read. We just have to be more careful with some than with others. As above/so below is always in operation.

John gave a talk a few years back and used an example (I'm doing it again) where virtually all the major considerations were there, and so was the answer. All charts are "radical" is the point.

Is it astrology that is not 100% consistent or is it our ability to apply astrology correctly that is not 100% consistent?

Our application is not 100% consistent since we're all fallible. I can't find where I said that, although I remember writing it, and I don't remember the context. I probably meant to say what you just did. I'll have to look later when I have more time.

Perhaps you missed it Tom so you can be excused for thinking that this is still true. However, a week or so ago, BBC newsreader Michael Buerk, announced that, and I quote, ?Life is now being lived in accordance with women?s rules.?

It's always been that way, dear. That's the true secret of life.

Tom

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will but isn't there a belief that Mars cannot be combust because he is hotter and drier than the Sun?

There is this oft-reported ?thing? about Mars not suffering the effects of combustion. I believe the source of it is this 4th century comment from Firmicus:

?? nearness to the Sun is harmful to all planets. Certain astrologers, however, claim that Mars is favourable when setting [that is, setting into the Sun], when he is overwhelmed by the rays of the Sun, for being subservient to the Sun he loses his natural malefic qualities.? (Mathesis, 2:VIII.2)

As you can see, it is not saying that Mars cannot be combust, it is saying that Mars loses its power by being combust ? pretty much the same point that Bonatti makes.

how come you can quote Frawley (and Culpeper if he's on your side), yet when Sue refers to Bonatti and his very important reference on this matter, you write ?I don't think that quoting authority is going to get us anywhere.? !

Because I'm the man and I get to make the rules.

Many an astrologer has wanted to use that line

Ahh well, prepare to enjoy a unique experience. The man was wrong and the women right. I heard from John and he told me he didn't intend the reader to think he was quoting Culpeper. He was using Drs Reason and Experience to entice readers to go out and read Culpeper (a good idea and one with which we will all agree). So I stand corrected. This must be one of those things Churchill had in mind when he said America is separated from England (and by extension Australia) by a common language.

Many an astrologer has wanted to use that line

Yes, and none any more successfully than I used it.

Best

Tom

Dearest Tom,

I can only imagine how painful it was for you to have to announce that. I was always quite certain you were wrong on the Culpeper reference so I was looking forward to you having to admit it

But now I have to report some news that will lift your flagging spirits.
Last night I had a brief exchange of emails with Ben Dykes on an unrelated matter. Quite by coincidence he mentioned that he?d just returned from the ISAR conference where he had heard a lot of interesting things from the Project Hindsight team ? such as a reference to a planet being protected from the harming effects of the Sun?s rays when in its own sign. He hasn?t typed up his notes yet but will sort the details out later.

It doesn?t change my views on what I wrote earlier about the effect of this in interpretation, but at least we know that when John mentioned an ancient dispute on this, he is referring to a genuinely ancient dispute, and not an argument that was had in 1996 or something - which is starting to seem ancient because no one resolves it.

One last point about a comment you made in a recent post. You wrote:

we all have our favorites and usually with good reason, but that doesn't mean they are correct in all cases. Lilly's explanation of the temperament of the English Merchant is classic fudging of the issue.

I thought we?d covered that in the thread Was Lilly a good natal astrologer?

So many people have accused Lilly of error and have then later discovered that actually we were the ones who didn?t understand the traditional application of the technique properly. Of course Lilly wasn?t perfect and no one expects his book to be free from mistakes or weak areas. But there is a passage in the introduction to Maurice McCann?s ?Void of Course Moon? book that says it all as far as I am concerned. In explaining why Christian Astrology is so important he says:

?For one thing it is the most complete and influential book on horary today. There is no other book that does not owe a debt of gratitude to it, or can rival it. Besides, there are no other known sources where so many horoscopes can be studied for their use of rules and resolutions to questions. This book is widely used throughout the western astrological world and has a major influence on astrologers. It is generally believed that various technical problems can be solved through a study of Christian Astrology. However, it requires skilful reading between the lines to understand Lilly as he was never a lucid writer.?

Do let?s put aside these niggling doubts that Lilly wrote a remarkable book, but didn?t know what he was talking about when it came to astrology. I?m quite sure he was capable of knowing which planet best described his appearance and temperament. Was it a dignified Venus? We only have to look at his portrait to make a case against that

Can I widen the topic just a bit to ask another related question about combustion? I was having a discussion with another astrologer here and he said that you don't count a planet as being combust if it is one of the significators. I had a hard believing that because as I have always seen it, combustion is something that is easily seen - the Sun overpowers the planet and it becomes invisible, powerless. I don't see why just because it is the significator this wouldn't work. But this other astrologer said that you can?t count a planet combust if it is one of the significators, because that would mean that you couldn?t get a positive answer if the Sun were involved as a significator. He gave the example of if you asked about your money and the querent was say the Moon and the 2nd house ruler were the Sun and they were applying to being conjunct. Unless you set aside the combustion, this applying situation of them being conjunct would not give you the positive answer that is shown by them being conjunct. He said that you could never get a positive answer if the Sun was a significator. I countered that you could, if you had a trine or sextile aspect. And I cited the example of Lilly wanting to buy Mr. B's house, where Lilly is Venus and the seller is the Sun. I assumed that in that example, Lilly talks about Venus being combust. We had this talk when I was on my cell phone in my car so I didn?t have CA in front of me.

This other astrologer said (and he is right) that Lilly does not mention that Venus is combust in this example. He mention something about

notwithstanding Venus her many Debilities

While this could include combustion as one of Venus' debilities, it is not explicit. Setting aside the fact that Venus becomes conjunct to the Sun only after both switch signs, this example does show that the two of them made a deal even with Venus being combust.

So how do we handle these situations? Do we set aside the combustion? I find that hard to do. Do we say that if one of the significators is combust the Sun that what is asked about will not happen? If we do that, then how do we account for Lilly buying the house?

In the section where he talks about the four ways that a chart can show perfection, Lilly list conjunction as being the first one.

First, by Conjunction; when as therefore you find the Lord of the Ascendant, and Lord of that house which signifies the thing demanded, hastening to a Conjunction, and in the first house, or in any Angle, and the significators meet with no Prohibition or Refrenation, before they come to perfect Conjunction; you may then judge, that the thing sought after, shall be brought to passe without any manner of let or impediment, the sooner, if the Significators be in swift motion, and Essentially or Accidentally strong; but if this Conjunction of the Significators be in a Succedant house, it will be perfected, but not as soon: if in Cadent houses, with infinite losse of time, some difficulty, and much strugling.

He does not mention combustion here as an obstacle, just prohibition or refrenation. But in his definition of combustion Lilly says:

Use which you find most verity in: the significator of the Querent Combust, shews him or her in great fear, and over powred by some great person.

So he doesn?t say that you can?t have perfection, just that the significator is overpowered.

Hi Mark,

I started to reply to this post last night but I couldn't quite work out what your friend was saying. Since it was after 1am at the time I figured I was just tired. But I have to say that it still doesn't make much sense. Why on earth would you ignore combustion when it involves a signigicator? This is the very time we should be paying attention to it. I know Yuzuru mentioned awhile back that most horary astrologers disregard combustion when the main significators involved the Sun and a combust planet. I can't say that I have heard this before and I don't really see how this works.

He gave the example of if you asked about your money and the querent was say the Moon and the 2nd house ruler were the Sun and they were applying to being conjunct. Unless you set aside the combustion, this applying situation of them being conjunct would not give you the positive answer that is shown by them being conjunct.

This is what I really don't understand. He seems to be saying that the chart would have given a positive answer if it wasn't for the fact that the significator was combust so it is best to ignore the combustion. How can you ignore the combustion? It would be one of the most crucial elements in the chart.

He said that you could never get a positive answer if the Sun was a significator.

I have no idea what he means here. Is he saying that whenever the Sun is a significator and the other significator was combust then the answer will always be negative? The Sun isn't combust, the other significator is. If the Sun was a significator and a planet close to the Sun was a significator then it is the other planet that is in trouble. And yes, it is often difficult to get a positive answer when a major significator is combust. But horary isn't about working it so that the answer is positive. It is telling it like it is.

Do we say that if one of the significators is combust the Sun that what is asked about will not happen? If we do that, then how do we account for Lilly buying the house?

Lilly bought the house because he found enough positive factors to overcome the combustion. Even though he doesn't clearly say so, I doubt very much whether he would have disregarded the combustion because the planet in combustion was a significator. He does admit to some difficulties with the purchase though and it sounds like more of an emotional decision than one based soley on the factors in the chart.

I?m sorry I didn?t make this clearer, but it was hard for me to present my friend?s argument and do justice to it, and at the same time express my skepticism with it. I talked to my friend about this, and he told me to post Lilly?s example of ?A Horse lost or stolen neer Henley, if recoverable or not?? on page 467 of CA.

In this example Lilly uses the Lord of the 12th house, Mercury for the horse. The Sun is the Lord of the 2nd house, the man?s property. The Moon is the querent, as it?s the ASC ruler and it?s in the 2nd house. Mercury is retrograde and is less than one degree away from the Sun. Here?s what Lilly said,

forasmuch as Mercury did by his Retrograde motion apply to the Lord of the Querent?s house of Substance, and that the Moon was locally in the 2nd and both Jupiter and Mars Retrograde, neer the cusp of the 2nd, I judged the Querent should have his Goods or Horse quickly and unexpectedly, within a day to two from the time of the Question asked.

I know that Lilly never explicitly says that in cases like this you disregard the Sun?s combustion of the significator, but how else can you explain this chart? I would have said that the horse wanted to come back, but was prevented by the Sun?s combustion. Lilly clearly ignores the combustion. At the end of Book I, where Lilly gives the four ways where you get a positive answer, he lists conjunction as the first one. But he does not explicitly say that you get perfection unless the significator is combust. He does say that the only things that prevent perfection happening through conjunction are prohibition and refrenation. So maybe this is the case and my friend is right, though I doubted it at first.

But then again, I wouldn?t have known to use the 2nd house ruler in the way that Lilly did. I would have concentrated on the Moon as ASC ruler. But I think this is why Lilly gives these examples, to show how it?s not just a matter of following the rules by rote, it?s a matter of creatively and artfully using them. The 2nd house is quite strongly emphasized here, as the Moon. Jupiter and Mars are all in it, or almost in it. So maybe that?s why he concentrates on the 2nd house ruler.

When my friend showed me this example, I countered with yes the horse may come back but he?ll be afraid of his owner, or maybe sunburned from being outside (just kidding), trying to include the combustion into the reading. He said that no matter what, the answer was still a yes. Lilly makes no mention of the horse being afraid, overpowered, sunburned or anything else relating to combustion.

HI Mark,

I was going to refer to the ?Master B? horary earlier in the thread, in the discussion of Lilly?s LOG, because it is interesting to see how the question he asked in reference to a personal matter shows Lilly signified by a combust Venus. But at the same time he qualifies the radicality of the chart by the fact that the degree rising matches the degree of his natal Jupiter at 13.45 Libra.

I don?t agree with your friend. Having the querent?s significator combust is one of the considerations before judgement (there is no such thing as a stricture against judgement). It often shows the querent unable to influence the matter effectively or blinded to the reality of the situation and therefore unlikely to listen to the astrologer?s rational advice - ?neither question propounded will take, or Querent be regulated? (CA. p.121). We?ve had examples in the forum where someone has asked a horary and has been signified by a combust significator. They ignore the responses and ask the same question over and over. Thus, one of the meanings of having the querent?s sig combust is that the chart might be meaningful, but the querent is not open to what it has to say.

The Master B chart has been used as an example of this. Lilly admits that he got a hard bargain and lost out financially on the deal. I remember an article in the AA Journal years ago by Archie Dunlop where he proposed that Lilly had a secret crush on the seller?s daughter ( the ?very good friend in this?), because of his signification by the combust Venus, as only that could explain why he went ahead and bought the houses even though, as he admitted, he did himself an injury. Of course that is unsubstantiated gossip, more suited to the gutter press, but the chart is often presented as a very interesting chart because of the combustion.

As for the ?horse recovered? chart. The combust Mercury was signifying the horse. The combustion was applying. Two days later the horse was caught. Combustion signifies the loss of power and freedom, which is why it is used to signify imprisonment or feeling as trapped as a slave. This is exactly what happened to the horse, so the combustion was entirely descriptive of events.

Of course, not every chart should be avoided because of the combust significator, and the answer is never automatcially 'no', but one way or another it has a meaning, and it is often a negative influence on the chart or whoever is being signified by it.

My dear Deb,

Dearest Tom,

I can only imagine how painful it was for you to have to announce that. I was always quite certain you were wrong on the Culpeper reference so I was looking forward to you having to admit it.

It took far fewer glasses of bourbon than you might think.

It doesn?t change my views on what I wrote earlier about the effect of this in interpretation, but at least we know that when John mentioned an ancient dispute on this,

I see, so I may have lost the battle, but could still win the war. I'm not surprised.

On a more serious note. I do not think that Lilly was in any way an inferior natal astrologer. On the contrary he was as good as anyone past or present that I've come across. I think his natal work doesn't get the recognition it deserves becasue his horary work is so exceptional. I'm not sure if I wrote this here or some other place, but I often compare Lilly's horary work in CA to Orson Wells Citizen Kane. Wells never did anything as good after that and took heat for it, but no one else ever did anything as good as Citizen Kane either. It all depends on what it is that you're being compared to.

I only brought up Lilly because I thought he was such a good natal astrologer, and pointed out that like all humans, from time to time he erred.

I'm not leaving the fold Deb. If I could only keep one astrology text, I wouldn't think twice before selecting CA. horary and natal.

Tom

I've swapped e-mails all day with the other astrologer (who doesn't want to post here) and he summed up his position as follows,

When two significators are applying to a conjunction which would otherwise signify perfection of the question and one significator is the Sun, the fact of the other significator being combust is not necessarily an affliction, in fact it may even aid in signifying perfection of the question"

I think in the situation where you have two significators conjoining which would otherwise signify perfection of the question, and one is the Sun, that this situation is similar to one planet being retrograde in a lost item question, in other words combustion can be a good thing in this circumstance! Thus combustion signified capture for the horse, but this was not an affliction for the querent, in fact, it aided perfection of the question.

So I can accept what Deb said above, that the horse in Lilly's example was powerless to control his fate, as befits a significator that is combust, but at the same time, it does not deny the querant the return of the horse. So this view seems to acheive a nice resolution of the dispute - Mercury is still combust, it is still powerless, but this does not deny the positive outcome. So far so good.

My interpretation of this would be that combustion would not deny perfection, but only when free will is not a part of the perfection. In the case of the horse, he has no free will as long as he's either captured by the thief, or in the possession of his owner. Along this line of thought I asked my friend how he would read a chart if it were the horse that were represented by the Sun, and the owner's property by Mercury? He balked at first and said that he can't interpret a hypothetical chart, but when I called him on that he said that he didn't know the exact meaning of it, but still claimed that the querant would get a positive outcome, i.e., the horse would be returned.

I have trouble with that. If in the first scenario, the one that Lilly gave, the combustion does not matter because the combustion means that the horse is under the sway of it's owner, then the reverse much be true if the owner were Mercury and the Sun the horse. My friend disagrees. He says that his is his own idea, but it does seem to be born out by two of Lilly's own examples, the stolen horse and Master B's house. In neither example does Lilly even mention the word combustion. So on a theoretical level I don't believe this idea, but on a practical level I see two examples where combustion of a significator by the other significator doesn't seem to mean a simple "no" answer.

Does anyone else have any charts that would clear this up, from either point of view?

Tom:

I see, so I may have lost the battle, but could still win the war.

Oh deary me. You know you have an attitude problem, don't you? (Must remember not to argue with people who have Regulus rising on the ascendant.)


Mark,
I don?t understand your argument ? why do you feel that the horse?s significator being combust, (showing the horse being captured), ought to deny the querent the return of the horse.?

Thus combustion signified capture for the horse, but this was not an affliction for the querent, in fact, it aided perfection of the question.

Why should it be affliction for the querent? Who would even suggest it? The querent?s significator wasn?t combust.

In neither example does Lilly even mention the word combustion.

If I explain a chart, and omit to mention that the Moon is square Saturn, no one would ever suggest that you can?t count it because I didn?t mention it.

this other astrologer said that you can?t count a planet combust if it is one of the significators

One of the clearest charts I ever worked on was used to tell a mother that her missing son was dead. That involved a combust significator for the son which was what made the judgement so clear. But really, I feel I should balk at the idea of discussing this with hypothetical astrologers....