Perhaps, I was a little bit unclear in choosing technical terms, but I believe I conveyed the idea the right way. I was not referring to pushing power in a strict technical sense, I meant it as the delegation of the matters of the applying planet (swifter planet) to the receiving planet (slower planet). Jupiter and Mercury just happened to be used in my hypothetical example.

OK, we have Cancer on MC with exalted Jupiter here, and we have a 6th house/sign Mercury in Pisces. It is clear that whatever is signified by Mercury gains because of its application to its exalted lord, and whatever is signified by Jupiter suffers because of he having to receive the application of the debilitated Mercury from a weak place. The composite strength of Jupiter - Mercury, of course, has not changed, but what has changed is Jupiter's ability to successfully deal with his own matters because of he having to handle those of Mercury.

This is what I meant. I will elaborate a little bit more when I have time. Probably tomorrow.

Its still not clear for me of how planets more active if in cadent but place of their joy. Like Mars in 6th, Saturn in 12th, Moon in 3rd.
In horary it was stated that position adds strength and importance. But how about "saving" and making more accidentally valid?

Janis Valkovskis wrote:Perhaps, I was a little bit unclear in choosing technical terms, but I believe I conveyed the idea the right way. I was not referring to pushing power in a strict technical sense, I meant it as the delegation of the matters of the applying planet (swifter planet) to the receiving planet (slower planet). Jupiter and Mercury just happened to be used in my hypothetical example.

OK, we have Cancer on MC with exalted Jupiter here, and we have a 6th house/sign Mercury in Pisces. It is clear that whatever is signified by Mercury gains because of its application to its exalted lord, and whatever is signified by Jupiter suffers because of he having to receive the application of the debilitated Mercury from a weak place. The composite strength of Jupiter - Mercury, of course, has not changed, but what has changed is Jupiter's ability to successfully deal with his own matters because of he having to handle those of Mercury.

This is what I meant. I will elaborate a little bit more when I have time. Probably tomorrow.

It has been said that reception breaks malice (Sahl, Bonatti) and angular planet is sufficiently strong to handle his own matters as well as long as it is the receiver of the disposition and not the pusher.

Regards,
Goran

It has been said that reception breaks malice (Sahl, Bonatti) and angular planet is sufficiently strong to handle his own matters as well as long as it is the receiver of the disposition and not the pusher.

That's right. I was not going to question the authorities, but what I said had exactly happened in at least a dozen of soccer charts in my archive. Of course, the receivers and pushers were different but the effect was such as I said.

In general, superiors and luminaries are a little bit fitter for all kind of business than inferiors (even the very term points to worthiness of superiors and "unworthiness" of inferiors) which are somewhat unstable of their nature.

We have two primary cases and a number of variations considering the nature of reception or non-reception.

The first is when the pusher is angular but the receiver is cadent, the second the receiver angular, the pusher cadent.

Suppose, a dignified and angular Mercury (in Gemini or Virgo) pushes to a cadent Jupiter. It is clear that it was wrong choice of Mercury to delegate its stuff to such a bad manager as the cadent Jupiter (the worse if the manager were a malefic in a bad state). Whether Jupiter actually benefits from such Mercury's pushing from a place of the latter's detriment is a debatable question (in soccer, yes). Whereas Mercury itself suffers a lot from such pushing, much more as if it was the other way - the receiver was in a strong place but the pusher in a weak one. I'm sure that such Jupiter would successfully manage his own things and help Mercury but his ability of managing his own things would be reduced to a certain degree. Mercury as a vamp sucks his precious blood.

"Reception breaks malice" in my opinion is true if all other things are equal, i.e. there are no strong indications to the contrary in a given chart. If the "received one", for example, is the lord of 8th, 6th, 12th or whatever else, if the context of the chart points to a negative meaning of the received one, then it is better if there is no such reception.

Suppose, a dignified and angular Mercury (in Gemini or Virgo) pushes to a cadent Jupiter. It is clear that it was wrong choice of Mercury to delegate its stuff to such a bad manager as the cadent Jupiter (the worse if the manager were a malefic in a bad state).

I remember from Benjamin Dykes' book ITA, that one has to look at the celestial state of the receiving planet. If it is bad, it cannot cope with the responsibility and returns the influence to the sending planet.
What do you think of that?

Yukionna wrote:

Suppose, a dignified and angular Mercury (in Gemini or Virgo) pushes to a cadent Jupiter. It is clear that it was wrong choice of Mercury to delegate its stuff to such a bad manager as the cadent Jupiter (the worse if the manager were a malefic in a bad state).

I remember from Benjamin Dykes' book ITA, that one has to look at the celestial state of the receiving planet. If it is bad, it cannot cope with the responsibility and returns the influence to the sending planet.
What do you think of that?

Of course, one has to weigh all the relevant testimonies.

If the receiver of the disposition is under the beams/burned/retrograde or cadent, it is unable to retain the light and returns it. The return of light is with amelioration if the cadent 'pusher' is received, if not, then with corruption/detriment.

Regards,
Goran

I just re-read what Dykes' book ITA says about a returning with fitness or usefulness and a returning with corruption or destruction (p.176-179). I think a returning with usefulness is a relative thing and not sure whether it acts the way the book suggests. My understanding (based on my experience) is that first of all such a bad manager spoils the business and what is left is returned to the sending planet to handle as it is.

Well, it's experience that counts, especially since the 'old and wise ones' don't always seem to agree on things anyhow. On the other hand, people's experience often varies, so what to do?

I'd like to post a variation on the opening question of this thread:
do cadent planets in their own domicile need to be safed by other planets?
In your experience...

I'd like to post a variation on the opening question of this thread:
do cadent planets in their own domicile need to be safed by other planets?
In your experience...

Everything, undoubtedly, is relative and there are no strict rules which fit every and all situations because astrology is an art rather than a science (where one can repeat an experiment by applying one and the same rules). I once tried to develop a system (a hierarchy) of astrological testimonies which can be applied to any chart to produce a correct reading (my experience is mainly based on soccer charts). But it was a futile business. You should device new and new rules to force to work those already observed, then again and again, and you can never break that vicious circle.

As a rough guidance to determine the ability (strength) of a planet to act, I count 85-90% of its accidental placement (place in a figure, relation to the Sun, all kind of receptions, aspects, etc., etc.) and 10-15% of its essential quality. To determine the quality of action (the way how the desired outcome can be achieved) I use 50% of a planet's essential quality and 50% of its accidental placement. Regardless of a planet's essential dignities, also the houses it is in or rules have their own meaning. If the meaning of the relevant house (in the context of the chart) is bad, it leaves its imprints on the quality of the planet's action. One cannot expect good fruit from a bad tree.

My understanding is that cadent planets, even if they are in their own domicile or exaltation, need help from good and well-placed planets. Of course, one can be satisfied with middling results what are able to produce essentially strong but accidentally weak planets (and say that such planets work as they should) but it is always a bonus if you have a good, trustworthy and influential friend who is willing to help.

Guys, you've given me much food for thought so far, tnx.

I'd like to come back to a question Yuriy posted before, that went unnoticed:

Its still not clear for me of how planets more active if in cadent but place of their joy. Like Mars in 6th, Saturn in 12th, Moon in 3rd.
In horary it was stated that position adds strength and importance. But how about "saving" and making more accidentally valid?

As far as I know and understand, a planet being in its joy is given more strength to act. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on the essential strength of said planet. If you have sect malefic Mars in Scorp in 6, with no harming aspects, than I don't expect bad things to come from that. But if he's the out of sect malefic, in Cancer or Taurus, and maybe in a harming aspect with the Moon, then it might cause physical problems of a Marsian nature, inflamations, cuts, operations, stuff like that.

Anyhow, since joy makes the planet stronger to act, it shouldn't need any angular planets, it can do good or harm all by itself. Is how I see it. I may be wrong though...

Yukionna wrote:Guys, you've given me much food for thought so far, tnx.

I'd like to come back to a question Yuriy posted before, that went unnoticed:

Its still not clear for me of how planets more active if in cadent but place of their joy. Like Mars in 6th, Saturn in 12th, Moon in 3rd.
In horary it was stated that position adds strength and importance. But how about "saving" and making more accidentally valid?

As far as I know and understand, a planet being in its joy is given more strength to act. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on the essential strength of said planet. If you have sect malefic Mars in Scorp in 6, with no harming aspects, than I don't expect bad things to come from that. But if he's the out of sect malefic, in Cancer or Taurus, and maybe in a harming aspect with the Moon, then it might cause physical problems of a Marsian nature, inflamations, cuts, operations, stuff like that.

Anyhow, since joy makes the planet stronger to act, it shouldn't need any angular planets, it can do good or harm all by itself. Is how I see it. I may be wrong though...

I wouldn't see a planet in its joy having more power to act necessarily, but more power to produce things according to its own nature. Whether this is good or bad for the native depends on the planet and its role in the life.

Thanks for replies.
I've noticed both positive and negative outcomes from malefic in places of their joy.
Some person with Saturn in 12th and ruling MC (Aquarius) where Saturn in Taurus squares MC. So, she got education as construction engineer but didn't get any substantial experience after college. Finally switched to computer programmer profession and was quite successful.
Apparently Saturn's square blocked her from original construction field.
But strong Mercury in Virgo ruling her MC triplicity in nocturnal chart made her successful in analytical computer programmer's direction.
Though, I guess, Saturn in house of joy, in reception and square to MC helped to get stable career later.