A few questions on debility cancellation.

[Element]

So, I was looking at my SR chart for this year and SR Mars is in Libra and SR Jupiter is in Gemini. They are both debilitated.

However, I had read that if the debilitated planet is in aspect to the sign ruler then the debility will be removed. As it happens, I have Mars trine Venus and jupiter sextile mercury in my natal chart. Do these natal placements provide cancellation for Mars and Jupiter debilities in the SR chart?

Also, in the sticky thread someone stated that the debility is removed if the debilitated planet is in the same sign/house as the sign ruler. Does this mean that the debility is removed if the debilitated planet occupies the same sign AND house or the same sign OR house?

Here is my SR chart for the year.

[Anachiel]

Can you repost the chart? It appears to be...gone.

[Element]

Originally Posted by Anachiel

Can you repost the chart? It appears to be...gone.

Re-posted the chart. Hopefully it decides to stay this time.

[may28gemini]

where did you read that? from what i understand, debilitated is debilitated and exalted is exalted and the degrees of such is either enhanced or lessen by the aspects they make to other planets.

[Element]

Originally Posted by may28gemini

where did you read that? from what i understand, debilitated is debilitated and exalted is exalted and the degrees of such is either enhanced or lessen by the aspects they make to other planets.

If you look at the top of this sub forum there are two stickys. Click on the last page of the first one titled An Introduction to Dignities and Debilities. The entire page talks about it.

[Anachiel]

It's a Vedic technique. The things is, the Vedic astrologers use a sidereal zodiac, rather than tropical zodiac. Tropical zodiac is what we use in the West and, it has it own rules and proceedures like the Vedic who has thei,r own rules and proceedures for working with a sidreal zodiac. The rules and proceedures are not neccessarily interchangeable though. However, there are counterparts to each for each zodiac.

What you are talking about (or read), the cancellation of debility, would have a Western counter part known as mutual reception, or possibly, a 'bad' planet ruling a good house, aspected by benefics and well placed, etc.

Basically, the whole point of neecha bhanga is like the old Chinese teaching-story that I will simply paraphrase by describing a farmer who breaks his leg and cannot farm yet, when the Emperor's military comes to town, the farmer avoids the draft (and subsequent likely death in war) because he is not fit to fight. In essence, what seemed bad protected or turned out to to be good yet, keep in mind the farmer still could not farm but he was alive. Had he have been in good health, he would still not have been able to farm but, also would be fighting in war and likely killed.

So, the lines of 'good' and 'bad' blur both in Western and Vedic astrology.

[may28gemini]

i'm not interested in vedic astrology. to me, when someone has a debility it stays just as they have an exaltation it stays- how bad or good it gets depends on its aspects to other planets.

i find it irksome when people try to manipulate and seek out find to pad their astrological flaws, "oh my debility isn't so bad." well, that's like someone who's overweight saying, "i don't need to lose weight." there's always free will, you can decide what to do with what you have. just face facts. we're all born with good and bad, some born with more than others but so what?

[Element]

Originally Posted by Anachiel

It's a Vedic technique. The things is, the Vedic astrologers use a sidereal zodiac, rather than tropical zodiac. Tropical zodiac is what we use in the West and, it has it own rules and proceedures like the Vedic who has thei,r own rules and proceedures for working with a sidreal zodiac. The rules and proceedures are not neccessarily interchangeable though. However, there are counterparts to each for each zodiac.

What you are talking about (or read), the cancellation of debility, would have a Western counter part known as mutual reception, or possibly, a 'bad' planet ruling a good house, aspected by benefics and well placed, etc.

Basically, the whole point of neecha bhanga is like the old Chinese teaching-story that I will simply paraphrase by describing a farmer who breaks his leg and cannot farm yet, when the Emperor's military comes to town, the farmer avoids the draft (and subsequent likely death in war) because he is not fit to fight. In essence, what seemed bad protected or turned out to to be good yet, keep in mind the farmer still could not farm but he was alive. Had he have been in good health, he would still not have been able to farm but, also would be fighting in war and likely killed.

So, the lines of 'good' and 'bad' blur both in Western and Vedic astrology.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I didn't realize this was a vedic technique.

[tsmall]

Yes, there can be...not cancellation, exactly, in natal charts, but more like aide, or help. In a natal chart, if a planet in some form of debility is in a sign with the exaltation ruler, or the domicile ruler, then that planet does have resources, or help, which can overcome the implications of being debilitated. It's like, I can't do math, but I have a friend who can, and he helps me pass my test. Or, like I can't run my own house, but I have a patron who helps me keep the bills paid and the lights on. Possibly...SSI and wellfare checks?

The difference though is that here you are talking about SR charts. When looking at the SR chart, you want to know what the ASC ruler is doing...and how it sits in the radical (natal) chart, but mostly...yeah, what it's doing and how it is afflicted or dignified in the SR chart. So, while we want to compare the two, we can't cancel out the condition of a planet in the SR chart based on it's condition in the natal. However, we can look at the aspects it makes to the natal planets. The overall condition of a planet for the year won't change, but how we read the aspects to the natal will.

[dr. farr]

When a planet is in its detriment by sign, this detriment can be modified by house placement (eg, angular placement), and can also be modified by face and by triplicity, and further modified by any close conjunctions it might have with a fixed star, and can also be further modified by being in a pitted or elevated degree, and further modified by being in a dark of bright degree-now this is a mixture of essential and accidental dignity modifiers, nonetheless they are modifiers, and this is from Hellenist and Traditionalist Western doctrine, not Vedic; can these modifiers over-ride the basic (essential) debility? You bet they can-and the reverse is also true: a planet in essential dignity can be over-ridden by detriments: yes-cancellation is a (translated) Vedic astrology term, however what amounts to a cancellation via being over-riden by dignities (or detriments) obtains in our Western astrological tradition, going back to its Hellenist origins and was only dropped by Modernist astrological doctrines over the past 120 (or so) years...

[Element]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

When a planet is in its detriment by sign, this detriment can be modified by house placement (eg, angular placement), and can also be modified by face and by triplicity, and further modified by any close conjunctions it might have with a fixed star, and can also be further modified by being in a pitted or elevated degree, and further modified by being in a dark of bright degree-now this is a mixture of essential and accidental dignity modifiers, nonetheless they are modifiers, and this is from Hellenist and Traditionalist Western doctrine, not Vedic; can these modifiers over-ride the basic (essential) debility? You bet they can-and the reverse is also true: a planet in essential dignity can be over-ridden by detriments: yes-cancellation is a (translated) Vedic astrology term, however what amounts to a cancellation via being over-riden by dignities (or detriments) obtains in our Western astrological tradition, going back to its Hellenist origins and was only dropped by Modernist astrological doctrines over the past 120 (or so) years...

Thank you Dr. Farr. So I was not wrong to apply those principles then. This is very good to know. Depending on the planets and aspects involved this concept of cancellation can really change the way a chart would be interpreted.

[dr. farr]

Although I follow many of the concepts and interpretations of Modernist astrology (which discounts much of what I have posted above) as an eclectic I also use concepts and methods from Traditionalist and Hellenist traditions as well, and I do consider what I have posted above, to be valid: however "cancellation" is perhaps a "charged" term (because of its connection with Vedic astrology), so lets use "modification" (the concept of modification, or modulation) instead...

[wilsontc]

dr. farr

You said:

Originally Posted by dr. farr

I do consider what I have posted above, to be valid: however "cancellation" is perhaps a "charged" term (because of its connection with Vedic astrology), so lets use "modification" (the concept of modification, or modulation) instead...

Instead of "cancellation" (which is about "subtraction"), I think of it as "addition". Instead of one aspect subtracting another, the aspects add together. So, for example, a person can have a planet BOTH in detriment by sign and in exaltation by house and BOTH of these apply to the planet. This gives the person more options at how to use the planets energy/focus.

Adding on,

Tim

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by wilsontc

dr. farr
Instead of "cancellation" (which is about "subtraction"), I think of it as "addition". Instead of one aspect subtracting another, the aspects add together

I agree with dr. farr and wilsontc that – rather than 'cancellation' - 'modification' aka 'modulation' via 'addition' combined with 'subtraction' is perhaps a more apt description of the process

Originally Posted by wilsontc

So, for example, a person can have a planet BOTH in detriment by sign and in exaltation by house and BOTH of these apply to the planet

Not quite! Fwiw IMO, traditionally, no planet ever 'acquires exaltation by house' location.

So, for example Jupiter is exalted in the sign of Cancer BUT if an exalted Jupiter in Cancer is located in 12th or 8th or 6th house THEN that exalted Jupiter in Cancer encounters “accidental debility” aka 'modification' due to its house location. SO if Jupiter is in any sign other than Cancer, Jupiter cannot 'be exalted' simply because it is located on an angle for example. Jupiter can only ever be exalted in the sign of Cancer.


BUT a planet in detriment CAN acquire some 'accidental dignity by house' location.

So Saturn in Leo is in detriment BUT may acquire some 'accidental dignity by house' location IF that detrimented Saturn in Leo is located in an angular house such as 1st, 2nd 3rd or 4th for instance.

BASICALLY, a planet cannot be BOTH in detriment AND exaltation simultaneously, no matter what that planet's house location is.

Originally Posted by wilsontc

This gives the person more options at how to use the planets energy/focus. Adding on, Tim

Certainly, accidental dignity and debility are necessarily IMO best taken into consideration in order to accurately and fully assess a particular individual's natal chart.

[tsmall]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

Not quite! Fwiw IMO, traditionally, no planet ever 'acquires exaltation by house' location.

Recently I've started to wonder if, though this seems to be the generally accepted idea, there isn't some presumed logical house association between planets and their domicile/exaltation rulerships. There is another discussion I started here though that works with this idea.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by tsmall

Recently I've started to wonder if, though this seems to be the generally accepted idea, there isn't some presumed logical house association between planets and their domicile/exaltation rulerships.

How would you describe/envisage that though?

Originally Posted by tsmall

There is another discussion I started here though that works with this idea.

The Thema Mundi discussion?