AlphaFrane
Member
I’m having a hard time understanding this, someone can explain this to me also Under Sun's beams. I just need this knowledge and I’m good
Last edited:
Comburst does this applying only when there is a conjunction ?
- Thread starter AlphaFrane
- Start date
I do not know about combust, but under the beams concerns any planet that is not visible at rising. Although most authors use a 12 or 15 degree range, that is approximate and somewhat misleading. Unless it concerns a very high or polar latitude, Venus would be visible within 10 degrees under average conditions. Stars that are setting under the beams are weakened, but stars that rise and make a heliacal or acronycal rising are powerful, so of course applying conjunction is worse than separating (under the beams, unlike aspects works regardless of sign boundaries imo).
For example in the nativity of Albert Einstein, Mercury is making an appearance (or phasis) by acronycal rising. According to Hellenistic authors, this means that it gets more than 15 degrees of the Sun within seven days of birth, but the practice of mixing ecliptic and risings is in my view misleading.
The practice is very ancient, for the heliacal rising of Sirius indicates the start of the year for the Egyptians and carries astrological significations for the Babylonians.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
According to astrologers long AFTER Babylonian and Hellenistic times
A planet is combust when it is in conjunction with the Sun
and therefore hidden from sight by the light of the Sun.
Traditionally this is a serious debility
and implies that
the planet is weakened
or restricted in power.
HOWEVER if the planet is within 17 minutes of the Sun
it is termed Cazimi - in the heart of the Sun
- and considered strengthened by the union.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/combust.html
In his Introduction, William Lilly stated that
the combust planet should be in the same sign as the Sun
and within 8° 30'
- beyond this distance
but within 17 ° of the Sun
the planet is said to be under the Sun's beams.
This condition is debilitating, but not as severe as combustion.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5icSAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=zadkiel&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=zadkiel&f=false
AlphaFrane
Member
According to astrologers long AFTER Babylonian and Hellenistic times
A planet is combust when it is in conjunction with the Sun
and therefore hidden from sight by the light of the Sun.
Traditionally this is a serious debility
and implies that
the planet is weakened
or restricted in power.
HOWEVER if the planet is within 17 minutes of the Sun
it is termed Cazimi - in the heart of the Sun
- and considered strengthened by the union.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/combust.html
In his Introduction, William Lilly stated that
the combust planet should be in the same sign as the Sun
and within 8° 30'
- beyond this distance
but within 17 ° of the Sun
the planet is said to be under the Sun's beams.
This condition is debilitating, but not as severe as combustion.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5icSAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=zadkiel&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=zadkiel&f=false
So Let’s say for example that I have Venus in the same sign but doesn’t conjunct the sun only Mercury does this still considered as combust, Also if Im understanding correctly, The minutes are the numbers after the degree right ? So it’s implying on the strength for only limited amount of time in that case? Correct me if I understood it wrong my dude and thx for the informative information you’re a very wise dude 😉
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
a chart of the issue you describe
would be helpful to view
in the interests of clarity
for clarity, as an example
00° 00' = zero degrees zero minutes
correct that Cazimi is for only limited amount of time
HOWEVER
there are various opinions on CAZIMI
i.e.
some Traditional astrologers state CAZIMI = 17'
aka seventeen minutes
other Traditional astrologers state CAZIMI = 01° 00'
aka one degree
According to Rhetorius (says he is innovating and discovered this concept, a.k.a. not ''ancient'') and Sahl, it is 1 degree. According to later Arabic authors and medieval astrologers, it is 17 minutes. Lilly gave most table points for cazimi placement. I doubt there is even 1 minute of cazimi though, and Mercury at my nativity is within 5 minutes cazimi/in the heart of the Sun.
Last edited:
waybread
Well-known member
I think a planet is combust if it is within 7-8 degrees of the sun. It is under the beams if it is within 8-17 degrees of the sun. Some would allow only 12 or 15 degrees.)
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/combust.html
Generally traditionalists want the sun and other planet to be in the same sign for it to count.
Because Mars is even hotter and drier than the sun, supposedly combustion doesn't affect it like other planets.
But a planet is cazimi and therefore strengthened if it is within 17 minutes of the sun.
These concepts apply only to the sun, not to other planets.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/combust.html
Generally traditionalists want the sun and other planet to be in the same sign for it to count.
Because Mars is even hotter and drier than the sun, supposedly combustion doesn't affect it like other planets.
But a planet is cazimi and therefore strengthened if it is within 17 minutes of the sun.
These concepts apply only to the sun, not to other planets.
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Very interesting that combustion
is apparently an innovation by Rhetorius
which was then honed to 17 minutres by later Arabic authors
Very interesting that combustion
is apparently an innovation by Rhetorius
which was then honed to 17 minutres by later Arabic authors
''None of the ancients have made mention of this phase, but, since we have found by experience, we have added it to the list, because even Ptolemy spoke of conjunction as a phase but didn't mention its force.'' Rhetorius, Compendium, translation by Holden
The Arab authors made heavy use of Rhetorius and did have access to his compendium, in case anyone is wondering. Sahl ibn Bishr has the same range - 1 degree. Al-Qabisi and Abu Mashar have it as within 16 minutes.
You also have to consider that the chance for Rhetorius to note this and at the same time to be accurate is probably less than a double digit percentage. The same would go for the Arabic authors. I can't recall exactly, but I think even Lilly had a wrong cazimi chart (but right prediction). One can examine Greek Horoscopes in Neugebauer that Mercury's longitude is frequently wrong by more than a few degrees, especially when he is under the beams, even in the late fifth century. This makes early praises of cazimi and divisions (like dodecatemoria) questionable from an empirical standpoint, for they very rarely had a right placement.
Last edited: