Mutual Reception Valid?

Saturn in Aries, Venus in Capricorn, Mars in Libra. Two of the planets are debilitated. However, if you switch them between the signs trying to give them the same dignity or debility (there is mutual reception by debility, although it is not commonly mentioned, from what I understand) the only time they will all have the same dignity is when they are all in domicile. Two planets in opposition will not be in reception because they already have the same dignity and take the path of least resistance (astrology is all about paths of least resistance) and not receive anything. Of course, to be logical there will be some sort of reception, but it is not quite as strong. But 3 planets in mutual reception with two squares and one opposition is tricky. There is no mutual opposition. Or is this a legit idea at all? It might not be...

Rebel Uranian said:

Saturn in Aries, Venus in Capricorn, Mars in Libra. Two of the planets are debilitated. However, if you switch them between the signs trying to give them the same dignity or debility (there is mutual reception by debility, although it is not commonly mentioned, from what I understand) the only time they will all have the same dignity is when they are all in domicile. Two planets in opposition will not be in reception because they already have the same dignity and take the path of least resistance (astrology is all about paths of least resistance) and not receive anything. Of course, to be logical there will be some sort of reception, but it is not quite as strong. But 3 planets in mutual reception with two squares and one opposition is tricky. There is no mutual opposition. Or is this a legit idea at all? It might not be...

Click to expand...

From a traditional perspective, a mutual reception (which requires that the planets also aspect each other) generally mitigates problems. But: With squares and oppositions, there will only be reconciliation between the things signified by the planets with "hardship and error" (Masha'allah).

Morinus adds that reception won't mitigate problems if the planets are in detriment in the signs where they are. E.g., if the Moon is in Capricorn and Saturn in Cancer, and they oppose each other by aspect, then they are in mutual reception; but since each of them is also in detriment in those signs, they are too debilitated for mutual reception to overcome their problems. So it seems your planets are too debilated for mutual reception to overcome their problems. However you have not mentioned whether it is a day or a night chart (triplicity reception possible)

A better situation would be, e.g., Moon in Libra trining Saturn in Taurus (mutual reception by exaltation). Neither is debilitated by itself in those signs.

It is a day chart. That is a good situation for Saturn and Venus, but not Mars. There's no triplicity reception on said chart :/ I picked this situation simply because I knew this wasn't the best possible scenario and I wanted to know whether it had any good at all. I know what the good scenarios are.

Would other aspects affect the reception?

I think that reception (including mutual reception) and the issue of dignity, are two quite seperate matters: mutual reception (any kind of reception really) I submit only shows a specific relationship existing between A and B: whether that relationship will indicate a fortunate or unfortunate net influence, depends upon other circumstances (such as the dignities involved)

(Note: pre-13th century astrologers considered mutual reception to exist whether or not the planets involved were in aspect to each other; see, for example, Al-Kindi, Abu Mashar, Al-Biruni, Ibn Ezra)

Gogo91 said:

I have a similar case too. I read mutual reception Planet rulerships doesn't have to be Domicile(Dignify) it can be Exalted too.

Here is my free 63% Astrodienst chart by the way. I think I am Nocturnal because my Sun sign is below AC/DC line. Anyways my Mercury is Sagittarius and Jupiter in Virgo. They are mutual reception but in detriment so I gain no benefits. At the same time I don't loose either. Its basically little effect in my life.

One of my better mutual reception is Saturn and Uranus with both Ancient and Modern collide. As both planet rulership is Aquarius. Another crazy reception I have Uranus and Mars; Mars exalted Capricorn and if we agree Uranus is Exalted in Scorpio. And for Mutual reception joke for Pluto and Mars in Scorpio. I also read Neptune is exalted in Cancer and fall in Capricorn. So even I force a Mutual Reception on Neptune and Moon. Moon is Detriment and Neptune is exalted. But I don't think mutual reception works like that because Capricorn rulership isn't Moon. Similar goes for Venus and Mars.

Click to expand...

There is little agreement regarding so-called Exaltation of Neptune and/or any other outer planets - only traditional astrology has a coherent system dating back around two thousand years, possibly longer

It is nonsensical and not possible to crowbar the newly discovered outer planets into an ancient system of dignities.

dr. farr said:

I think that reception (including mutual reception) and the issue of dignity, are two quite seperate matters: mutual reception (any kind of reception really) I submit only shows a specific relationship existing between A and B: whether that relationship will indicate a fortunate or unfortunate net influence, depends upon other circumstances (such as the dignities involved)

(Note: pre-13th century astrologers considered mutual reception to exist whether or not the planets involved were in aspect to each other; see, for example, Al-Kindi, Abu Mashar, Al-Biruni, Ibn Ezra)

Click to expand...

Exactly so

Since the outer planets are considered higher octaves of the inner planets, we could just give them the same dignities as the inner planets which they are the higher octaves of. The biggest problem with this is obviously Uranus as the higher octave of Mercury ruling Aquarius, as it would be domiciled in Gemini and Virgo rather than Aquarius and exalted in Virgo rather than Scorpio. Uranus should be considered the higher octave of Saturn more so than Mercury if this is to be very effective. Pluto is the higher octave of Mars and Mars traditionally rules Scorpio, and Neptune is considered the higher octave of Jupiter and Jupiter traditionally rules Pisces. This would put Pluto as ruler of both Scorpio and Aries, Neptune to Pisces and Sagittarius, and Uranus to Aquarius and Capricorn. I think this is a good system _if_ you want to dignify the outer planets. I know most traditionalists would be quite mad at this, but modern astrology was (loosely) built upon traditional astrology. It's best to be aware of all systems to be able to use all systems.

Edit: On aforementioned example Mars is elevated. Does this make a difference?

Rebel Uranian said:

Since the outer planets are considered higher octaves of the inner planets, we could just give them the same dignities as the inner planets which they are the higher octaves of. The biggest problem with this is obviously Uranus as the higher octave of Mercury ruling Aquarius, as it would be domiciled in Gemini and Virgo rather than Aquarius and exalted in Virgo rather than Scorpio. Uranus should be considered the higher octave of Saturn more so than Mercury if this is to be very effective. Pluto is the higher octave of Mars and Mars traditionally rules Scorpio, and Neptune is considered the higher octave of Jupiter and Jupiter traditionally rules Pisces. This would put Pluto as ruler of both Scorpio and Aries, Neptune to Pisces and Sagittarius, and Uranus to Aquarius and Capricorn. I think this is a good system _if_ you want to dignify the outer planets. I know most traditionalists would be quite mad at this, but modern astrology was (loosely) built upon traditional astrology. It's best to be aware of all systems to be able to use all systems.

Click to expand...

Modern astrology is not loosely based upon traditional astrology but instead is entirely dependent upon it - dignities being a good example.

Every modern astrologer has their own ideas regarding the particular so-called 'dignities of the outer planets', disagreeing amongst themselves and their differing schools of thought.

However when one views the traditional system, it is obviously, simply impossible to incorporate these ideas of 'dignified outers' into traditional astrological dignity tables such as these http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig2.html

These efforts to cram the outers into a two thousand year old system that works fine are very funny

"Loosely based" is because some of modern astrologers' viewpoints are just dead wrong, and then other viewpoints get based upon these etc. It is also entirely dependent, but still entirely different in many ways.

Rebel Uranian said:

"Loosely based" is because some of modern astrologers' viewpoints are just dead wrong, and then other viewpoints get based upon these etc. It is also entirely dependent, but still entirely different in many ways.

Click to expand...

Modern astrology is firmly based on traditional astrology and cannot function without many of the ancient traditional techniques such as solar return, planetary dignity and many others. Whereas Traditional astrology is entirely independent of modern astrology

Rebel Uranian said:

Saturn in Aries, Venus in Capricorn, Mars in Libra. Two of the planets are debilitated. However, if you switch them between the signs trying to give them the same dignity or debility (there is mutual reception by debility, although it is not commonly mentioned, from what I understand) the only time they will all have the same dignity is when they are all in domicile. Two planets in opposition will not be in reception because they already have the same dignity and take the path of least resistance (astrology is all about paths of least resistance) and not receive anything. Of course, to be logical there will be some sort of reception, but it is not quite as strong. But 3 planets in mutual reception with two squares and one opposition is tricky. There is no mutual opposition. Or is this a legit idea at all? It might not be...

Click to expand...

Mutual reception isn't based on Domicile; Exaltation count as well.

In my opinion the best aspects of the 3 planets.

Mars and Venus: Mars exalted in Capricorn and Venus domicile in Libra. This is a best reception.

Saturn and Mars. Saturn exalted in Libra and Mars domicile in Aries. This is the weaker but better reception.

Mars in Aries, Venus in Libra, and Saturn in Capricorn is the weakest of the 3 reception. There is too much debility.

First of mutual reception is only one kind of reception in which, both planets are in each others sign such as sun in aries/mars in leo. There is also one way reception such as sun in gemini mercury in gemini or sun in Pisces with jupiter in Sagittarius or mercury in cancer moon in cancer. Also, farr is right the older astrologers thought mutual reception existed with out major aspect (trine, sextile, square, or opposition) but as i understand it they agree with their later medieval counterparts that any lack of aspects or antision between them weakens the affairs between the two planets as far as i understand it a mutual reception with aspect between two debilitated planets (although not totally favorable) is better then what post 13th century astrologers call a generosity (two planets in each others sign but with not major aspect or even antision between them).

Also, the worst connection between two planets other then inconjunct (lack of major aspect and antision) is mutual debility or planets in each other sign of determint or fall (even if its a trine or sextile) such as moon in scorpio and venus in capricorn (this is worse then an oppostion or square not all oppostion or squares are totally bad nor are all trines or sextiles totally favorable for example its generally better to have a square to a benefic then a trine to a malefic and its even better to have a square or oppostion to a dignified planet even if its a malefic then to have a favorable aspect to a debilitated planet. ) As i understand it is relatively bad for the affairs of a planet and whatever sign/ house or houses it rules if it squares, opposes, or quincuxes its lord but is in easy aspect to the planets its in determint and fall in. Seeing all trines as good and all squares or opposition (although yes they still retain difficulty and conflict) as totally bad is an over simplification modern astrology has made that errors. Well okay if a sign/house is in square to its main lords and they are in primary dignity (domiclie or exaltation or even in major mutual reception then its not so bad) and its not near as bad if a sign/house makes a favorable aspect to a planet its debilitated in if said planet is in major dignity or is involved in a major mutual reception or is being recieved by a dignified planet but if such things not the case it can spell major disaster for the affairs of said sign/house especially if any squares to malefics and/or wicked stars alignments are involved.

juicey J. said:

First of mutual reception is only one kind of reception in which, both planets are in each others sign such as sun in aries/mars in leo.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, mutual reception can happen by domicile as you show here, but also by exaltation (Mercury in Aries, Sun in Virgo for example) and then there are the lesser dignities--term and face. Basically I believe that mutual reception happens whenever two planets are in the dignities of each other.

juicey J. said:

There is also one way reception such as sun in gemini mercury in gemini or sun in Pisces with jupiter in Sagittarius or mercury in cancer moon in cancer.

Click to expand...

Er, what you are outlining here suggests that in order for there to be one way reception the receiving planet has to be in it's own domiclie. For example you give Sun in Gemini but that Mercury also needs to be in Gemini, or Sun in Pisces but with Jupiter in his own home of Sagittarius. One way reception simply means that planet A is in one of the dignities of planet B, and so is "received by" planet B. A planet in the domicile, exaltation, triplicity, term or face of another planet is said to be recieved by that planet.

juicey J. said:

Also, farr is right the older astrologers thought mutual reception existed with out major aspect (trine, sextile, square, or opposition) but as i understand it they agree with their later medieval counterparts that any lack of aspects or antision between them weakens the affairs between the two planets as far as i understand it a mutual reception with aspect between two debilitated planets (although not totally favorable) is better then what post 13th century astrologers call a generosity (two planets in each others sign but with not major aspect or even antision between them).

Click to expand...

I am not certain when antiscia became a consideration, but in order to really understand what the ancient Hellenist astrologers dr. farr referred to were doing it needs be said that aspects were then not just made by orb but by sign, called regard or witnessing. Another consideration is that reception...colors, for lack of a better word, the energy of a planet regardless of aspect. Mutual reception of planets in aversion (next door signs or signs that do not traditionally "see" each other because of the lack of Ptolemaic aspect) is still mutual reception, called as you have pointed out generosity, still has an effect, especially in natal charts. There are other considerations that could bring these planets together even without a traditional aspect, such as sings that hear each other, and signs that command and obey. Toss in parallels in latitude and declination (so not just antiscia) and there are many ways that reception can help in dileneating a chart.

Mutual reception by detriment still seems viable to me, since usually you would find that the planets involved (for example, Jupiter in Gemini and Mercury in Sagittarius) are both weakened for being in negative dignity (not taking into consideration term or face) yet they are like warring kings occupying each other's castles. Debility of dignity (such as detriment, peregrination, or fall) has nothing to do with whether or not a planet can act, but how it will act. I see this type of mutual reception in natal charts (different, way different from horary in this case) as being more like checks and balances. One is not going to slaughter the residents of the other's castle, for fear the other will slaughter the residents of his castle in return...

Tsmall hello, first off i realize there is reception by the other 5 dignities but domicile is the main one due to being the home sign or planet in its house. Also, this is somewhat relative yes a generosity is a mutual reception and a mutual reception even a generosity is generally more favorable then an ordinary aspect but isn't as favorable for the houses/signs/affairs the planets lord over as a mutual reception with major aspect. Antiscia is factored in because its the one thing even with out major aspect which, keeps two planets from being inconjunct (not all semisextiles and quincuxes are inconjunct like many modern sources erroneously teach) which, is the worst connection two planets can have with each other. Yes a mutual reception between deblitated planets is bad (not as favorable is probably better wording) but a generosity with no antiscia is comparatively worse or at least arguably weaker for the affairs of said signs, planets, and houses involved in the primary rulerships.

Lets get one thing straight, when looking at receptions/dispostorships its generally not so good for the affairs of a house the more dispostorships it has (like four or more planetary dispostiors, and we are mainly looking at domicile since its a planets home or the buck stops here if you will) especially if there is no final dispositor or at least mutual reception by domicile such is less favorable its for the affairs of said house even if the aspects are mainly trines (and even less so if malefics and debilitated planets are involved) so the idea of all grand trines being so wonderful in modern astrology is a load of monkey waste.

Since tsmall brings up the other essential dignities i think it would be good to mention briefly what they basically are.

First there is domicile or planet in its home sign or house and this is the main planet a signs/houses energy if you will is concentrated towards.

Second there is exaltation which, is said to exalt or give aid to the affairs of a sign/house.

Thirdly there is triplicity which, changes if the sun is above or below the horizon at birth and is said to connect various planets and houses through an elemental relationship.

Fourthly there is term, a planet in is own term is only said to be a mimic and reception by term alone is quite weak but not as much as....

Lastly there is face, face is said to be a planet in desperation or at the last breath (face alone is the only thing keeping a planet from being peregrine or void the essential dignities which, is said to be nearly as bad as determint or fall) and planets which, a reception of any kind by face alone are said to be involved in a relationship filled with much stress and desperation.

These last dignities are based on degrees and one needs the table of essential dignites to figure and factor them.

Also, there is the almuten ruler which, is the planet which, has a combination of the dignities other then domicile over a sign/houses to the degree it trumps the sign or domicile lord as a sign/houses main dispositor/ambassador.

Juicy J. said:

First of mutual reception is only one kind of reception in which, both planets are in each others sign such as sun in aries/mars in leo.

Click to expand...

It would be better to say that mutual reception is a special type of reception with astrological reception being defined as "a planet that aspects one of its rulers". Any planet can receive another without being received in turn, and that is typically the way of it since mutual receptions aren't as common.

Also, farr is right the older astrologers thought mutual reception existed with out major aspect (trine, sextile, square, or opposition) but as i understand it they agree with their later medieval counterparts that any lack of aspects or antision between them weakens the affairs between the two planets as far as i understand it a mutual reception with aspect between two debilitated planets (although not totally favorable) is better then what post 13th century astrologers call a generosity (two planets in each others sign but with not major aspect or even antision between them).

Click to expand...

This is true, but Tsmall points out the reasoning behind this, since orbs of influence weren't really developed until later, but the idea of planets needing to see one another was always present. My understanding of generosity is different than yours. Generosities aren't in any way a bad thing, they're just less independent than mutual receptions. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the use of antiscia when considering reception, as it's not something I've ever seen mentioned before.

Also, the worst connection between two planets other then inconjunct (lack of major aspect and antision) is mutual debility or planets in each other sign of determint or fall (even if its a trine or sextile) such as moon in scorpio and venus in capricorn

Click to expand...

I think this idea of "negative reception" would better be served in a discussion on pushing than in a discussion on reception. Reception is defined as a planet being in the dignities of another, being in the debilities of another is not reception and they don't really operate the same way.

tsmall said:

Er, what you are outlining here suggests that in order for there to be one way reception the receiving planet has to be in it's own domiclie. For example you give Sun in Gemini but that Mercury also needs to be in Gemini, or Sun in Pisces but with Jupiter in his own home of Sagittarius. One way reception simply means that planet A is in one of the dignities of planet B, and so is "received by" planet B. A planet in the domicile, exaltation, triplicity, term or face of another planet is said to be recieved by that planet.

Click to expand...

A planet that is receiving another can be in any sign, just for clarification on this point. It's true that a planet can receive another planet in any of its dignities, but we start to drop off in efficiency very quickly about midway down the ladder. Reception is cool and all, and I would rather have it than not have it, but it doesn't do any good unless it's perfect reception (see what they did there?) and this occurs by being in either one of the greater dignities (domicile or exaltation) and at least two of the lesser dignities (triplicity, term, and face). The idea here is in lesser dignities planets don't have full claim over a sign like they do in major dignities. Saturn is always in domicile in Capricorn and exalted in Libra, but it isn't always triplicity lord of Gemini, for example as it has to share that with Mercury.

There are other considerations that could bring these planets together even without a traditional aspect, such as sings that hear each other, and signs that command and obey. Toss in parallels in latitude and declination (so not just antiscia) and there are many ways that reception can help in dileneating a chart.

Click to expand...

While it's true there are other ways that planets can interact with one another, putting the signs that hear one another and signs that command and obey one another on the same level as signs that see each other is a little shaky. Mostly because signs that hear one another or have a command/obey relationship have it as a one-on-one relationship where one sign will command only one other sign that it may already have an aspectual relationship with. Firmicus writes that Cancer hears Aries, but they already Square, or that Libra hears Cancer, but they already Square as well.

Juicy J. said:

Also, this is somewhat relative yes a generosity is a mutual reception and a mutual reception even a generosity is generally more favorable then an ordinary aspect but isn't as favorable for the houses/signs/affairs the planets lord over as a mutual reception with major aspect.

Click to expand...

This is a good point to remember when working with receptions. They are all relative to one another in a hierarchy of special reception relationships. It becomes more of a "take what you can get" exercise.

Lets get one thing straight, when looking at receptions/dispostorships its generally not so good for the affairs of a house the more dispostorships it has

Click to expand...

? A planet can only ever have one dispositor. I've never seen a traditional author hop through dispositors in the way that modern dispositor trees depict. "Look to this planet and its Lord" and that's as far as I've ever seen anyone go.

No, not true a sign/house has as as many dispositors as there are lords for each planet robert hand says ancient astrologers had a terms for this such as "pushing the dignity". Also, your planet can only have one dispositor argument doesn't work because okay a planet has one dispositor but that planet in turn has one dispositor ect, ect, ect.n unless you run into a planet in domicile or involved in mutual reception via a domicle lordship. Also, robert E. Zoller (said by many to be the modern expert on medieval astrology) also, has said likewise. In other words its better for the affairs of a house/sign (and the other houses/signs/planets involved) the less domicile dispostors it has as it brings its related affairs to their best fruition if you will. yes they often simply say look at this ruler and thats it because they aren't going to spell every thing out for you and expect you to play connect the dots.

juicey J. said:

Since tsmall brings up the other essential dignities i think it would be good to mention briefly what they basically are. ....These last dignities are based on degrees and one needs the table of essential dignites to figure and factor them.

Click to expand...

Since juicey J has highlighted a need for a table of essential dignities to figure and factor them - then the following table of Essential Dignities is likely to be useful to anyone interested in doing so

source skyscript http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html

juicey J. said:

No, not true a sign/house has as as many dispositors as there are lords for each planet....

Click to expand...

That's a misleading comment.

Only in whole signs does a sign = a house.

A sign has only one domicile lord
HOWEVER SOME - not all - signs also have an Exalted lord
NEVERTHELESS each sign does have a 'Detriment lord'
BUT only seven of the signs have a 'Fall lord'

Frequently sign rulers are not located in the signs they have domicile rulership of - however that does NOT mean that each house has 'multiple domicile lords'

juicey J. said:

...robert hand says ancient astrologers had a terms for this such as "pushing the dignity".

Also, your planet can only have one dispositor argument doesn't work because okay a planet has one dispositor but that planet in turn has one dispositor ect, ect, ect.n unless you run into a planet in domicile or involved in mutual reception via a domicle lordship

Click to expand...

A sign has only one domicile lord - the fact that a planet may be located in a sign other than the sign of its domicile lordship does NOT mean - as you have implied - that then each house must have 'multiple domicile lords'

juicey J. said:

Also, robert E. Zoller (said by many to be the modern expert on medieval astrology) also, has said likewise.

Click to expand...

Could you provide the precise text of the quote you are claiming is from Robert E Zoller

juicey J. said:

In other words its better for the affairs of a house/sign (and the other houses/signs/planets involved) the less domicile dispostors it has...

Click to expand...

You are making a misleading comment because you are implying that one house = one sign BUT that is only true for Whole Sign Houses. Not all astrologers use Whole Sign houses and in fact there are more than thirty different house systems, fourteen of which are available on astro.com Extended Chart Selection Page

Robert Zoller did NOT say that a SIGN has more than one DOMICILE lord. Clearly a sign on a house cusp can have only ONE domicile lord

THEREFORE

Each sign is considered to be the natural home aka 'domicile' of particular planets - as detailed in the Essential Dignities table previously posted.

AND SOME signs are also considered to be the Exalted homes of SOME of the planets and so on as previously stated

for example:

Aries and Scorpio are the two natural homes aka 'domiciles' of Mars
AND
Aries is the Exalted home of the Sun AND the 'domicile' of Mars
Capricorn is the Exalted home of Mars AND the 'domicile' of Saturn
No planet is Exalted in Scorpio


Taurus and Libra are the two natural homes aka 'domiciles' of Venus
AND
Taurus is the Exalted home of the Moon AND the 'domicile' of Venus
Pisces is the Exalted home of Venus AND the 'domicile' of Jupiter
Libra is the Exalted home of Saturn AND the 'domicile' of Venus

- viewing the table I posted clarifies the issue.

juicey J. said:

...as it brings its related affairs to their best fruition if you will. yes they often simply say look at this ruler and thats it because they aren't going to spell every thing out for you and expect you to play connect the dots.

Click to expand...

The different sign 'rulers' ARE NOT ALL DOMICILE RULERS - some rulers are Exalted rulers, some rulers are Detriment rulers, some rulers are Fall rulers, however each sign has only ONE 'domicile ruler'