PDA

View Full Version : Arabic part Cazimi


Cap
08-07-2014, 02:39 PM
I have encountered a chart where Lot/Arabic part falls cazimi (within 17 minutes of the Sun). Does anyone have some reference about this situation from the old texts and how to interpret such position of the lot? Same as in the case of planet being cazimi?

Larxene
08-10-2014, 01:14 PM
I don't have references, but I think it means the issues represented by the Lot becomes more prominent in the native's life. It may be harmful for children though, if it is the Lot of Children.

JUPITERASC
08-10-2014, 01:26 PM
I have encountered a chart where Lot/Arabic part falls cazimi (within 17 minutes of the Sun).
Does anyone have some reference about this situation from the old texts and how to interpret such position of the lot?
Same as in the case of planet being cazimi?

Technically, a Lot/Arabic part itself can be neither combust nor cazimi :smile:

HOWEVER

If the RULER OF THE LOT is combust or cazimi
then that is a different issue

Cap
08-10-2014, 07:00 PM
Technically, a Lot/Arabic part itself can be neither combust nor cazimi :smile:

HOWEVER

If the RULER OF THE LOT is combust or cazimi
then that is a different issue

In CA, page 145, Lilly gives the table for evaluation of the POF strength where he considers POF combust and under the Sun beams as accidental debility and POF free of combustion and free of the Sun beams as accidental dignity. However, situation of POF cazimi was never mentioned. It is only logical that these accidental dignities and debilities apply for any other lot also.

Kaiousei no Senshi
08-11-2014, 02:08 AM
In CA, page 145, Lilly gives the table for evaluation of the POF strength where he considers POF combust and under the Sun beams as accidental debility and POF free of combustion and free of the Sun beams as accidental dignity. However, situation of POF cazimi was never mentioned. It is only logical that these accidental dignities and debilities apply for any other lot also.

This would probably be a good place to differ with Lilly for a few reasons. I would really like to know his source for this table (and his table for scoring the dignities of the planets for a few reasons), but it isn't given anywhere.

I haven't followed the Lots very much, and Bonatti's text (http://www.amazon.com/Bonatti-Lots-Guido/dp/1934586110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407722464&sr=8-1&keywords=Bonatti+on+Lots) on it may be more helpful to you than anything in Lilly.

Anyway, I have a couple of concerns. Firstly, I wouldn't think the Lots could be Combust for the simple reason that they are not planets and do not have light. It sort of clashes with the philosophy behind Combustion in general. However, I am open to being wrong on this as I am aware the Lots can receive aspects.

My second concern is much more Lilly-centric in that, you will also see where he has taken the liberty of assigning Signs where the LoF gains dignity, as if it were a planet. Grain of salt there.

To make matters worse, Lilly does not use the proper calculation for this Lot and the paragraph at the bottom of 145 spells out his feelings towards this Lot's general usefulness. All in all, I'm not sure Lilly really "got" the Lots, and who can blame him when he isn't calculating it correctly?

Cap
08-11-2014, 12:58 PM
This would probably be a good place to differ with Lilly for a few reasons. I would really like to know his source for this table (and his table for scoring the dignities of the planets for a few reasons), but it isn't given anywhere.

I haven't followed the Lots very much, and Bonatti's text (http://www.amazon.com/Bonatti-Lots-Guido/dp/1934586110/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407722464&sr=8-1&keywords=Bonatti+on+Lots) on it may be more helpful to you than anything in Lilly.

I agree with you on this completely. On the other hand, Lilly was, above all, practical with "correct prediction justifies the technique" approach. In fact, he was ultra modern for his time, I imagine him as a kind of guy who would definitely use modern planets if they had been discovered in his time and he found them to be useful. Many of his conclusions came from his huge practical experience - 2000 charts per year.

Anyway, I have a couple of concerns. Firstly, I wouldn't think the Lots could be Combust for the simple reason that they are not planets and do not have light. It sort of clashes with the philosophy behind Combustion in general. However, I am open to being wrong on this as I am aware the Lots can receive aspects.

Almost all traditional authors unanimously agree that:

1. Lots are accidental dignity/debility sensitive (mostly by house placement)
2. Sign position of the lot matters (in respect to sign qualities: fertile/barren, voiced/mute, male/female etc.)
3. Lots receive aspects but don't cast them
4. Lots can be influenced by fixed stars

The only (remote) reference concerning lot combustion/under the Sun beams I was able to find is in Valens Anthologies, page 28, where he speaks about POF in the 8th house:

"...If Fortune <is there>, the native, besides being dull, will also be stupid and poor, especially if <the Lot> is under the sun's rays. If under these circumstances malefics are also in conjunction, the native will be deaf and dumb..."

Problem is, the term "rays" was often used to describe an aspect, so this is not entirely clear.

It seems to me that there is no enough evidence to just dismiss Lilly on this, even though he might be completely wrong.

My second concern is much more Lilly-centric in that, you will also see where he has taken the liberty of assigning Signs where the LoF gains dignity, as if it were a planet. Grain of salt there.

Yes, this doesn't make sense at all.

To make matters worse, Lilly does not use the proper calculation for this Lot and the paragraph at the bottom of 145 spells out his feelings towards this Lot's general usefulness. All in all, I'm not sure Lilly really "got" the Lots, and who can blame him when he isn't calculating it correctly?

This mistake goes all the way back to Ptolemy who was the first to introduce this method of POF calculation, so Lilly was probably just following this.

Kaiousei no Senshi
08-11-2014, 03:08 PM
I agree with you on this completely. On the other hand, Lilly was, above all, practical with "correct prediction justifies the technique" approach. In fact, he was ultra modern for his time, I imagine him as a kind of guy who would definitely use modern planets if they had been discovered in his time and he found them to be useful. Many of his conclusions came from his huge practical experience - 2000 charts per year.

Yes, I have heard this comment made by many others and I really just can't get behind it. Why does Lilly strike you as that type of a fellow?

Unfortunately, about the Bonatti text, I thought I had a PDF of it, but it seems I was mistaken so I don't think I'm going to be a whole lot of help on this.

This mistake goes all the way back to Ptolemy who was the first to introduce this method of POF calculation, so Lilly was probably just following this.

Indeed, but it doesn't make it anymore incorrect. What's most striking is that Lilly seems to have had texts from Arabic authors who all would have calculated it with the reverse formula. It's strange that he would have completely dismissed it, but such is the nature of the back to Ptolemy movement that occurred around that general time. Imagine what astrology would have looked like if Lilly had had access to Valens or Dorotheus. :/

Cap
08-11-2014, 07:28 PM
Yes, I have heard this comment made by many others and I really just can't get behind it. Why does Lilly strike you as that type of a fellow?

Well, for starters his own words in CA introduction:

"In this second Book I have omitted nothing which I could devise to be helpful, and if my own may of judicature please any, it being somewhat different from that of the Ancients, he may in many Chapters make use of it. I have illustrated every house with one or more figures, and therein shewed the method of judgment, which I held very convenient for Learners, it being my whole intention to advance this Art, and make even a slender wit capable hereof."

His practical nature was also revealed by his interest in occult, talismanic magic and many forms of divination. His nickname was "the English Merlin".

It is interesting that today some people insist on following Lilly "to the letter" while he was a practical open minded fellow who accepted nothing blindly but tested everything to see "if it works".

Unfortunately, about the Bonatti text, I thought I had a PDF of it, but it seems I was mistaken so I don't think I'm going to be a whole lot of help on this.

No problem, I have a PDF copy of this book and yes, that's my favorite book on Arabic parts. But usually his instruction for delineation goes something like this: "If this part or its significator are in any way impeded..." He doesn't mention the combustion, except maybe twice when he mentions the combustion of the significator.

"Impeded in any way" could be a lot of different things.

Kaiousei no Senshi
08-13-2014, 04:27 AM
This has been an interesting glimpse into what you consider modern. ;)

dr. farr
08-13-2014, 05:11 AM
In my quite extensive use of Lots, I have never applied combustion or cazimi considerations to them, and my results (delineative and/or predictive) have been (from my perspective) quite satisfactory.

Cap
08-13-2014, 04:39 PM
In my quite extensive use of Lots, I have never applied combustion or cazimi considerations to them, and my results (delineative and/or predictive) have been (from my perspective) quite satisfactory.

Thank you dr. Farr for sharing your view and it's good to have you back on the forum! Your outstanding knowledge and experience makes your opinion at least equally valuable as Lilly's or Valens'.

Speaking of Lots, I am curious, did you ever experimented with Lots in event and election charts applying Ankara horary rules (with significators "flowing" towards or away from the Lot) and with what results (does it "work")?

dr. farr
08-14-2014, 05:25 AM
Thanks for the kind words!

In regard to experiments with Lots and event and election charts, my answer to both your questions is "yes": especially so when experimenting with financial predictive astrology, the flowing toward or away from the specific Lot by appropriate significators, has worked well (same too in my now extensive experiments in prediction of outcomes of sports events*, where the "closeness" of team significator planets to their specific Part of Fortune, shows the likelihood of the winner of the sports event)




*US based football, hockey, basketball and baseball games

piercethevale
08-19-2015, 05:08 PM
Well, for starters his own words in CA introduction:

"In this second Book I have omitted nothing which I could devise to be helpful, and if my own may of judicature please any, it being somewhat different from that of the Ancients, he may in many Chapters make use of it. I have illustrated every house with one or more figures, and therein shewed the method of judgment, which I held very convenient for Learners, it being my whole intention to advance this Art, and make even a slender wit capable hereof."

His practical nature was also revealed by his interest in occult, talismanic magic and many forms of divination. His nickname was "the English Merlin".

It is interesting that today some people insist on following Lilly "to the letter" while he was a practical open minded fellow who accepted nothing blindly but tested everything to see "if it works".



No problem, I have a PDF copy of this book and yes, that's my favorite book on Arabic parts. But usually his instruction for delineation goes something like this: "If this part or its significator are in any way impeded..." He doesn't mention the combustion, except maybe twice when he mentions the combustion of the significator.

"Impeded in any way" could be a lot of different things.
I often refer to them as the 'Devoted of the gilded Lily'.

I do hope that your are in good health dr. farr and that you aren't distressed in any manner for any cause. As it has been many months since you lasted posted in the forum I looked up what your last post was and blessedly found this thread.
I did want to add that I do concur wholeheartedly as to your observations pertaining to cazimi regarding Parts.
I have found it to be so very true regarding natal charts. Anything within a one degree orb of conjunction has way more influence to any influence outside of it even down to the last few seconds of a degree...and as for cazimi, well, that's 'off the hook'!.

I do want to add that what you observed and commented on as to Lily I have found very applies to the those Arabs and Persians that wrote on the Parts during the 'Dark Ages'. They were working from fragmented knowledge and, for the most part, were merely passing on what fragments they had with no real understanding imparted along with that.
Zoller made it apparent to me with some errors I discovered in His book in which parts of his text were somehow repeated in other chapters of His book as they were obviously out of context as in a couple of instances I have found the name of the Part being addressed changed in the midst of the same paragraph, yet no one I know of has ever caught these gaffs.
The author, James R. Lewis, even mentions in his book, "The Astrology Encyclopedia", that these authors of the 'Dark Ages' (some of them, at least. It has been some time since I read any of Lewis' work and can't recall exactly whom He was pointing out) never give any examples to substantiate their claims, indicating technical proficiency but no real understanding... and I seem to recall that Zoller mentioned this as to, at least, one of those ancient authors.

Great topic here, great posts.
Thank you, ptv

piercethevale
08-19-2015, 07:09 PM
I should have noted to the above that my use of the term "cazimi" here is not in the traditional sense regrading the Sun in conjunction but rather a Part, or Lot, within a half of a degree orb of conjunction to any of the three influences that, in transit, are natal components of the relative formula that produces the Part, or Lot, and that it also applies to the cusp of any of the angular Houses.
I also haven't seen any indications that a combust situation with any of the factors to the Sun makes any difference to the effectiveness of that given Part, or Lot, either.

I should know better by now to post anything before I've had my coffee in the morning. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.
ptv

Bjorkstrand
08-24-2015, 01:31 AM
It doesn't exist.