Out-of-sign combustion technicalia

Hi to all,

i'm having a bit of struggle here as to how to correctly weight the out-of-sign combustion case. I am wondering what are the general experiences and the outcomes people having with the charts having this kind of scenario ....

For example,
with the Sun at 27°Aries, and Venus at 2°Taurus, how do you read it ?


Any thoughts ?

Traditionally, sign has nothing to do with combustion: the doctrine is that any planet within 8degrees30minutes of the Sun is combust: the combust state supercedes sign borders.
(However, while I do follow the idea that combustion supercedes sign borders, I do not accept the generic 8.5 degree combust zone, believing instead that the combustion varies with the elemental nature of the planet involved; for me, then, since I consider the combust zone for watery Venus to be 3-4 degrees from the Sun, in the example you give, above, Venus is 5 degrees from the Sun, and so, in my "book", would not be combust; Traditionalist astrology, however, would say that Venus is combust, since it within the 8.5 degree generic combust zone they believe in)

Thank you for your reply Dr. Farr.

I was able to find some interesting leads on the topic after posting this thread.

The first and most interesting to me dwells upon the relevance of "from the-earth-plane-standpoint/to-the-naked-eye/factual visibility" of the celestial body within the sun rays orb of reach. The "yes we can actually see it - or no, we can see it not" discourse, and though it wasnt explicitly mentioned, i guess, to what extent we found the natural light of the body implied diminished, overshadowed, "neutralized". ? . I quote what i found:

In all of the texts ... combustion is clearly mentioned in relation to visibility ... matter of being visibly hidden by the sun's rays - not in terms of aspects

Click to expand...

The whole idea of combustion is that the planet has no power to act because it is being overwhelmed by the Sun. It is invisible. This is actually an astronomical occurrence. When a planet is that close to the Sun we cannot see it. This happens whether the two are in the same sign or not

Click to expand...

Seemingly makes allot of sense. But then, seem's too Lilly explicitly denies taking an out-of-sign app cj as combustion valid:

Lilly ... only considers them combust when in the same sign. But by his definition, if Mercury is at 29° Aries and the Sun is at 1° Taurus, the planet is not combust. But if Mercury is at 21° Aries and the Sun is at 29° Aries then the planet is combust even though in the first situation the Sun and Mercury are much closer

Click to expand...

Then, i found the inner vs. outer planets relevance of conjunction, saying, as inner being more accustomed and natural in the Sun's proximity - being more harmed under the Sun beams than within the Sun rays, with the outer planets case the opposite.

There's this interesting passage specially focusing on Venus:

Al-Biruni says that Venus can sometimes be conjunct the Sun and yet not combust, because she is still visible on account of her occasional extreme latitude (Book of Instruction, section 483). Here we have a case where a planet is definitely conjunct, but not combust, and for reasons of visibility, not longitude or sign cusps

Click to expand...

We have the whole propositional logic circuit here, pretty much .. Impartially partial ~

Dr Farr

Are you familiar with Jyotish astrology's take on combustion? They likewise have individual orbs for each planet with regards combustion.

Athene

Like whoever it is you're quoting from, I take it that visibility is the most important point with regards combustion - if it is within the sun's rays (about 8.5 degrees) then it is combust. This can be across sign boundaries, they are irrelevant to combustion. When ancient astrologers talk of signs, aspects, and anything related they never mention combustion. So if it was an issue of aspect or sign boundaries we might have expected them to mention it then, but they don't. They treat it separately. I think this is very telling.

Paul_ said:

Dr Farr

Are you familiar with Jyotish astrology's take on combustion? They likewise have individual orbs for each planet with regards combustion

Click to expand...

Yes, I am familiar with this; also, we find in some of the Hellenist authors (eg Antiochus of Athens) mention of a variable combustion zone for the different planets: these considerations led me to my concept of variable "sensitivity" to combustion, based on the elemental quality of the planet involved.

Thanks dr_farr

I'm familiar that there are some astrologers in the hellensitic period who used different orbs per planet for combustion and I thought perhaps an arabic one as well, I am not sure.

I think ultimately the idea of orbs, whether it is for the sun, or for the individual planets, is something of a 'rule of thumb'. I think the more important point is whether or not the planet is visible. We use these orbs as handy guides to help us determine whether or not it is visible, but as someone who has noticed that sometimes latitude mitigates combustion (by making a planet visible/invisible) I would be a little bit cautious to make any hard stance on any of the theories with the orbs.

One interesting point to mention here, more generally, is that use of combustion appears to predate the equal 12 sign zodiac, and probably the zodiac generally at all. This certainly lends weight to the idea that this is primarily an observational phenomena. If a planet appears to be consumed by the Sun then the idea is that this planet loses its power, but also that it is cleansed by the sun and will later emerge anew, or reborn. This is a very powerful symbolism in my opinion.

With regards sign boundaries, the only thing of relevance I would notice is with regards receptions. If a planet is in the domicile of the Sun or its exaltation, then sometimes I think the potency of combustion is lessened, and I think this is because the Sun receives it. Particularly if the planet in question also is strong in dignity. I still think the planet is stripped somewhat of its power, but I tend to find the outcome is normally less unfavourable.

EDIT
btw I was not thinking of Antiochus, what does Antiochus say of variable orbs of combustion? I once thought Firmicus used variable orbs of combustion but am presently unsure. He links the orbs to heliacal setting and I'm not always sure to what level those two concepts are similar.

In the Islamic transitional era, Abu Mashar mentions earlier Hellenistic concepts regarding variant combustion zones for planets.

The idea of planets being cleansed by combustion, then emerging renewed, is from Hermetico-alchemical thinking (which emerged in the first few centuries of the CE, as did Western astrology as we now know it) The alchemical tradition has many connections with astrology, indeed, alchemy is bound up with macrocosmic ("astrological") concepts, throughout. This is why my own outlook regarding combustion is that the planet is absorbed by the Sun, that the Sun temporarily takes the place of the combusted planet, and, in delineation, I use a mixture of the Sun + combusted planet indications (rather than just discounting the combusted planet as if it temporarily did not exist) Thus my own concept of combustion is by no means observational (as it clearly was with the great majority of authors), but rather is connected with alchemico-elemental considerations.