Yes they are in each other's domiciles (signs of rulership) and are therefore in mutual reception; remember also, that the ancients (and earlier Traditionalists as well) considered planets in mutual reception to be in a defacto conjunctional relationship
(that is, they consider planets in mutual reception to be the same as if they were in conjunction)
Right: I think in Vedic parlance mutual reception is referred to as the lord of the respective signs "exchanging places" (used in shadbala in determining relative planetary strengths)
Also, regarding my earlier post, the references does not claim these ARE conjunctions, but the terminology and descriptions used amount to the same thing AS a conjunction (ie, conjunction like effects)
Almost all sources have ranked this sambandha most effective and most
powerful (60 virupa or 100%)
Right: I think in Vedic parlance mutual reception is referred to as the lord of the respective signs "exchanging places" (used in shadbala in determining relative planetary strengths)
Also, regarding my earlier post, the references does not claim these ARE conjunctions, but the terminology and descriptions used amount to the same thing AS a conjunction (ie, conjunction like effects)
Thank you for this information!
Yes, placement is given importance over "aspect" both in Vedic and in Chinese astrological methodologies; the ancient Greco-Roman astrology was very similar to this placement emphasis, and, like jyotish, they used "aspects" as such by sign relationships (remember also that a conjunction is not, technically, an aspect, since it refers to a type of unity rather than to a "contrasting", which term is appropriate to the concept of aspect or "aspecting")
wdg said:Mercury in Aquarius and in the 5th house, Saturn in Virgo and in the 11th house, both planets have no aspect , is that Mercury and Saturn can consider as mutual reception?
Moog said:Yes, they are considered to simply behave as though each was in the other sign, and so domiciled.
Thank you for sharing this interesting bit of information, Moog. I had long wondered where more modern astrologers got this idea from because it is not something written about or even implied in the Western traditions.
For the past approximately 800 years, the doctrine of reception has included an aspectual requirement; however, in the ancient Hellenist astrology, and through the early to intermediate Islamic transitional era epoch (to about the late 11th early 12th century) the authors of those times did not require an aspect for reception to be present and operative (see for example, Sahl, al-Kindi, Abu Mashar, al-Biruni) In my own use of the reception concept, I follow the simpler indications of these early authors regarding this matter.