What do you think of cazimi aspect?

Also my chart > February 3rd 1995 6pm 70 WEST 56, 40 NORTH 48

sun in Aqua... Mer Cazimi

Post your chart - see link --

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12126

Although you may find some astrologers who doubt it, I find the cazimi conjunction very powerful. I don't do natal very much, but it works wonders in electional astrology. Both the sun and the cazimi planet will be very powerful as well as the houses they rule. If you do traditional astrology, remember to use those houses to know what will really pay off in the life of the native.

There was a moderator here who has a cazimi Venus. She was very good as moderator and would be taken for someone much older. However, she has not posted recently, so I may not give the screen name, but I see her posts are still in the archives.

I do modern astrology, and "cazimi" tends to be associated more with traditional astrology. Take your pick! However, I believe that a planet conjunct the sun shows what the person identifies (sun) with. For example, with Mercury conjunct the sun, the person identifies with her intelligence. With moon conjunct the sun, he identifies with his feelings. And so on. The tighter the orb, the stronger the sense of identification.

I personally never understood the difference between cazimi and combust.
I understand the orb difference, cazimi is conjunct with in minutes, while combust is with orbs..

What confuses me is cazimi is stronger, yet combust is weaker, even though they are both very close to the sun.

I have both combust moon/mercury
(I heard mercury, not considered to weakened, since its always close to the sun)

Both my mercury/moon are at 14leo, my sun at 16leo

My belief is that Cazimi could only apply to planets in the inferior conjunction, and so is only applicable to Mercury and Venus.

Perhaps what the traditional source text writers were thinking of, was something like the Venus transit of 2012, when Venus was literally 'in the heart of the sun'.

I'd be happy if someone could introduce me to a traditional source text that was very specific about Cazimi.

Lion o ness said:

I personally never understood the difference between cazimi and combust.
I understand the orb difference, cazimi is conjunct with in minutes, while combust is with orbs..

What confuses me is cazimi is stronger, yet combust is weaker, even though they are both very close to the sun.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it makes no sense.

A planet becomes more and more combust, burned and damaged... until suddenly, when the planet is totally engulfed, it becomes mega awesome wicked?

I don't find that logical.

A study of the astronomy involved may interest those who wish to explore the concept further.

Its clearly a symbolic matter, with no astrophysico-explanation possible: symbolically the planet has become merged with the all-powerful Sun by entering the heart of the Sun, and has been raised to be equivalent with the Sun: the concept is completely Western[arising in the Hellenist period, clearly as an expression of the Hermetic doctrines which played so great a role in early Westerm astrology (until the Aristotelian perspective came to dominate Western astrology during the later Islamic transitional era) We find no equivalent concept in any of the Vedic astrology approaches, where combust is and can only be, combust.

Me? In my electicism, and because of my alchemical leanings, I consider cazimi to be the greatest dignity which can befall a planet.

dr. farr said:

Its clearly a symbolic matter, with no astrophysico-explanation possible: symbolically the planet has become merged with the all-powerful Sun by entering the heart of the Sun, and has been raised to be equivalent with the Sun: the concept is completely Western[arising in the Hellenist period, clearly as an expression of the Hermetic doctrines which played so great a role in early Westerm astrology (until the Aristotelian perspective came to dominate Western astrology during the later Islamic transitional era) y

Click to expand...

My (albeit limited) understanding of cazimi planets is that it is one way of saving the planet from combustion. Combust planets, whether applying or separating, are unfortunate and so will be severly impaired when performing their duties as house rulers. This is not to say that planets close to the Sun cannot function in modern astrology, and I can also add that the closer Mercury is to the Sun the smarter I've found those natives to be. Within a degree? Genius. But if Mercury combust and not cazimi rules the houses of education...no advanced degree, and your genius could be a fry cook at your favorite seafood restaurant.

According to Hellenistic doctrine the other way a planet was "saved" was if it was in it's own "chariot" meaning in one of the signs it rules by domicile or exatation. Burning is bad, but being in the heart of the Sun was/is the same as being in the lap of the king. If you have a planet that really is within 17' of the Sun...figure out the rest of the story. What housese does that planet rule, what houses does the Sun rule, and everything else. Cazimi is good for the planet, not necessiarily good for the native or the people the native interacts with. An example? My father has Mars (the lesser malefic) cazimi in Pisces in his chart. I don't have a birth time so I can't tell for sure how this affected him re the houses...but I can tell you he ruined many, many lives in his. And that he is completely unconcerned that he did.

waybread points out that cazimi is a traditional idea, and she's right. Because psychological astrology is concerned with how the native perceives things, how the native's mind works, and under what circumstances the native can work with those energies to better themselves. This, at it's core, is not at odds with traditional methods.

Moog said:

A planet becomes more and more combust, burned and damaged... until suddenly, when the planet is totally engulfed, it becomes mega awesome wicked?

Click to expand...

This requires an understanding of what happens when planets are setting into the beams, becoming combust, being totally engulfed, and then emerging on the other side. The symbolism is quite beautiful.

The best analogy I can come up with for it (as a mom of three) is just this. A planet sets into the beams (15 or 17 degreess depending on which sources you follow, up to 8 degrees), and there is fear. You know it's going to hurt, and you know there isn't a dang thing you can do about it because no matter what, it has to happen. You can try to run, you can try to hide, but sill, the pain will catch up to you. Planets under the beams perform according to this fear.

Cumbust in an applying aspect (8 or so degrees until you are in the heart--cazimi--), and you are already engulfed with the pain. There is no escaping it because it simply has to be born whether you like it or not, and being in the midst of misery will color everything you do. This is the part where mom starts swearing at dad, the Universe, and her entire condition.

Once you get to the heart (or in my example, the head delivering) there is ecstasy. Literally. The worst is over, and the euphoria is just amazing. It's a moment of complete and pure joy and exaltation.

Combust in a separating aspect is different, because you survived the worst and even though it still hurts, you had your moment and you know that you are escaping the pain. Under the beams in the same separating aspect and yes, you are weakened but again, you know that it is getting better, you are regaining strength and that you are tougher for the experience. You also have hope, not just because you actually survived, but you have something to look forward to (in my analogy, a new baby to love)

I've read the 'alchemical symbolic' idea a few times before and I just don't buy it. Sorry.

Mainly, the cazimi thing doesn't jive with Parashara's chesta bala doctrine. Except, as mentioned, with the inner planets, where the cazimi idea could work and fit that logic.

I think that more likely, unless I find a source that specifically mentions cazimi in reference to the outer planets. Or something less vague anyhoo

Or you know, a vast swathe of empirical data proving the phenomenon

Basically, I think it's a matter of physics.

I don't think it matters what the planet feels like. He's set. He (or she) cannot shine his or her rays on the earth very much, because of interference from the Sun. The Sun is between the planet and the Earth.

Except in the case of inferior planets in the inferior conjunction yadda yadda

It is worth pointing out that the idea of a planet combust or getting burned up by the sun is kind of a fiction of our geocentric perspective; which--mind you-- is what we use in astrology. A planet close to the sun might appear to be overwhelmed by the sun's rays from our perspective. It would certainly lose its ability to twinkle brightly and independently for us in the night sky.

But these planets are actually kazillions of miles away from the sun. In a straight line they may look conjunct, but actually they are so far away that nothing is burning.

Not that modern astrology is that into astronomy, but this is one reason why I am OK with seeing the sun as one's identity; and a conjunct planet, as what one identifies with. A woman with Venus conjunct the sun, for instance, might strongly identify with her femininity; unlike a woman with Mars conjunct her sun.

Interestingly the idea that planets' dimmer light weakened their effects sort of shows up in Tetrabiblos, where Ptolemy explains planets in the 12th house on the horizon at dawn as more difficult to see clearly.

Moog said:

I've read the 'alchemical symbolic' idea a few times before and I just don't buy it.

Click to expand...

Neither do the great majority of those involved in astrology, West or East.

Basically I am follower of the macrocosmic/microcosmic neo-plantonic neo-pythorgorean astrological ideas of Paracelsus (who is largely unknown in astrological circles today, even among Traditionalists)

Most of those involved in astrology adopt a defacto mechanico-astrophysical perspective, rather than a symbolic/philosophical outlook.
Depends upon the nature of each individual, leaning one way or the other.
I lean to the symbolic....

Perhaps it's a matter for another thread, and perhaps I don't really understand what you mean. How do you propose astrology works without astrophysical mechanisms?

Or what mechanisms can there be that stick the symbolic to the manifest without being physical, or mechanical. Or what's another word for a non mechanical mechanism? lol

I seem to need a new order of language to even begin a simple discussion about anything here today.

How does the above stick so interestingly to the below. Without glue. Is I suppose what I'm asking. Or is the 'glue' not physical, and something else?

The geo-centrically apparent relationships of the planets and stars (and areas of space, signs) and Time, are external synchronous phenonomenological representations ("symbols") of changes/meanings occuring/arising "within" (ie, of whats happening with the "inner Reality")-that's the best I can do (and its not all that great!) without going into a very lengthy dissertation, including a necessary list of specially defined terms, in attempting to even approach this abstruse subject!

However, regarding combustion and the related question of cazimi: as you know, combustion is the worst thing that can happen to a planet according to mainstream Vedic doctrine, and also according to Western Hellenist and Western Traditionalist astrology as well. Vedic astrology consider the Sun a natural malefic; in Hellenist and Traditional Western, the doctrine is quite similar: the Sun being distant is benefic, the Sun close by is malefic. Modern Western astrology does not share these attitudes regarding the Sun: I must add that, in my eclectic outlook, I hold the Modern Western opinion regarding the Sun and planets in conjunction with the Sun (ie, combust planets), except for the cazimi outlook (which Modern Western does not have)-in other words, I do not consider the Sun a natural malefic (as Vedic astrology does), nor do I follow the "Sun distant = good, Sun near = malefic" outlook of the Hellenists or Western Traditionalists. Fact is that I have simply not seen the supposed ill effects of planets combust the Sun, in actual charts, yet I have often seen the benefic amplifying effects (apparent effects) of planets in cazimi: now, that proves nothing because its simply based on my delineative and predictive experiences, but-for me at any rate-these experiences, coupled with my understanding of the nature of the Sun (both from the astrological and the hermetico-alchemical symbolic perspective), have sustained me in accepting the Modernist outlook regarding planets conjunct (combust) the Sun, in actual delineative and predictive applications...

Moog said:

Or is the 'glue' not physical, and something else?

Click to expand...

Dark matter/dark energy??
Perhaps, maybe, might be???

So you reject a model whereby planets influence the Earth physically, through some force such as, say, electromagnitism, and subscribe to a 'synchronistic' model, where the planets are merely signposting other, physically unconnected forces and processes occuring?

There is little information on the web about cazimi that seems legit. Does the planet have to be inner? I just think that if the string between planets is very tight the energies combine and produce a purified pulse, but there should obviously be a difference if the planets energy hits the Sun first and combines in to whole there, or if the suns energy hits a small planet and then continues.. the effects should be.. less beneficent for the Venutian or Mercurian cazimi (thinking). It should purify and exalt the "good energy" in planets which come behind the Sun I think.

Why I'm of that opinion is because I have a very tight Pluto conjunction with the Sun (15 min orb) and by my experience I identify with it strongly. I don't think it's malefic at all even though Pluto should come with lots of dark energy, while my moon which is conjunct Saturn at 22 min orb feels like it's being tortured.

Well, we can come up with all kinds of ideas that we like the look of. Justify things this way or that.

To me, based on my studies, it doesn't make sense. It's not consistent with other systems, such as, as mentioned Parashara, who does go into a lot of detail about motional strength, combustion etc.

Unfortunately it doesn't seem like anyone's really doing a lot of good empirical stuff on anything astrological, which could clear things up, providing we could separate effects enough to be sure (for example) that combustion was causing an issue, rather than say, an aspect from another planet, or sure that the Cazimi was the factor that made something so good etc.

Until then, we've really just got some ideas, ideas that need testing. And very well.

Personal experiences are fine, but they definitely aren't foolproof. You only have to come here and realise that there's a different astrological 'model' going on inside each member's head, some radically different to others.