Can it consider as mutual reception?
- Thread starter wdg
- Start date
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)
(that is, they consider planets in mutual reception to be the same as if they were in conjunction)
tsmall
Premium Member
Oh, this is one I haven't read. Not that that isn't so surprising, but...conjunction? Do you have a source?
Sure: we can find this indication in al-Biruni, also (as I remember) in Ibn Ezra; certainly in Thabit ibn Qurra, also (as I remember) in Abu Mashar; if this is not mentioned in the Ben Dykes books, I am rather surprised, since I did encounter this concept in at least a couple of the Islamic transitionsal era authors I have mentioned (I THINK I remember it also in Dorotheus of Sidon, and I definitely read it in the fragments from Maximus I have; also, I think I remember Robert Hand mentioning this concept, but cannot remember exactly where he did so; remember too that the ancients had several "types" of "conjunction-like" situations, eg, by degree, by sign, by Parallel-usually of declination, sometimes of latitude, etc; indeed, I at least got the idea, from my reading of the oldtimers, that the whole reception issue was akin to a kind of "conjunctional" relationship, in its basic essence: certainly, among the Greco-Roman and earlier Islamic transitional era authors, the most important relationship-ie, the most influential relationship among planets- was conjunctional)
Last edited:
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)
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)
Moog
Well-known member
There's an interesting page here on Mutual Reception from a vedically informed perspective; note the table that ranks MR (Parivartana) as the strongest form of relationship (Sambandha), above conjunction and aspect, at 75% and 50% a piece.
I'm not sure what his source for this is, if it's Parashara, or something else. I've not fully explored that text (I think it could take me a lifetime)
Okay, so found another interesting document that seems to suggest it's Parashara. It also suggests that a similar ranking is given in other sources;
Of course, we need to test these things for ourselves, but I find a lot of value in the old Jyotish texts.
Barbara Pijan offers useful insights, as ever
It's interesting to note that none of the Vedic sources mention an aspectual component of the mutual reception at all (to my knowledge). It seems to be a strictly western idea; that the exchange of sign rulers needs an aspectual relationship to cement it.
Moog
Well-known member
Yes, they are considered to simply behave as though each was in the other sign, and so domiciled.
Which can get quite interesting when you get configurations like Moon in Scorpio/Mars in Cancer.
Last edited:
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")
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")
Moog
Well-known member
I have rather noticed that there seems to be a very heavy emphasis on aspects in modern astrology, at least, modern astrology practiced by astrologers who discard the notion of dignity by sign. To the extent that aspects are almost the only thing considered.
When I 'went traditional' it was quite interesting to note that the rulerships became so much more significant. And I found that had quite a significant shift in how I thought about the links in the charts; to look at relationships not through conjunctions and aspects, but simply through the signs.
I began to think about drawing lines on the chart, but not aspects; kind of wires linking planets to their rulers. I envisaged a sort of patchbay, like a modular synthesiser with wires hanging out all over.
I think the way we draw charts has a tremendous impact on how we perceive and think about astrology. That's why I like to switch between the circle charts, the square south Indian chart, and the 'diamond' north Indian chart. And hence my kicking up stink about their being no Ketu on the astro.com charts.
I'm digressing horribly here, sorry about that OP...
Kaiousei no Senshi
Premium Member
wdg said:
No, unfortunately this is not a mutual reception since the definition of reception requires an aspect. It is, though, a mutual generosity which can still be useful to these two planets, depending on other circumstances.
Moog said:
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. It's good to know they aren't just making things up.
Moog
Well-known member
It's quite interesting to see what connects and what doesn't from Indian astrology to Modern, Hellenistic to Indian etc.
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.
Kaiousei no Senshi
Premium Member
I'm not sure this is entirely historically accurate. Masha'allah wrote about receptions and defined them specifically as needing an aspect in his works which were all penned sometime from 750-815 AD, so the qualification of reception needing aspects appears to be a bit older than late 11th century. I should check Maternus at home to see if what/if he says anything about receptions. I don't immediately recall anything.