Mutual Reception Valid?

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
Juicy J. said:
No, not true a sign/house has as as many dispositors as there are lords for each planet robert hand says ancient astrologers had a terms for this such as "pushing the dignity".

That's not what pushing dignity/power is. Pushing dignity is when a planet in some dignity is applying to another planet. Such as Moon in Taurus applying a Trine to Mars in Virgo, the idea is that the Moon is able to give some of her strength to Mars who will be able to benefit from it in managing the affairs of his house and whatever the Moon is pushing to it.

I still don't agree with the dispositor thing. I don't think it works out conceptually and I've never seen anyone mention anything similar, but that doesn't mean it's not out there.
 

juicey J.

Banned
No, pushing the dignity is when a planet in deblity has it debility somewhat helped by its lord in turn being in dignity, robert hand talks about this in a lecture on receptions and said ancient astologers called this pushing the dignity and the way i understand it is the dignity is pushed until if and when it runs into a dignified planet . In other words if the lord of a house is debliated its not a death sentence but its more of one if its lord is debliated and afflicted, and its lord in turn is also, and so on. your sample doesn't work as the planets involved don't have a major rulership relationship. Yes medieval reception/aspect involvement is part of it you got that right. A moon in taurus would help a mars in cancer lessen its debility, therefore ancient astrlogers believed looking at all the lords was important before making final judgement, nearly every other medieval and hellenstic scholar on these forums will agree with much if not most of what im saying. The sample you gave is a non recieving (due to no major rulership of domicile, exaltation, or triplicity being involved) trine and has nothing to do with it, and besides you just agreed with my point which, was a planet can help another planet out and the lord of a house isn't the end all end all like you said in your first post to me (more or less with the whole only one dispostior business), your contradicting yourself. Well okay your sample would work if it was a night time chart and the moon in Taurus was reviving mars in virgo by triplicity lordship but only then would it count as a pushing the dignity. Also, once again yes a sign/house has one dispostor (talking about sign or domicile lordship) but it in turn has a dispostor, and so on unless its in its home sign.
 
Last edited:

juicey J.

Banned
No jupiterasc, there is no such thing as an exalted home (the exaltation lord gives added aid and benefit to the affairs of a sign/house) and its opposite the fall planet takes away from such), there is only one home sign, the signs don't have a winter and summer home. For example a square from mars and trine from venus is especially unfavorable in general to a scorpio house and its affairs as its receiving the planet its in determint in (that which, challenges the influence of the domicile) and has difficulty receiving the aid of its domicile (house lord) ruler due to the stress aspect. Also, yes the concept of home or house sign comes from whole signs, that's what astrology orgininally consisted of and where the whole concept of domicile lordship was developed from in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
Juicy J. said:
No, pushing the dignity is when a planet in deblity has it debility somewhat helped by its lord in turn being in dignity, robert hand talks about this in a lecture on receptions and said ancient astologers called this pushing the dignity and the way i understand it is the dignity is pushed until if and when it runs into a dignified planet

Interesting, I had listened to Rob Hand's lecture on Reception, but I don't recall him having spoken about pushing, it was a quite a bit ago when I listened to it, so it might be time for another go at it. However, I'm going to have to quote Ben Dykes on this one.

""Pushing power" which is the same as "committing virtue." ("Virtue" in Latin also means "manliness, strength, power"). Here, a planet which is already in its own domicile or exaltation applies to some other planet. An example would be Mercury in Gemini applying to Mars. See ITA III.16."

That link goes to the whole post and thread which is very informative about the different concepts of pushing if anyone is interested.

Anyway, I'm entertaining the idea that we're talking about different concepts. You keep referring to "pushing the dignity", and though it sounds very similar to "pushing power", it might not be. It wouldn't be the first time I've been duped by different astrologers calling different things similar names, or similar things different names. Here's looking at you, Bonatti. :/

The sample you gave is a non recieving (due to no major rulership of domicile, exaltation, or triplicity being involved) trine and has nothing to do with it, and besides you just agreed with my point which, was a planet can help another planet out and the lord of a house isn't the end all end all like you said in your first post to me (more or less with the whole only one dispostior business), your contradicting yourself.

Right, but pushing power doesn't need reception to make it work. Only particular types of pushing require particular reception set ups, like pushing nature or Bonatti's commiting disposition, but pushing power and management don't require it (well, you could argue pushing management does for all practical purposes), but that is a whole different conversation entirely.

I'm not contradicting myself, I'm talking about different techniques entirely. Saying a planet's condition is dependent on its dispositor, but that that first planet can be bonified by other accidental dignities isn't contradiction.

Also, I never said that a planet's dispositor was the "be all, end all" for that planet as you're trying to characterize it, only that my understanding is "the buck stops there" and you don't consider other dispositors for other planets in relation to the first. Meaning, Mercury's dispositor is irrelevant for Mars in Virgo. It's just not something that I have ever seen practiced or discussed. Like I said before, I can't say for certain that it's not out there (who can say they've read all of the tradition?), but the authors I have read and studied have not mentioned it.

If you use it and do well by it, then by all means keep going. I'm not here to debate you or anything and I feel I've already let this become more of a debate than I wanted, I just like talking about reception and pushing, but I guess the link above will say all that needs to be said on this subject for now. :)
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
No jupiterasc, there is no such thing as an exalted home
On the contrary juicey J THERE IS GOOD REASON WHY SOME PLANETS MAY SYMBOLICALLY HAVE AN EXALTED HOME


(a) Either one has a 'home of one's own' of some description OR one is 'homeless' :smile:


(b) HOW A PLANET MAY BE DESCRIBED AS SYMBOLICALLY 'HOMELESS

'…...A planet with no essential dignity is called Peregrine, a Latin word meaning 'alien' or 'foreigner' (pereger = beyond the borders, ager = land, i.e., 'beyond one's own land'). In old English, to 'peregrinate' means to wander far from home.... Property owners tend to view drifters with suspicion, and distrust their lack of stability' In symbolic terms, a peregrine planet describes a drifter - someone with no title or stake in his or her environment...'
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig3.html

Thus a Peregrine planet most closely symbolically represents 'a homeless person' or a 'person with no permanent home, a drifter'

Drifters may occasionally find temporary homes/shelter BUT they are certainly not 'exalted' and within those temporary home, drifters are not respected as such.

A Peregrine planet represents -
as Deborah Houlding describes the 'peregrine' connotation - an 'alien' person 'a foreigner' who is 'beyond their own land' and is 'mostly regarded with suspicion'

IN CONTRAST:

An exalted planet, “....ln symbolic terms is comparable to being an honoured guest in someone else's home. There is not the same level of freedom or strength as when a planet is in its own sign but it shows a dignified position, often indicating a person of respect or rank...'



When such an exalted planet is also angularly located that planet is more dignified and may have more power to act than the domicile lord of its Exaltation.


For example Venus in Taurus, Saturn in Libra:

Saturn's exalted home is Libra BECAUSE Venus welcomes Saturn and exalts Saturn AS AN HONOURED GUEST in her home aka domicile of Libra.


Venus domicile remains Venus domicile HOWEVER Venus now has a Resident in her home – i.e. Saturn.... and Saturn in Libra IS NOT 'just any old vagabond
drifter off the streets, Saturn in Libra IS NOT some homeless foreigner alien to the neighborhood ' BUT INSTEAD Saturn in Libra is a dignified and honored person in command of their own considerable resources, someone of great potential assistance to Venus. FURTHERMORE Venus is not located in Libra PERMANENTLY

When Saturn enters Libra, Venus is not necessarily 'at home' herself therefore Saturn has freedom of occupation of her home aka domicile while she is 'away' in some other sign.

Saturn in Libra is not some suspicious 'homeless wanderer' aka 'drifter'

INSTEAD Saturn in Libra is an honoured guest occupying the home of the property owner, in this case Venus, while she is away

– furthermore not only is Venus in Ta
urus away from her Libra home BUT ALSO – from the sign of Taurus - Venus is in 150º aspect with Libra and is not fully aware of exactly what the scene is back at her alternative home

- and therefore
Saturn in Libra has freedom of occupation of Venus home WITHOUT Venus supervision– even though Venus is of course involved in affairs of the Libran house and is more than happy to have Saturn throwing his weight around because Saturn is somehow helpful to the affairs of that Libran house.
That's why Saturn's exalted home is Libra

....(the exaltation lord gives added aid and benefit to the affairs of a sign/house) and its opposite the fall planet takes away from such), there is only one home sign, the signs don't have a winter and summer home. For example a square from mars and trine from venus is especially unfavorable in general to a scorpio house and its affairs as its receiving the planet its in determint in (that which, challenges the influence of the domicile) and has difficulty receiving the aid of its domicile (house lord) ruler due to the stress aspect. Also, yes the concept of home or house sign comes from whole signs, that's what astrology orgininally consisted of and where the whole concept of domicile lordship was developed from in the first place.
 

juicey J.

Banned
The exaltation house if you will is only a vacation home, a planet only has one true/main house and is the main focuses of a house/signs energies. The concept of their being more then one dispositor and the final dispositor (domicile or two planets in domicile reception is a throwback from ancient astrology, although now a bit bastardarized) Rob hand does talk about pushing the dignity in like the first half hour of his lecture on receptions.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The exaltation house if you will is only a vacation home....
'Only'.... That's a misleading statement, particularly when one considers the definition of Exaltation

"After its own sign, the next best place for a planet to be is in its sign of exaltation. In symbolic terms this is comparable to being an honoured guest in someone else's home. There is not the same level of freedom or strength as when a planet is in its own sign but it shows a dignified position, often indicating a person of respect or rank" http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig3.html


Having a 'vacation home' is indicative of neither dignity nor rank :smile:
 

tsmall

Premium Member
The exaltation rulers are much older than the domicile rulers. In the Thema Mundi, the Hellenistic diagram for understanding astrology, we can clearly see in antiquity that each planet, excluding the lights, has more than one "home" or domicile. Though I quite agree with you that each planet did have a "preferred" home, there still is a very strong case to be made for a planet being able to feel quite comfy in more than one place.

Ben Dykes, in his Introductions to Traditional Astrology, translates several Persian astrologers on the concepts of planetary relationships. There is an entire chapter dedicated to each of the methods of "pushing." As well, other written source material for explanations of these concepts and their us is widely available.

Kaiousei no Senshi has also linked to a thread elsewhere that will help in understanding, and shows that what is being defined here as "pushing the dignity" isn't how it's traditionally applied.

I have not listened to the Rob Hand lecture. While I do not doubt that he speaks of pushing, I'm not so sure I would put my faith in my understanding of pushing, or reception of any sort, in one 30 minute spot in one lecture by one astrologer. For one thing, I would want to try it out for myself. And see what other sources have to say, so that I could make sure that I thoroughly understand it.
 

juicey J.

Banned
No, if what senshui says is true then the matters of a house/sign are greatly defeated or at least severely challenged simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment and that's just nonesense, all the dispostors of the planets involved with the ruling planet of the house have to be considered. No the idea of many dispostors/final dispositor is an ancient idea and its just the opposite of what senshui is saying, it was way more complex then the modern take on it (although ancient astrologers didn't write out long dispositor trees because they knew who they were writing for weren't childern they had to spell everything out in full detail for) with exaltation dispositors and triplicity dispositors (although only the domicile counts as final dispositor because its said sign/houses main focus point).
 
Last edited:

tsmall

Premium Member
No, if what senshui says is true then the matters of a house/sign are greatly defeated simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment and that's just nonesense, all the dispostors of the planets involved with the ruling planet of the house have to be considered. No the idea of many dispostors/final dispositor is an ancient idea and its just the opposite of what senshui is saying, it was way more complex (although ancient astrologers didn't write out long dispositor trees because they knew who they were writing for weren't childern they had to spell everything out in full detail for) with exaltation dispositors and triplicity dispositors.

I'm terribly confused. I don't think that's what Kaiousei no Senshi was saying at all. And it seems as if you've gone from saying that reception can only happen if planets are in each other's domiciles, or in their own domiciles while receiving another planet in their domicile, to now agreeing that reception can happen in many ways.

And you'll have to refer me back to where anyone talked about the houses they rule...though the part I bolded is mostly correct. But yes, there are other dignities to be considered, as well as other rulers. For example, Venus in Virgo is in fall, but in a day chart from 8* to 17* Venus gets term and triplicity rulership. This means she is dignified and better able to see to the matters of her houses. Further, Mercury as exaltation ruler should be taken into consideration.

Could you provide a reference in the literature for the idea of a final dispositor? Personally I don't think it's way more complex that what is being explained here...and I think what's being explained here is perhaps complex enough.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
No, if what senshui says is true then the matters of a house/sign are greatly defeated or at least severely challenged simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment and that's just nonesense,
On the contrary, IF that is what Kaiousei No Senshi said then he IS correct BECAUSE according to medieval astrologers

...
'the matters of a house' ARE 'greatly defeated or at least severely challenged simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment'

That's why medieval astrologers examine the location and aspects of ALL the rulers of a house - to discover whether or not the matters of that particular house may be remedied or alleviated by the influence of the Exalted ruler - if there is one. Not all signs have exalted rulers
:smile:

However what IS nonsense certainly within the context of the idea of medieval astrology is the idea that a 'sign' itself can somehow 'be defeated'
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
Personally (my opinion) I believe this issue has been run into the ground by Traditionalist dogmatists, in a manner similar to what we find in mainstream Vedic astrology, with the splitting of hairs relative to ramifications of definitions and variants of definitions of the descriptive terms used by the various authors. This is why I personally have adopted a simplified approach to consideration of these matters regarding dignity, exaltation, etc.

One thing I do believe: I believe the signs condition and modulate the expression of planets in them, not the other way around: in other words, I believe the signs "rule" (so to speak) the planets, and that while the planets do also reciprocally influence the signs, the strength is from above (sign) downward (planet in sign) Now, this is (historically) a minority view (although it dominated early Hellenist thought, eg Manilius, and also much of Islamic transitional era astrological thought, eg, v. Ibn Arabi's "Mystical Astrology", also the Harranian astrological works of Thabit ibn Qurra, and it also is still dominant in Jaimini Vedic astrology)

The planetocentric outlook, developing early on (Firmicus Maternus, Parasara) came to dominate astrological thought (Western and mainstream Vedic), so planets became the "lords" of pretty much everything astrological, the "power centers", and this perspective really accelerated during Western Medieval, Renaissance and Reformation times, and continued to do so in the development of Modernist astrological thought and practice.

My opinions here are, of course, highly controversial and I certainly do not want to try to pawn them off as "true", or to have any one "believe in them"; just thought I'd pass them on, from one who has been involved in thinking about, and studying about, and testing about these matters, for many years...
 
Last edited:

juicey J.

Banned
Yes jupiter asc a planet ruling a house in determint or fall can severely challenge (yes the ancients believed this but they also believed there were exceptions and you even pointed out one) the affairs of said house however, also having said planets sign lord dignified can help to elevate matters this is also an ancient idea yes so is the exaltation lord being strong. The domicile is the main house of sign and acts as the final dispositor in whatever chain of planets disposit into or the concept of domicile loses much of its meaning and purpose.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Yes jupiter asc a planet ruling a house in determint or fall can severely challenge (yes the ancients believed this but they also believed there were exceptions and you even pointed out one) the affairs of said house however, also having said planets sign lord dignified can help to elevate matters this is also an ancient idea yes so is the exaltation lord being strong. The domicile is the main house of sign and acts as the final dispositor in whatever chain of planets disposit into or the concept of domicile loses much of its meaning and purpose.
According to medieval astrological practice planets may be in a state or condition known as 'Mutual Reception.

As time passed, centuries later, the modern idea of 'a final dispositor' emerged. Clearly though, when any of the planets in a natal chart are in Mutual Reception THEN there can be no modern 'final dispositor'

The fact there is not always a (modern) 'final dispositor' in a natal chart DOES NOT however mean that allegedly 'the concept of domicile loses much of its meaning and purpose'

Medieval practice connected to 'domiciles' works well and has done for approximately fourteen hundred years and continues to do so - despite there being no (modern) 'final dispositor' in many natal charts :smile:
 
Last edited:

juicey J.

Banned
I was talking about final dispositor as a general concept of course not all charts have one that's beside the main point. so the medieval astrologers agree with me there is a planetary chain with the domicile planet as final dispositor also i was talking about final dispositor in a more general way with a domicile planet as final dispositor of a small chain of 3 or so planets , i think in order for a planet to truly be a final dispositor it must have all the other planets disposit into it via domicile lordship. Also, with more then one domicile planet there can't be a final dispositor in the truest definition of said term.
 
Last edited:

juicey J.

Banned
I only know most things about hellenestic via reading bits of valens, dorotheus, and ptolemy and the rest of such along with medieval astrology is mostly second hand knowledge. While we're on the subject of lordships and receptions did ancient astrologers think it meant something or anything in particular if a planet was in domicile with none of the other planets disposting via domicile into it? For example mars in aries with none of the other planets in aries or scorpio, also would it mean anything further if no planets are in capricorn?
 
Last edited:

Olivia

Well-known member
I've never seen ancient or medieval astrology using dispositor trees, juicey. The Greeks had a system of ranking planetary power sort of along the lines of a captain, the first mate, and so forth in terms of which planets were most useful in managing the chart, going by the metaphor of a ship. The medievalists used almutens to determine planetary strength. Of course, one of those planets might be a final dispositor in a chart, but it isn't necessarily the case.

You can read delineations from Hellenistic times. In general, it would be a favourable sign for nothing to conjunct Mars in Aries - there are a few exceptions to that, but Mars is a malefic so you don't want him close to much. Ditto a generally good thing to have nothing in Capricorn when Mars is in Aries, because the signs are square to each other. It would also make a great deal of difference if you were looking at a day chart or a night chart.

Aries and Scorpio are disjunct, so any planets in those two signs wouldn't aspect each other anyway, at least not in the traditional sense of the word, to see or to view.
 

Kaiousei no Senshi

Premium Member
No, if what senshui says is true then the matters of a house/sign are greatly defeated or at least severely challenged simply by having the main or domicile lord in fall or detriment and that's just nonesense, all the dispostors of the planets involved with the ruling planet of the house have to be considered. No the idea of many dispostors/final dispositor is an ancient idea and its just the opposite of what senshui is saying, it was way more complex then the modern take on it (although ancient astrologers didn't write out long dispositor trees because they knew who they were writing for weren't childern they had to spell everything out in full detail for) with exaltation dispositors and triplicity dispositors (although only the domicile counts as final dispositor because its said sign/houses main focus point).

Hm...

"Note also what planet is located in the house or the terms of which particular planet and, if your planet is located in the house of another, look at the ruler of that house to see which houses of the chart it is in…for if the ruler of the sign is well located, that planet about which we are inquiring also shares in a part of the good fortune of the host’s joy. But if the ruler of the sign is dejected in any way, that planet about which we are inquiring, even though placed in a fortunate house, will be hindered by the dejection of that other planet which is the ruler of the sign. This also you can easily observe from human behavior. If you enter anyone’s home by invitation and the master of the house has just been blessed with an increase in good fortune, you too become a participant in his good fortune, for you share in the happiness of the good fortune of your host. But if the host is suffering from miserable poverty and is embroiled in the wretched accidents of misfortune, you make yourself also a partner in his grief and trouble, and the adversity in which you share overwhelms you to." -Firmicus Maternus

As you can see, the idea of a planet's dispositor having a direct effect on it and severely harming it if ill placed is not "nonsense", it's pretty established tradition (of course that doesn't mean there aren't other ways to bonify a planet that suffers from counteraction). You'll also note in this quote that no reference is given to a third planet, just the first planet that we're inquiring about and it's domicile lord. So, if the idea of dispositor trees is ancient like you claim, Maternus (who wrote in the 4th century) should have known about them and told us to consider them in turn. Your whole argument rests on the idea of "Well, they didn't tell us NOT to" and that's pretty nonsensical. If we're going to form astrological techniques based off of what the ancients didn't explicity tell us, then we're going to be here for a long time coming up with whatever we want.
 
Last edited:

juicey J.

Banned
I never used an ancient didn't tell us not to argument ever, i used an ancient astrologers implied such argument, big difference! You in your original post to me said the ancient astrologers said look to a sign/houses lord and that's it which, says or implies if a house/sign's lord is determint, fall or pergrine (which, happens well over half the time) then the matters of a house are almost totally defeated without the slightest possible exception which, is TOTAL NONSENSE! rather or not you meant as much isn't the point in my mind and understanding being whatever that's worth, that's what you said implied and i know you don't want to imply as much because you don't think this way about said subject. Also, i already more or less admitted a houses lord being in a sign of debility can severely challenge the affairs of a house but that what i meant to say was there being no exception to such is what was nonsense, read my all my posts carefully before responding, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I have nothing personally against, respect you as a fellow human being, and want to be as peacefully as possible but you but your starting to get on my nerves.

Olivia the ancients had the concept of final dispostiors which, means they believed in long dispositor chains they just didn't feel the need to explicitly write them out.

Also, a house can have at least two dispostiors an domicile as well as an exaltation , and in turn said one or two planet's planetary lords being dignified (although if said dignified planets are afflicted by malefics or in the evil houses of the 6th, 8th, or 12th or worse a combination of such they can't do much to aid) and/or said planets being in friendly aspect to the benefics can help to counter things if they are in a sign of deblity although difficulties will still to a somewhat lesser degree arise due to the deblity.
 
Last edited:
Top