Sophie
Are there other authorities to verify Lilly? I am trying to determine if when the Moon is at 5°24' of Leo, and the Sun at 29°54' of Cancer, in two different houses, the Moon is combust.Skyscript said:
Thank you
Combust planets
Thank you
Minderwiz
The 8 degrees 30 used by Lilly is the half moiety of the Sun - the orb used in his day, when the orb was a property of the planet, not the aspect (as is the modern version). Thus 8 degrees 30 was used for all aspects of the Sun as the orb in which they were effective.
Combustion is accepted as a major debility right the way back to Greek times and probably beyond. The orb allowed, though is not universally accepted and you might find orbs quoted of 8 degrees.
The difference in sign does not seem to have any effect whatsoever. It's the physical proximity to the Sun which prevents the planet being seen.
Now with your example, the Moon is in a later degree than the Sun, it's separating from combustion, though not out of it. This puts it in a stronger position than if it were 5 degrees 30 minutes before the Sun (when it was at 24 degrees 24 minutes of Cancer.
Under the beams is also a generally accepted debility though the orb depends on what is taken to be combustion. So an orb or 16 to 17 degrees.
To visualise 'under the beams' thin of the last crescent of the old Moon sighted just before dawn on day 1, then the Moon ceases to be visible till just after sunset on day 3 and then only fleetingly.
Historically the first sighting of the first crescent WAS the New Moon. Astronomically and Astrologically it is now taken as the point of conjuction. However in Islam (and cultures using a lunar calendar) that first sighting is still used to mark the beginning of the lunar month.
Tying in with the eclipse thread, two further points can be made.
As the Moon approaches the Sun at a new moon, it becomes combust and so loses power - as the Moon is classically the most important planet this is a major debility for the chart. So the Moon is combust at monthly intervals.
Secondly at a solar eclipse the Sun is hidden from view. By the same reasoning the Sun loses power for the period of the eclipse - which is why the traditional view is that an eclipse is most powerful when you can see it and why it has much reduced power if it occurs on the other side of the world.
Edited to add;
The Moon reaches that position at 12:01:44 GMT today, though the Sun will be at 29 degrees 49 minutes.
I hope that you're not worried about any possible event today.
Combustion is accepted as a major debility right the way back to Greek times and probably beyond. The orb allowed, though is not universally accepted and you might find orbs quoted of 8 degrees.
The difference in sign does not seem to have any effect whatsoever. It's the physical proximity to the Sun which prevents the planet being seen.
Now with your example, the Moon is in a later degree than the Sun, it's separating from combustion, though not out of it. This puts it in a stronger position than if it were 5 degrees 30 minutes before the Sun (when it was at 24 degrees 24 minutes of Cancer.
Under the beams is also a generally accepted debility though the orb depends on what is taken to be combustion. So an orb or 16 to 17 degrees.
To visualise 'under the beams' thin of the last crescent of the old Moon sighted just before dawn on day 1, then the Moon ceases to be visible till just after sunset on day 3 and then only fleetingly.
Historically the first sighting of the first crescent WAS the New Moon. Astronomically and Astrologically it is now taken as the point of conjuction. However in Islam (and cultures using a lunar calendar) that first sighting is still used to mark the beginning of the lunar month.
Tying in with the eclipse thread, two further points can be made.
As the Moon approaches the Sun at a new moon, it becomes combust and so loses power - as the Moon is classically the most important planet this is a major debility for the chart. So the Moon is combust at monthly intervals.
Secondly at a solar eclipse the Sun is hidden from view. By the same reasoning the Sun loses power for the period of the eclipse - which is why the traditional view is that an eclipse is most powerful when you can see it and why it has much reduced power if it occurs on the other side of the world.
Edited to add;
The Moon reaches that position at 12:01:44 GMT today, though the Sun will be at 29 degrees 49 minutes.
I hope that you're not worried about any possible event today.
Sophie
Thanks, Minderwiz. No - not worried. I was looking at a possible election for a Moon Mansion, but given what you've written I'll drop it and wait for a better time.
I still am not sure how to reconcile what you write with Lilly saying that the Sun and Moon should be in the same sign for combustion to be effective. Or have I misunderstood him? To be honest, what you write makes more sense: why should the simple change of sign be more important than the planetary orbs of the Sun and Moon combined?
BTW - an interesting aside due to the solar eclipse. In places where a solar eclipse is seen, is the combustion of the Moon still effective? And is there a cazimi effect - i.e. the greater strength given to a planet by the Sun if the planet is within 17 minutes of the Sun during a conjunction?
Another aside: since traditionally the new moon is the first sighting of the crescent - shouldn't this new moon be considered in Leo?
I still am not sure how to reconcile what you write with Lilly saying that the Sun and Moon should be in the same sign for combustion to be effective. Or have I misunderstood him? To be honest, what you write makes more sense: why should the simple change of sign be more important than the planetary orbs of the Sun and Moon combined?
BTW - an interesting aside due to the solar eclipse. In places where a solar eclipse is seen, is the combustion of the Moon still effective? And is there a cazimi effect - i.e. the greater strength given to a planet by the Sun if the planet is within 17 minutes of the Sun during a conjunction?
Another aside: since traditionally the new moon is the first sighting of the crescent - shouldn't this new moon be considered in Leo?
Bernice
I have a natal combustion with an outer planet, according to Lilly.
Having no intention of chancing a life-long debilitybugeyed I always try to use this planets 'energies' in as positive way as possible.
But oddly enough, it worked it's way into my life anyway; jobs, friends, hobbies etc. I am fond of this planet
Bee
Having no intention of chancing a life-long debility
bugeyed I always try to use this planets 'energies' in as positive way as possible.But oddly enough, it worked it's way into my life anyway; jobs, friends, hobbies etc. I am fond of this planet
Bee
Sophie
I hear you, Bee! My natal Mercury is combust (as well as Retrograde and in Detriment and FallBernice said:I have a natal combustion with an outer planet, according to Lilly.
Having no intention of chancing a life-long debility
But oddly enough, it worked it's way into my life anyway; jobs, friends, hobbies etc. I am fond of this planet
) - and Mercury does play a significant role in my life. I'm also fond of the little winged one, even though it makes me suffer from foot-in-mouth syndrome fairly often! Minderwiz
Fudugazi,
I did a check for you on the 'same sign' issue. Barbara Dunn agrees with Lilly that Combustion must be in the same sign but Lee Lehman supports my view (thank you Lee) that combustion doesn't make sense astronomically on Lilly's definition, especially given the origin of the term. Thankfully she also says that Lilly's view is not typical. I've also checked Al-Biruni, as a second classical source and he makes no mention of the planets having to be in the same sign. So my original response seems to be the 'correct one'
On your second point the Moon is indeed Cazimi at the moment of an eclipse (and indeed for a short period of any New Moon). Thus at the moment of a total eclipse the Moon is stronger than the Sun. So if you were to cast your election for the moment of the eclipse then you would have been on strong ground.
If you take the old version of the ,New Moon' as the sighting of the first crescent, then yes it's a Leo New Moon. The reason for the change is almost certainly due to the real problems in that first sighting. Not just through atmospheric conditions but also from astronomical ones too, such as the position of the Moon in it's orbit (which governs it's speed). it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to predict that first sighting but it is very easy to predict the conjunction with extremely high accuracy.
Bee and Fudugazi
You've got the right approach to debilities. They are challenges to be overcome, not something to sit and bewail. I love my Saturn too (honest)
I did a check for you on the 'same sign' issue. Barbara Dunn agrees with Lilly that Combustion must be in the same sign but Lee Lehman supports my view (thank you Lee) that combustion doesn't make sense astronomically on Lilly's definition, especially given the origin of the term. Thankfully she also says that Lilly's view is not typical. I've also checked Al-Biruni, as a second classical source and he makes no mention of the planets having to be in the same sign. So my original response seems to be the 'correct one'
On your second point the Moon is indeed Cazimi at the moment of an eclipse (and indeed for a short period of any New Moon). Thus at the moment of a total eclipse the Moon is stronger than the Sun. So if you were to cast your election for the moment of the eclipse then you would have been on strong ground.
If you take the old version of the ,New Moon' as the sighting of the first crescent, then yes it's a Leo New Moon. The reason for the change is almost certainly due to the real problems in that first sighting. Not just through atmospheric conditions but also from astronomical ones too, such as the position of the Moon in it's orbit (which governs it's speed). it's extremely difficult, if not impossible to predict that first sighting but it is very easy to predict the conjunction with extremely high accuracy.
Bee and Fudugazi
You've got the right approach to debilities. They are challenges to be overcome, not something to sit and bewail. I love my Saturn too (honest)
Sophie
Aha, thanks Minderwiz. I'm glad I had the wit to question the great Lilly and thank you for digging those sources out for me! I'll go with you, Lee and Al-Biruni.
On a purely personal note, I prefer to see the New Moon as the first crescent moon - I tend to see the conjunction as the Dark Moon, with all the mythological associations that entails.
On a purely personal note, I prefer to see the New Moon as the first crescent moon - I tend to see the conjunction as the Dark Moon, with all the mythological associations that entails.
Minderwiz
Fudugazi said:On a purely personal note, I prefer to see the New Moon as the first crescent moon - I tend to see the conjunction as the Dark Moon, with all the mythological associations that entails.
From a spiritual point of view I think you are entirely right. That first sight in the Western sky just after sunset marks the birth of a new cycle of life (and light). It marks the helical rising of the Moon from out of the Sun's rays. Going way back in time, the helical rising of a planet was taken as very significant, perhaps more so than the conjunction.
Bernice
Also going way back in time in the Northern Hemisphere, the initial rising of the moon was apparently the Beginning of the Day. (The next day in our time).
Makes you think.........
Bee
Sophie
I like that too......
(indeed, Bee!)
(indeed, Bee!)
