RohanMenon
I've found a paragraph where the principle elucidated and the example given seem to diverge.
Book 21 Chapter 5 - How a planet ruling one house but located in another combines the meanings of both houses
"Fifth. A planet ruling one house and placed in another acts not only through the house it occupies as well as the one which it rules over, but also through any planets located in this latter house. "
My understanding: A planet (say Jupiter) in the 5th but ruler of the 1st manifests effects relating to the fifth house (by location) or the first (by rulership). If there are any planets in the 1st (say Mars) Jupiter also (somehow) works through Mars.
Now the example given just after this sentence reads thus
"For example, the ruler of Mercury in the first house shows good mental qualities, even though Mercury is not itself in the first house"
Huh? How does this work? Is he assuming a specific horoscope here? Or is he using the joy of Mercury being the 1st house?
In either case this example doesn't seem to have anything to do with the principle elucidated in spite of starting with "for example"
Morin continues
" And the ruler of the Sun in the tenth—honors and prestige, and so on."
This also doesn't seem to illustrate the principle stated.
"This is because any planet has an influence on the native through both the celestial and terrestrial state of its ruler. And so if Mercury's ruler is in the first and in good celestial state, Mercury's influence will be felt in the affairs of the first house and especially on the mental qualities because of the analogy;"
As far as I can make out there are two distinct principles here.
(1) A planet can act through any planets located in the house(s) it rules.
(2) any planet has an influence on the house occupied by its ruler. (which seems a little strange)
The examples seem to be about principle (2) and not principle (1) in spite of following immediately after the statement of (1).
To summarize, now Morin seems to be saying that a planet has influences in and manifests affairs of
(1) the house it is located in
(2) the house(s) it rules (and any planets in these ruled houses)
(3) the house occupied by its ruler (by domicile only ?)
I think I understand the first two . Still trying to wrap my head around (3)
Correct? Or am I missing something?
Book 21 Chapter 5 - How a planet ruling one house but located in another combines the meanings of both houses
"Fifth. A planet ruling one house and placed in another acts not only through the house it occupies as well as the one which it rules over, but also through any planets located in this latter house. "
My understanding: A planet (say Jupiter) in the 5th but ruler of the 1st manifests effects relating to the fifth house (by location) or the first (by rulership). If there are any planets in the 1st (say Mars) Jupiter also (somehow) works through Mars.
Now the example given just after this sentence reads thus
"For example, the ruler of Mercury in the first house shows good mental qualities, even though Mercury is not itself in the first house"
Huh? How does this work? Is he assuming a specific horoscope here? Or is he using the joy of Mercury being the 1st house?
In either case this example doesn't seem to have anything to do with the principle elucidated in spite of starting with "for example"
Morin continues
" And the ruler of the Sun in the tenth—honors and prestige, and so on."
This also doesn't seem to illustrate the principle stated.
"This is because any planet has an influence on the native through both the celestial and terrestrial state of its ruler. And so if Mercury's ruler is in the first and in good celestial state, Mercury's influence will be felt in the affairs of the first house and especially on the mental qualities because of the analogy;"
As far as I can make out there are two distinct principles here.
(1) A planet can act through any planets located in the house(s) it rules.
(2) any planet has an influence on the house occupied by its ruler. (which seems a little strange)
The examples seem to be about principle (2) and not principle (1) in spite of following immediately after the statement of (1).
To summarize, now Morin seems to be saying that a planet has influences in and manifests affairs of
(1) the house it is located in
(2) the house(s) it rules (and any planets in these ruled houses)
(3) the house occupied by its ruler (by domicile only ?)
I think I understand the first two . Still trying to wrap my head around (3)
Correct? Or am I missing something?