Hi all,

Dr. Luis Ribeiro, in an interview, which he gave to Volker Schendel, two years ago, said something very interesting.
I don't remember the exact minute, but it was somewhere in the first third of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A8DCjSaDBA

My understanding of what Luis said was that if the Sun isn't in the first house, and Leo isn't the rising sign (thus the Sun would be the ruler), nor does the Sun configured to the ruler of the 1st by conjunction or an aspect, then the Sun sign won't play a major role in shaping the personality of the native.

This is backed up by traditional astrology relaying on the ASC and its ruler as primary significators for the person, with the Moon and Mercury as determining the mind (or maybe heart and mind - the psychology).

This of course stands in odds to modern astrology wisdom. I'm not necessarily a big fan of modern astrology, but I guess 'old habits are hard to drop'.
What do you think?
That the Sun in such cases, as the above, doesn't influence or shape the personality?
I wonder if there are traditional sources which disagree with that claim.

Hello
Thank you for proposing this reflection.
In my house, the Sun is the second ruler of the FC (4th house) which is considered a nocturnal house, the Sun is of diurnal/day origin, obviously it makes us think differently about the solar dimension, which I think in a decreasing phase of the year between autumn and spring, would be better lived than in an increasing phase of the annual cycle from spring to autumn.
One reflection sends another

hey dima

thanks for your post and the link to the interrogation of luis ribeiro by the german fellow... it is very thin on astrology, and more on the background study of luis ribeiro.. i have found it interesting... for anyone looking for the section that dima makes reference to, it is at approx 1 hour 50 minutes into the video... i am going to comment on this later, but thought i would share that for anyone who wants to see the reference dima gives for this video dima shared..

Hi Dima,

Interesting topic!

I do notice the essence of someone's Sun sign in their personality, but it is rarely to the point where they check off all the stereotypical traits of their Sun sign.

Perhaps the influence of a Sun sign on someone's personality depends on who is perceiving them—whether the Sun of the native is seen by any of the inner planets of the perceiver. For example, if one has most of their inner planets concentrated in one area of their natal chart, they might not pick up on the traits of a Sun sign that makes little to no contact with their inner planets. However, if one's inner planets are relatively evenly distributed throughout their natal chart, it is possible that one will see the traits of someone's Sun sign, since it is more probable that one or more of their inner planets see (aspect) the Sun in question.

In the context of the Sun's importance in a natal chart delineation, I think the Sun is equally important. From what I have observed, it shows the relationship with the father, vitality, eye health, and if the birth time is reliable, it can also show information about career. That said, I wouldn't necessarily place a lot of importance on the sign the Sun is in—the sign is extra information, but not necessarily significant information.

Of course, the Ascendant and its ruler (and planets in aspect to its ruler) play a big role in the native's personality too, particularly in first impressions and how one carries themselves. I see the Moon and Mercury's influence more clearly depending on the situation and environment.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays!


Yfke

In astrology, temperament is often linked to the four classical elements (Fire, Earth, Air, and Water), each of which represents distinct qualities in a person's behavior and emotions. By analyzing the positions of planets in the birth chart, particularly the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant, along with the elements of the chart, an astrologer can assess someone's temperament.

And Modern astrology with the development of psychology has a lot more to say on character and personnality than ancients astrologers.
Just to name a few. Liz Greene, Steven Forrest, Dane Rudhyar, Maureen Murdock, Carl Jung.
Psychological astrology is a fascinating blend of traditional astrology and psychology. What's more, the most interesting books for modern astrologers are written by non-astrologers. I remember years ago reading The Spell of the Sensuous by David Abram and being shaken by the richness of the oral tradition of the indigenous people in the world.
What we have lost from the tradition is the context, the environment, the importance of the silent one in the story, the relationship between the sky and the narrative, the music and the artefacts that accompanied ceremonies. Everything that gave a meaning to the conversation with the Gods in the Sky.

Gaston Bachelard, French philosopher said that "The imagination finds more realities in what is hidden than in what is shown.". This is because Zodiacal Signs are "images" of our inner world and sometimes, no word is able to express the meaning better than the experience itself.
As an astrologer, repeating what you have read in a book will make you approach the experience but only empathy will make it real for a client.
Sharing becomes the key to understand astrology.

Merry Christmas to all !
Ouranos

hi dima

re-reading your post, i think you are referring to the part of the video (approx 15-17 minutes in) where luis ribiero is emphasizing the ascendant more then the sun and moon generally speaking.... when he mentioned this i was immediately reminded of indian astrology's emphasis on the ascendant as being the most important point of consideration in the chart... this is in contrast to much of western pop astrology which is focused on the sun.. i don't think there are any traditional sources that would disagree with that, but maybe someone else can find an example..

the general idea many are taught is that the sun, moon and ascendant are the 3 most important parts of the chart.. i think that is modern astrology type of thinking and i think it is a good starting point, but it doesn't go into the details.. luis suggests that the ascendant and all that's connected with it is at least 50 % of the chart in terms of the personality and depending on other factors, it might be emphasized for 50 to 80% of consideration of personality in the chart.. i suppose it would depend on what the ascendant sign and ruler and the position of the ruler is here..

essentially the sun is over rated in western astrology.. i think the sun-moon phase is not taken into consideration as much as it ought to as well..

however, when i think of solar returns, i think of the importance of the sun to the analysis of solar returns! there are a few methods in indian astrology which find the same sun-moon relationship in the approx area of the suns annual return and use that instead chart instead.. i can't remember the name of it.. non of them base it off the return of the natal ascendant!

again - the video was interesting and i got something from it.. thanks for sharing it..

The angles (especially the ascendant), the luminaries (especially the sect light) and some points derived from them (such as the Lots of Fortune and Daimon and the prenatal syzygy) were all of particular importance in premodern astrology, but they were not necessarily used for the same purposes. Certainly the ascendant was generally considered the most important point of all, as suggested by the term horoscope (from hōroskopos, 'ascendant'). In the 11th century, ʿAlī ibn Abī r-Rijāl wrote:

Indeed, one should perform the athazir [at-tasyīr, direction] of the degree of the ascendant whether it be the hylech [hīlāj] or not, because from it the condition of the native is known with respect to his body, and to his health or infirmity: for it is the significator of life and the soul.

(Albohazen Haly filii Abenragel libri de iudiciis astrorum, my translation via the Latin)

Slightly off-topic, but as it touches on one of my areas of specialization:

james_m wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 5:15 pm however, when i think of solar returns, i think of the importance of the sun to the analysis of solar returns! there are a few methods in indian astrology which find the same sun-moon relationship in the approx area of the suns annual return and use that instead chart instead.. i can't remember the name of it.. non of them base it off the return of the natal ascendant!

As the ascendant returns to the same position roughly every 24 hours, that would be a very different kind of revolution chart.

The Indians divide the Moon's cycle with the Sun (the synodic month) into 30 parts of 12° increments known as tithi, but I can't recall seeing any (premodern) Indian texts using the 'tithi return' as the basis of an astrological revolution chart. The technique of annual revolutions was borrowed from Perso-Arabic sources in the 13th century, complete with the use of the solar year.

Martin Gansten wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 5:58 pm The angles (especially the ascendant), the luminaries (especially the sect light) and some points derived from them (such as the Lots of Fortune and Daimon and the prenatal syzygy) were all of particular importance in premodern astrology, but they were not necessarily used for the same purposes.

But am I wrong thinking that the sign the sun was in was of secondary importance? The sign the Sun is in modifies its qualities and it determines the essential quality. But no one would have said: „I am a taurus.” What the Sun means in a specific chart was realised through its accidental determination of being the ruler of one of the 12 houses, maybe more than through its universal signification of strength, vitality and fame. Would you, Martin, aggree with this description?

In Uranian astrology, the Ascendant is considered the "environment" rather than the personal identity because of the system's unique approach to understanding the relationship between an individual and their surroundings. This approach is based on the premise that the Ascendant represents how a person interacts with, or is influenced by, the outer world, rather than their inner essence or core personality.
And I am not making a statement here, just a different perspective as I have long been at odds with everything else I have read on the ASC.
And the midpoints are key to 'qualify' this environment.

Focus on the Collective and External World:
Uranian astrology emphasizes the dynamic relationship between a person and the world they inhabit. The Ascendant, in this system, is seen as a point that represents the environment, the immediate conditions around the individual, and how these conditions shape or influence their actions and responses. The Ascendant is not viewed as the internal self or ego but rather as the lens through which one experiences the world.

The Role of the Sun, MC and Moon in Personal Identity:
In Uranian astrology, the Sun, the MC and the Moon are given greater emphasis for describing the core identity, the ego (MC), the body (Sun) and the emotional and subconscious aspects (Moon). The Ascendant, in contrast, is more about how one presents themselves to the world and how their environment impacts them.

The Importance of Transpersonal Energies:
The Uranian system places a heavy focus on the "transpersonal" or collective energies, including how planets and points (like the Ascendant) manifest in the world. The Ascendant is thus seen as a marker of how external circumstances or influences (such as society, family, culture, or location) shape an individual’s experiences and expressions.

The Ascendant as a Point of Entry:
The Ascendant is also thought of as the "point of entry" into the individual’s life, where they first engage with the world, but this is not synonymous with the core sense of "self." It's the starting point for interaction with the environment, a gateway, rather than the identity itself.

This perspective contrasts with traditional astrology, where the Ascendant is typically seen as a reflection of the outer personality, how others perceive the individual, and their immediate self-expression. In Uranian astrology, the Ascendant's role shifts to one of being a point of external influence, rather than a point that signifies the person's essence.
Essentially, we are the by-product of our environnement.

Our environment, encompassing everything from family to culture, social interactions, and even physical surroundings, shapes our personality by influencing how we think, feel, and behave. It provides the framework in which our core traits are developed and refined, either reinforcing or challenging our inherent tendencies. Personality is not solely an individual trait but a product of the ongoing interaction between our internal makeup and the external world around us.

As you all know, astrology is full of different perspectives. And my goal here was to share with you the Uranian view.
Tradional astrology says : The ASC is me.
Uranian astrology says: The ASC is me interacting.

Ouranos

Georgius wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 6:38 pm But am I wrong thinking that the sign the sun was in was of secondary importance? The sign the Sun is in modifies its qualities and it determines the essential quality. But no one would have said: „I am a taurus.” What the Sun means in a specific chart was realised through its accidental determination of being the ruler of one of the 12 houses, maybe more than through its universal signification of strength, vitality and fame. Would you, Martin, aggree with this description?

I'd absolutely agree that the shift from the planets to the zodiacal signs as the primary astrological symbols (determining physical and psychological characteristics, etc.) is a modern one. There are traditional descriptions of the individual signs, of course, but those are typically derived largely from the characteristics of their planetary rulers, coupled with other factors such as sect/gender, triplicity, modality/quadruplicity, etc., and some consideration of the zodiacal image itself (human, quadruped and so on). Sometimes we find descriptions of what it means to be 'born under' a particular sign, but in such cases it is the rising sign that is referred to, with the occasional (implied) reference to the typical/standardized house rulerships that go with it (so that Aries and Libra ascendants are sometimes said to die by their own hand, because the same planet rules the 1st and the 8th).

hi martin

thanks for chiming in on this.. “Tithi Pravesha” is what it is called..
https://srath.com/jyoti%E1%B9%A3a/tithi ... -pravesha/

to come back to the specific conversation, i meant to and then forgot to mention this, but you've triggered my memory...

part of fortune... this is a collective point that captures the sun-moon relationship and imposes it onto the ascendant.. there are different ways to do this, but in essence it is the integration of these 3 important points in the chart which might explain why it was considered important to astrologers of the past..

on another note, it's interesting what you say about the signs getting their meaning from the planets, and symbols associated(down below).. thanks for stating all that..i have tended to put more emphasis on planets and aspects then on signs and houses, but that's me... there is definitely a weighing process at work with anyone doing astrology...

Martin Gansten wrote:
I'd absolutely agree that the shift from the planets to the zodiacal signs as the primary astrological symbols (determining physical and psychological characteristics, etc.) is a modern one. There are traditional descriptions of the individual signs, of course, but those are typically derived largely from the characteristics of their planetary rulers, coupled with other factors such as sect/gender, triplicity, modality/quadruplicity, etc., and some consideration of the zodiacal image itself (human, quadruped and so on). Sometimes we find descriptions of what it means to be 'born under' a particular sign, but in such cases it is the rising sign that is referred to, with the occasional (implied) reference to the typical/standardized house rulerships that go with it (so that Aries and Libra ascendants are sometimes said to die by their own hand, because the same planet rules the 1st and the 8th).

james_m wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2024 11:24 pm hi martin

thanks for chiming in on this.. “Tithi Pravesha” is what it is called..
https://srath.com/jyoti%E1%B9%A3a/tithi ... -pravesha/

As I said before, I'm not aware of any premodern Indian text mentioning such a technique (casting a return chart based on the tithi). It looks like an attempt to create a more Indianized version (based on the Indian lunisolar calendar) of Perso-Arabic annual revolutions.