Good morning,

In Indian horoscopic astrology, Helios is usually classified as a natural malefic, sometimes 'merely' cruel. In Section 5, Benefic and Malefic Planets, of Book I of the Tetrabiblos, the Hellenistic astronomer/astrologer Claudius Ptolemy stated:

"They (the Ancients) have estimated that Helios and the star of Herm?s (Mercury), due to the common character of their nature, have the faculty to accomplish both effects (benefic and malefic) and that they are susceptible to undergo modifications notably from the others planets whom they approach." (brackets added)

Apparently during the Mediaeval period Helios became a pure Benefic, even more so, and more important as well, during the Renaissance. Modern 'Sun sign astrology' might be the consequential outcome of this development. Here again we have an example of why the practice of some contemporary 'experts' (including some with academic doctorates) to aggregate (usually excluding Indian horoscopic astrology, but why?) pre-modern horoscopic astrologies into 'classical' and / or 'traditional' is quite problematic.

Those who dare scratch a bit on the surface often discover that, even in respect of 'basic' symbols, there was more variety of delineation than those seeking attachment to fixity often feel comfortable with.

Best regards,

lihin

In practice, the Sun is malefic with a planet when in conjunction (except Cazimi), opposition or square, and is benefic with a planet when in trine or sextile.

Theory may vary on this, but I am happy with practice.

Hi Lihin,

My experience with traditional astrology is still "in the baby steps" I make, but the question you pose awakes in me curiosity which motivates me to research and to give my opinion on the matter, and this should be take as a mere speculation, not an opinion of someone who knows from 'great experience'. I'm sure the experienced astrologers on this forum will give their better judgment on the matter.

However, I'm tracking an interesting thought flowing through the Hellenistic and Persian Astrologers, up to the Latin Medieval ones.
Masha'allah and Abu Ma'shar, among others lived in the historical region called Khorasan:
This is a region which on east borders with Sind (Hind) which was culturally connected to India (Hindustan).
This is where the Persian and Hindu Astrology was mingled.
Hugo of Santalla testifies that Masha'allah used an earlier version of the Sanskrit book Bhrgu Samhita (which is today lost, only fragments are saved scattered through out India), which contains over 1.000 nativities.
Abu Ma'shar used description for the Decanic images from an earlier Hindu astrologer by name Varahamihira.

David Pingree says:

?Abu Ma?shar frequently in his other works in Arabic refers to Indian theories of one sort or another, but little of this material was translated into either Greek or Latin? (?The Indean and Pseudo-Indian Passages in Greek and Latin Astronomical and Astrological texts?, published in Viator Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Volume 1. p.173).

So, I think this is why that especially in the Persian Astrology era, the Sun was so loudly expressed to be a malefic one in particular occasions (but remember that not even the malefics are malefics in all occasions, Valens stresses this very often). Abu Ma'shar (and Al-Qabisi) says that Sun in conjunction, square and opposition is harmful. Al-Tusi says that Moon and Sun in trine and sextile are benefics and in square, conjunction and opposition are malefics.
Now, of course, in this case it is maleficent for the Moon if she is in square with malefic and it is maleficent for Venus if it is in opposition to the Sun for example.

Sun is hot and dry, and guess who else is hot and dry? Yes, Mars. But the doctrine says that Mars takes this into excess.

After giving beautiful significations for the Sun, Abu Ma'shar gives also a malefic ones:

And he impedes beyond measure one who is conjoined to him or approaches him. For he who was closer to him in place will be more full of labor than all men, and by how much more one will be elongated from him, he will be [that much] more fortunate. For he who is approaching [the Sun] will leave no memory, nor will a trace of him appear. He puts in order and destroys, profits and impedes, makes fortunate and unfortunate, sometimes raises up, sometimes puts down. And he signifies the matter of religion and the hereafter, also judges and the wise, fathers and middle brothers, and the crowd, and yellow bile: he is joined to men and [also] criticizes them, he provides every thing that [someone] asks for, is strong for revenge, punishing rebels and evildoers.
[From Gr. Intr. VII.9.1490-1508] translated by Benjamin Dykes

Is strong for revenge, punishing rebels and evildoers"
I don't think you can find such descriptions on the Sun on many places.

It is interesting to note that Valens do not give negative significations in his description of the Sun:

In a nativity the all-seeing sun, nature?s fire and intellectual light, the organ of mental perception, indicates kingship, rule, intellect, intelligence, beauty, motion, loftiness of fortune, the ordinance of the gods, judgement, public reputation, action, authority over the masses, the father, the master, friendship, noble personages, honors consisting of pictures, statues, and garlands, high priesthoods, <rule> one?s country <and> other places. (Riley's translation p.1)

Later on in descriptions of the transmissions that Sun makes, Valens also gives positive significations for the Sun transmitting together with benefics, but negative when receives transmissions from Malefics, which holds true for all the planets and points. But it is interesting to note that Ascendant transmitting to the Sun brings good year, while to the other two malefics bad year.

But I've not seen in his examples, Valens to regard Sun as a malefic via aspect. As I said, my experience is not great and I'm maybe missing something, but I think that when Hellenistic Astrologers talk about the Sun making some planet unfortunate, this is by conjunction, i.e. by combustion and non-visibility and not by aspect. I think that later astrologers, the Persian ones, have developed the doctrine of Sun being a malefic through square and opposition (or at least, they talk more loudly about this) or we maybe miss some clue in the transmission of the Hellenistic to Persian Astrology.
But to whom the Sun in square can be 'a bad one'? Probably only to Moon and Venus. Saturn and Mars as superiors are harming the Sun. So, is Sun - Jupiter a bad configuration and does Sun harms Jupiter?

It will be interesting to hear the more experienced astrologers, what they have to say about the subject.