Hi
I have a problem with Aquarius being ruled by Saturn alone.
I met quite a lot of them, and although some fit the Saturn stereotype and I often mistake them for Capricorns, others in no way resemble Saturn.
They have normally large heads,curly hair,fiery eyes,are rebellious and have trouble with authorities and are anything but wise. I cant identify this fiery nature with Saturn.

You might say this is due to Sun being in detriment there,but then why isnt Libra similar to Aquarius in that respect,since it is the Sun`s fall?
Thanks

What do you mean 'Aquarians'? Your talking about those with ASC or Moon in Aquarius I assume? If not the topic sounds a bit too shallow for the traditional forum as we dont reduce our discussions to simplistic sun sign associations here.

The topic comes up a lot on the General forum. For example:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6744

Damon wrote:

I have a problem with Aquarius being ruled by Saturn alone.

Then you have a problem with this forum. I suggest to take your question elsewhere. It doesn't belong on the traditional forum.

Mark

Its Sun in Aquarius, I thought it belonged here because of the recent given the recent reversel of rulership by astrologers from Uranus to Saturn. Ill move it to the Natal astrology thread

Greetings to all,

In fact, Aquarius is ruled by Saturn and Mercury. They are co-rulers. This is stated by Porphyry in his "Introduction", pag. 10, chapt. 7, translated by James Holden.

The basic natures are the underlying principle from which manifestation arise: Saturn-rejects and excudes, Mercury-contests and destabilizes. Aquarius as a rising sign gives a robust, well set, strong body, good health, maybe because Saturn also gives structure (for long lasting matters). If Saturn rejects and Mercury contest, I think we found a match for our dilemma to not get along with authorities and beeing "rebellious".

Same Porphyry stated that Saturn have his joy in Aquarius. "Introduction", pag. 50, chapt. 54. I remember that Morin rejected this ideea.

Damon, you must take note that the assignments of rulership for specifc signs were made by other criteria than resemblance.

Saturn is the only planet to rule two contiguous zodiac signs. It rules Capricorn and is the ancient ruler of Aquarius. Saturn takes about twenty-eight and a half years to circle the zodiac, visiting each zodiac sign for about two and a half years. Saturn is the planet of limitations, perhaps unsurprisingly being the last planet visible in the sky to the naked eye from Earth. Capricorn and Aquarius are opposite Cancer and Leo, and therefore Saturn completes the planetary rulership cycle by opposing the brightest lights in our sky. Saturn is thus ruling the darkest months of the year in the northern hemisphere.

damon wrote:Hi
I have a problem with Aquarius being ruled by Saturn alone.
I met quite a lot of them, and although some fit the Saturn stereotype and I often mistake them for Capricorns, others in no way resemble Saturn.
They have normally large heads,curly hair,fiery eyes,are rebellious and have trouble with authorities and are anything but wise. I cant identify this fiery nature with Saturn.

You might say this is due to Sun being in detriment there,but then why isnt Libra similar to Aquarius in that respect,since it is the Sun`s fall?
Thanks

How many causes are there that contribute to an individual? Surely you're not suggesting that everything that accounts for someone's life can be added up in a Sun sign?

Damon?s question is very clear to me that he is asking about RULERSHIP, not sun signs. He received two very good answers and two very acerbic answers to his question.

He did not ask for Uranus rulership of Aquarius, which would therefore be in the General forum. Saturn is the TRADITIONAL ruler of Aquarius. And he was inquiring of the physical characteristics, which in his mind were not Saturnian. So he was asking for feedback to clarify his thinking. Why would it not belong? And why would anyone take the time to provide a less than kind response, when no response at all would have sufficed?

Skyscript every month has the ?Sun Sign? on the home page. I guess William Liilly would not be allowed to comment on the traditional forum either, as he goes into great detail to describe the physical characteristics of a Saturnian nature. Whether it is acknowledged or not, all astrologers already use the ?sun sign? in part when they look at a chart, as to the qualities and modes of a person. So the ?woe is me, someone is discussing a ?Sun Sign?, (which Damon did not), strikes me as a bit snobbish. If you don?t like a question, don?t answer it, just ignore it. What harm is there in a question?

I met quite a lot of them, and although some fit the Saturn stereotype and I often mistake them for Capricorns, others in no way resemble Saturn.

Them? Capricorns? That's Sun sign astrology. Even if it is supposed to be people with Saturn in Aquarius or Saturn in Capricorn, that is not traditional astrology

MorningSun wrote:So the ?woe is me, someone is discussing a ?Sun Sign?, (which Damon did not), strikes me as a bit snobbish. If you don?t like a question, don?t answer it, just ignore it. What harm is there in a question?

None. I'd like an answer to my question please. It is a serious issue and should not be deflected by appeals to sentiment.

zoidsoft wrote:

MorningSun wrote:So the ?woe is me, someone is discussing a ?Sun Sign?, (which Damon did not), strikes me as a bit snobbish. If you don?t like a question, don?t answer it, just ignore it. What harm is there in a question?

None. I'd like an answer to my question please. It is a serious issue and should not be deflected by appeals to sentiment.

Hello Curtis,

First off, I did not ask the question. And your question, below, that you are referring to is rather tongue in cheek. Obvioiusly, the answer, it is not.

zoidsoft wrote:[How many causes are there that contribute to an individual? Surely you're not suggesting that everything that accounts for someone's life can be added up in a Sun sign?

The point to my response, was: it was just a simple question. Sometimes the responses can be intensely overprotective and acerbic, over a simple question. It shows through very clearly.

As mentioned earlier, he did receive two answers which is possibly all he wanted to clarify his thinking. No harm done.

Was it worded properly, as clearly as it could have been? No, Is there a language barrier? possibly, is there just not sufficient knowledge on the subject?, is he not as knowledgeable as most? Are many of his questions annoying to some, probably.

What are you referring to that this is a serious issue? Taking up space on the traditional forum with a possibly misinterpreted question in the wrong place? Or Astrology in General? Serious as in the scope of life, of life/death, love, laughter, family, sunsets, beauty, careers, income, sickness, tragedies. I disagree that it is that serious.

It would be different if it were more exact but much to my dissappointment it is not. There is no holy grail yet of astrology or methods, the whole chart changes with different systems, layers upon layers of techniques can explain most anything. Twins are still a mystery. The chart Ile put up of Jupiter in the 7th and one in the 6th. One retro one not, the second Jupiter interpreted as being in 7th also by 1/2 of astrologers, the other half in sixth. The reason she is not more blessed by her husband one interprets as RX Jupiter, others as of course Jupiter is in 6th and retro. None agree with the bottom line, that is just the one out of a myriad of examples.

I am a serious student of astrology, I think most people here are. But not that serious that it would make me defend it in such an overprotective way,or treat someone as being sacrilegious if they ask an inappropriate question in an inappropriate way, its astrology for petes sake. Yet, I do understand there has to be guidelines here.

Well, the first post says that Damon has a problem with Saturn... The question is how do we know what cause (from multiple possibilities beyond ones wildest imagination) it is that could be narrowed down to the appearances he suggests? I'm being serious about this because I see this kind of thinking all the time even though the cause has not been properly isolated and the species or class of observations he suggests could be attributed to other astrological factors. I'm used to modern thinking on the issue (having started out as a student of Ruhdyar in the mid 70's). So I ask again, what eidos (forms) if you will convince that on some level (accept for the moment that multiple of dimensions of reality exist beyond the physical which is I think a safe assumption) can be pinned down as pertaining consistently to this factor alone?