Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello Therese,

Just a question about about your description of signs on your website. I had previously formed the general impression your main practice was a blend of Indian, Hellenistic and Persian/Arab astrology. However, on your article on the sidereal zodiac signs you describe Pluto as the possible co-ruler of Aries.

http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/AAries.htm

I am quite confused by the use of an outer planet as a potential co-ruler of a sign as I had assumed you were a traditional astrologer. I accept you cite a historical reference for this when you state:

''The ancient Zoroastrian Fragment derived from Gregory of Nicaea assigned Pluto as the coinhabitant of Aries along with Mars. As a plausible co-lord of Aries, Pluto?s history is particularly interesting.''

Still this idea seems well outside the mainstream of any traditional astrological approach. You also link Uranus as associated with Aquarius and Neptune as linked to Pisces. In practical terms therefore I am now unclear how traditional your practice of astrology is. Of course many tropical traditionalists utilise outer planets. However, assigning a rulership to an outer-planet is clearly a dimension of modern astrology which traditionalists reject. We are all entitled to change our minds. I wasn't traditional myself 10 years ago. So perhaps the article represents an earlier phase in your thinking?

Could you explain your current position on the outer planets please?

Mark

some might say Mars in Aries manifests with a more overt impulsive bravery and Scorpio a more covert manipulative bravery ?

What follows is based on Morin. It's what I love about him; he has an answer for everything. Mars is Mars is Mars. He does not vary. He is always Mars. However, his actions, although always Martial are affected by the sign he is in. The signs are always the same, too, but when they are occupied by a planet they manifest differently depending on the planet. Mars does one thing in Aries and another in Scorpio and yet another in Virgo and so on.

Using my examples: George Patton was a field general. What a field general does is blow up things (among other duties). It's his job. In Patton's case he did it with tanks. Tanks are impossible to disguise. You see one coming, you know what it's for. No one mistakes a tank for bicycle.

Bond went to parties, seduced ladies, gathered information and found clever means to his end: blow up things, whether it was a secret island hideout or a building underground, he wormed his way in and blew it up.

In both cases we have explosions (Mars), but how Mars gets to his ends varies. In one case it is obvious: here come the tanks (Aries). In the other case he manipulates his way through a maze of opposition (Scorpio) and we aren't too sure about him until we see the explosions.

Mark wrote:

Still this idea seems well outside the mainstream of any traditional astrological approach. You also link Uranus as associated with Aquarius and Neptune as linked to Pisces. In practical terms therefore I am now unclear how traditional your practice of astrology is. Of course many tropical traditionalists utilise outer planets. However, assigning a rulership to an outer-planet is clearly a dimension of modern astrology which traditionalists reject. We are all entitled to change our minds. I wasn't traditional myself 10 years ago. So perhaps the article represents an earlier phase in your thinking?

Could you explain your current position on the outer planets please?

Thanks for you question, Mark. At this stage in my life I'm mainly a scholar and researcher. So I can't claim any type of practice, meaning I no longer work with clients. As for my astrological system, I take what seems to work from different schools of astrology. I use Fagan's solar return charts, tropical sign meanings applied to the preceding sidereal signs, traditional trigons and rulerships, and so forth. I also use many rules of Indian astrology such as various yogas or planetary combinations.

When it comes to the rulership of signs, I expect to see a reflection of the ruling and exalted planet in the sign. I believe that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto refer to more evolved states of consciousness that humanity as a whole is beginning to develop. So if I were still interpreting charts for clients, sometimes I'd use those planets and sometimes not. But for research purposes I constantly study and analyze many, many charts. (Such as I'm doing with the charts in Greenbaum's book.) Testing, always testing!

Do Uranus, Neptune and Pluto rule signs of the zodiac? I have several research projects going on that question, and as yet I don't have a final answer. I would say that without those three planets no one would correctly interpret my own chart because they are all prominent in different ways. But that doesn't mean they can be used as sign rulers. Anyone who meditates begins to tap what are called "higher energies," and these filter through into the life.

My summary statement is that any sign of the zodiac should reflect characteristics of the ruling and exalted planets. This basically means that each sign has an affinity with certain planets in relation to their Greek deities. So under Aries for Pluto I wrote:

The role of Hades became greatly expanded as the link formed between Greece and Rome. Re-named Pluto, the god of the underworld was called the all-receiver, who gave rest to those who had toiled for a lifetime on earth. People prayed to Pluto to bless the seed placed in the earth, and depended on his help for plentiful crops.

No doubt this changed role of Hades-Pluto came about because of his link to Persephone, his wife, and daughter of the corn-goddess, Demeter (Kore). Persephone aided her mother in keeping the earth fertile and the plants green.

So what conclusions can we draw from Pluto?s possible link with Aries? For starters, since Pluto?s realm lies beneath the earth, we might expect Aries to be associated with earth-sciences?archaeology, paleontology or any activity connected with rocks, gems, stones or the metals that are associated with Mars, the traditional lord of Aries. Virginia Beach clairvoyant Edgar Cayce made the thought provoking statement that "Pluto and Vulcan were one and the same." If so, then Pluto may also be related to volcanic eruptions and underground explosions. Vulcan was the smith for the Olympian gods and worked daily at his fiery forge beneath the earth.

Edgar Cayce also said that Pluto had to do with a developing spiritual awareness, but I can't find that quote right now. Then let's look at what we observe about tropical Taurus (sidereal Aries). Not the most communicative of signs, right? Sidereal Aries will sit there quietly within it's own thoughts letting others jabber on, their thoughts rushing hither and thither. The consciousness of Aries lives within, which can be understood as the "underground."

As for applied sign rulership, a study in process, Mark. An open question for now.

Therese

Tom, could you please post Patton's birth data. Thanks...

Therese wrote:

Tom, could you please post Patton's birth data. Thanks...

We can do much better than that Therese. Tom wrote an article on Patton for Skyscript some years ago which includes his chart data.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/patton.html

It will be interesting to get a sidereal take on his chart.

Mark

Therese wrote:

As for applied sign rulership, a study in process, Mark. An open question for now.

Fair enough. One possible compromise position is to take the view of the Australian astrologer Bernadette Brady who argues these planets have an association or special connection with certain signs but doesn't go as far as suggesting any kind of rulership.

Mark

msg deleted

Interesting Dracon. The last few days has saw me experiment with the Sidereal zodiac and I too have seen a greater descriptive depth and accuracy to it than the Tropical. I was using Valens' section on Injuries and Ailments in Book II and also looking to the Cause of Death section in Masha'allah's Book of Aristotle.

Hi Dracon,

If are are going to do a fair comparison of any chart in the two zodiacs you need really accurate natal data. You dont have AA data with Hitler.

While most sources quote a 6:30PM time for the birth of Adolf Hitler its interesting that the German astrologer Wilhelm Wulff worked on a different time for Hitler. He was an astrologer for figures such as Himmler and utilised his rectified version of Hitler's chart 06:03.27PM. in making predictions for the the fate of the Third Reich.

http://skyscript.co.uk/wulffF.html

The Bulgarian astrologer Rumen Kolev found Wulff's time accurate when he calculated primary directions for key events in Hitler's life. He therefore utilised Wulff's time and came up an exact hit of Saturn directed to the MC on December 21, 1907, the date of the death of Adolph Hitler's mother.

I also think any proper examination needs a much more holistic approach taking all the chart factors into consideration. Otherwise this becomes a rather trivial point scoring exercise.

Of all the dignities face is by far the weakest. Indeed even some traditional authorities dropped it altogether. I still use it but I dont give it much emphasis unless it is backing up other chart factors.

I would suggest the best test samples are accurately timed natal charts where the ascendant changes signs betwen the two zodiacs. Especially, an instance of a change-over from a benefic to a malefic planet or vice-versa. In other words:

(S)Aries-Taurus (T)
(S)Libra-Scorpio (T)
(S) Scorpio-Sagittarius (T)
(S)Sagittarius-Capricorn (T)
(S) Aquarius-Pisces (T)
(S) Pisces-Aries (T)

(S)=Sidereal Zodiac
(T)=Tropical Zodiac

Mark

Bond went to parties, seduced ladies, gathered information and found clever means to his end: blow up things, whether it was a secret island hideout or a building underground, he wormed his way in and blew it up.

It might make for an interesting thread one day for people here to erect a speculative chart for Bond and explore a number of astrological models from different eras. Some could be easier to penetrate into this way.
We may have to agree on whether we are going with Connery, Moore or one of the others first.

I looked up Fleming and he had Mars in Cancer. I would see this as quite a subtle Mars, although circumspect would be a more accurate word. Not to my mind descriptive of the screen Bond's but his ongoing survival might suggest some, fictional, caution here and there.