Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi everybody

I`m still carrying this question or better to say this problem with me.
I`m still not absolutely sure how to delineate correctly a planet that is positioned in a certain house but rules another house. I am sure it must be a matter of ?cause? and ?result? - but in which way?

Morin states e.g. that when you have the ruler of the 10th in the 12th then the profession is the CAUSE for loosing the job, or the native have to go to prison because of his professional actions. I.e. that the planet in the 12th is the RESULT. Conversely the ruler of the 12th in the 10th could mean that misfortune, enemies or prisons can be the CAUSE for honor, prestige and dignity.
Now on the other hand he says that when the ruler of the 10th is in the 12th then either the meanings of the 10th will dissolve into the meanings of the 12th or VICE VERCA - and this sounds quite contradictory and a bit blurred to me.

And to make my confusion even bigger, Robert Zoller writes that when Mars as ruler of the 10th is found in the 7th then: ?Mars will produce the profession. Or clearer still a partnership will produce the profession.? He states that the good or bad signified by a house emanates from the ruler of the house. But his example means to me exactly the opposite of what Morin said. In Zollers example Mars would be the CAUSE for the profession and in Morins opinion the same Mars would be the RESULT and the profession would be the CAUSE for a partnership or for litigations etc.

So, I really could need some help and advice from you. I would appreciate to participate in your experiences and opinions on this topic.

J?rgen

The basic idea is this:

The sign on the house cusp tells us the ruler of that house. The placement of that ruler tells us how the ruler will manifest.

If the ruler of the 10th is in the 12th, then first of all it's in a cadent house. In fact it's in the weakest of all houses. This immediately says that the profession is problematic. The 12 deals with imprisonment and self undoing and a bunch of other things. The profession will manifest with 12th house significations.

If the ruler in the 10th is in the 7th, take the same idea. The 7th is angular, so the profession is more solid. This means it will manifest. The 7th carries partnership significations, so the profession is associated with partnership.

Take it in bites. If profession is what you want to know, look at the 10th. he next question is how it happens. This will be shown by the location of the ruler. You can of course take it deeper than that, but that's the basic idea.

Hi Jogi,

Morin gives another example: Lord of the 7th in the 2nd, and vice versa.
Lord of the seventh in the second can bring an advantage to the fortune of the native, for example money, by marriage or a law suit. And the ruler of the second in the seventh can mean a loss for the fortune because of marriage or open enemies, &c. And vice versa the money of the native can be augmented by his partners.

Thus the ruled house is the cause of the state of the signification in the house of dwelling - but also in the contrary.

Essential is Morin's postulation, that as ever the cosmic state of the planet is to be considered and that the cosmic state of the planet is deciding.

A good state brings the advantages: Money of the seventh to the native's second, money of partners or mariage to his benefit. Or, lord of the second in the seventh, perhaps in law suits invested money is augmented by winning these. Moreover private enemies lord twelve) can become friends (in eleven) or let the native be honoured in the public (in ten).

An ill cosmic state would cause disatvantage. For example public honour is destroyed by private enemies or ends in jail, friends turn to enemies, and the fortune of the native is scattered in law suits, in marriage, by his partners.

Johannes

Hi Mithra6 and Johannes,

thank you very much for your input!

Mithra wrote:

The 7th carries partnership significations, so the profession is associated with partnership.

It is clear to me that in all these cases the meanings of both houses are connected. In the above example the profession is linked with partnership.
Maybe I`m too fastidious and maybe it`s my wishfull thinking: but I think there must be a slight but important difference between the ruler of 10 in 7 or vice versa.
My idea would be that the "flow of the energie" goes from the ruled house to the house the ruler is by position. So, the ruler of the 10th in the 7th means that a profession leads to a partnership or to enemies. The native will find a partner in his job or because of his job. Or his actions (10th) will produce a partnership/marriage or enemies or litigations (7th) and you can blame the native for that - all this according to the nature of the ruler and his essentiel dignity, his aspects etc.
On the other hand the ruler of the 7th in the 10th would mean for me that a partnership is the cause for finding a job and leads to a profession. A partner helps to get the native a job or honor. It could mean that there are enemies who make the native a hard time in his job but it is not the natives fault, he does not bear the blame in contrast to the first example.

Johannes wrote:

Thus the ruled house is the cause of the state of the signification in the house of dwelling - but also in the contrary.

And exactly this is the cause for my confusion as I tried to make clear with my reply to Mithra. I know that Morin is saying the same and his statement reminds me of the system of the "astrological alphabet" which I completely deny. Because when everything can mean the opposite and two different constellations can mean the same - for what reason do we need all these distinctions. This was also the reason why I switched to TA.

And I also wonder why Zoller seems to teach things differently to Morin (at least I understand them differently).
Another example from Zoller: Taurus is the ruler of the 2th house and Venus is in the 4th. Zoller says that money comes from inheritance or from the family. But the opposite would be more logical to me: I would say that in this case the native spends his money for familiy affairs or his house - money flows from the 2th to the 4th. And the other case, the ruler of the 4th in the 2th means to me that he will get money through his familiy or inheritance.

But maybe I?m mentally not flexibel enough.
Do you have some other examples from your own consaltations?
Somebody else also have some experience to share with us?

J?rgen

A very interesting and important topic. I am currently re-reading Masha'allah's Significations, which lists (among other things) possible results for each house ruler in each house. One principle not stated but often implied in that text is that the house ruled is somehow in the power of the house occupied, for better or for worse depending on the dignity of the occupant.

My own observation with regard to hierarchies of influence has been that if a house is not occupied by any planet, its ruler signifies that house as strongly as it signifies the house it occupies (perhaps even more strongly, if there are several planets occupying the same house). Every house needs some planet or other to look after its significations; if there are no occupants, the responsibility will generally fall to the ruler(s), making them primary significators.

If a house is occupied by one or more planets, I agree with Morin and others that their influence is primary; but (and Morin makes this point often enough) the results they give are conditioned by their relation to their dispositor(s), which often means the ruler of the cusp of the house. Thus, if Jupiter rises in a Mars sign, the native's constitution and other 1st house matters will be primarily Jupiterian, but conditioned by the nature and accidents of Mars and by the relation (or lack thereof) between Jupiter and Mars.

There is still another nice example to mention Morin gives in the XXI. book of AG: that of first and thenth house.

Lord of the first in the tenth, the native is ambitious and strives for honours. Lord of the thenth in the first, public honour comes to the native - nearly by itself, the native being more passive than active in that matter.

Even though Morin does not mention it expressly in the context of this example, here too the status coelestis has to be taken into consideration. And this encloses the secondary Lord (the lord of the lord) and his status coelestis, meaning that, with the example of Martin, Jupiter in the house (or sign) of Mars, we had to consider the status of the dispositor of Mars too!

By the way, those planets in the house/sign of Jupiter would also act in the ascendent as Morin teaches, first, that planets act by the Lord of the sign they are in, and second, that the dispositor of planets disposes just over these and they are to 'help' him.

Johannes

Jogi wrote:Johannes wrote:

Thus the ruled house is the cause of the state of the signification in the house of dwelling - but also in the contrary.

Obviously the last part of my sentence was irritating. The first part of the sentence is the rule as to the teachings of Morin, but it may not be understood as a verdict because there are exceptions as shown.

Jogi wrote:I know that Morin is saying the same and his statement reminds me of the system of the "astrological alphabet" which I completely deny. Because when everything can mean the opposite and two different constellations can mean the same - for what reason do we need all these distinctions. This was also the reason why I switched to TA.

Jogi, what do you mean, when you speak of "astrological alphabet"?

You are right, nearly everything can mean anything but what is meant now and really, that to decide is the art - and in my view Morin has given a new filed and really fitting key to us.

Perhaps you have skipped it but Tom too has indicated, that the status coelestis or the state of the planet in house is essential because it is the key of decision.

Jogi wrote:And I also wonder why Zoller seems to teach things differently to Morin (at least I understand them differently).

I don't wonder at all and I don't believe, that he would agree with the teachings of Morin. Does Zoller not call himself a mediaeval astrologer? I wonder if he would not say that the baroque Morin revising the tradition a good deal did not quite understand the astrology. But I don't know Zoller's writings to that extent. Does he state something of Morin?

Jogi wrote:Another example from Zoller: Taurus is the ruler of the 2th house and Venus is in the 4th. Zoller says that money comes from inheritance or from the family. But the opposite would be more logical to me: I would say that in this case the native spends his money for familiy affairs or his house - money flows from the 2th to the 4th. And the other case, the ruler of the 4th in the 2th means to me that he will get money through his familiy or inheritance.

Without knowing the context of Zoller's example I would agree with you. Morin would probably say, that the native spends his money for the inheritance or that he buys realties. And with the lord of the fourth in the second we can assume that an inhaeritance or realties, sold with benefit, encrease the fortune of the native (or the forutne of the native is stressed if the status coelestis is indicating that).

Johannes

I have formed the impression from listening to Ben Dykes that the primary consideration in medieval natal astrology is whether a house has any planets placed in it. The affairs of a house are delineated by planets placed in them above all else. House rulers are of secondary importance unless the house is empty of planets. Thus a planet in the 10th house would be given precedence in terms of assessing the affairs of that house over the ruler of the 10th house.

Martin Gansten wrote:One principle not stated but often implied in that text [Masha'allah's Significations] is that the house ruled is somehow in the power of the house occupied, for better or for worse depending on the dignity of the occupant.

Tis is very interesting and fascinating as it reminds to Morin's teachings that the virtue of a sign is only that way permitted or signified by its lords.

Could you quote (in books & chapters please!) one or more of these implications you found in Masha'allah's Significations?

Johannes

Thank you Tom, Martin, Johannes and MarkC.

I agree with nearly everything you mentioned. What I did not consider in my examples was the importance of the condition of the ruler or its zodiacal state. This can alter things enormously - it could change an income into a loss and vice versa.

Tom wrote:

Let?s look at this a little closer. The condition of the planet under consideration is vitally important. Suppose the ruler of 7 is in 2. If it is in good condition, the native will gain wealth via the spouse, or litigation, wars or any other 7th house matter. The good effect of wealth gained emanated from the condition of the ruler of the 7th. Notice that the immediate effect is gain of wealth. If, however, the ruler of 7 in 2 is in poor condition, he native will lose wealth to the spouse, or litigation or wars.

So far so good - this is clear to me.

But then you go on:

The bad, i.e. the loss of wealth emanated from the 7th house and it was bad because the condition of the ruler made it so.

I don`t understand this because still the good ar bad is a result of the ruler in the 2th and his bad condition and not of the house it rules ?
I know the differences are very subtle and also that some of my misunderstandings may be due to language problems. But I think this is a very important delineating tool.

But my biggest concern is not a house with planets in it - and all what you mentioned about this is clear to me. But clarity disappears partly when I have to deal with empty houses because the statements of the authors I read seem contrasting to me.

What is already a fact is that for Morin the empty house is the cause and its ruler shows the outcome or result. That`s how I understood him so far.

Now, Zoller makes an even slighter difference when he states that the delineation of the ruler depends on what we want to know about the house. He makes a difference between the realization of the house and the outcome of the house.

1. Outcome (RESULT)
He says that outcome is the result, what happens as a result
In this context Zoller also talks about the action, e.g. the ruler of the 1th in the 7th = the action is from the native to the 7th (as far as I can see, this corresponds with what Morin says).
Outcome shows what results from a given house`s promise. Then he goes on: " In the case of the 1th house, we can discuss this in terms of motivation, the native`s actions and desires. [...] In the case of the other houses, we put aside all such psychology and speak of results, outcomes and causes." >> Why causes??? Or does the word cause in English also can mean result??
Finally he says that in practice, these delineations depend a great deal upon the zodiacal state and the local determination of the planets involved. Zoller: "The placement, natures and zodiacal state of the rulers of the 2th house will tell you where the financial needs will lead."

2. Realization (SOURCE)
For Zoller every house includes a certain promise. And this promise emanates from the ruler of this house - we must then look to this ruler to see the source or origin of the promise of the ruled house >> and this I understand as the total opposite of what Morin says because for Morin the ruler is the result and the house ruled is the cause or the origin!
Zoller: " The realization of the 2th is understood as the causes contributing to the fulfillment of the promise of the 2th house." Here the approach is, that we look at all the rulers of the 2th and the almuten - and the planet that is not afflicted can fulfill the promise of the 2th. The other planets are put at side; and realization of the 2th means having a source of income.

To summarize Zollers approach:
a) Outcome = ruler of a house is the result (but possibly also the cause ).
b) Realization = ruler of the house is the source or cause
I never read him mentioned, as Morin says, that the ruled house is the source or the cause.

So, depending on the point of view, for Zoller, the ruler of a house can either show the source or the result - also always depending on it`s zodical state and local determination.


@ Johannes (our posts overlapped)

Jogi, what do you mean, when you speak of "astrological alphabet"?

This is the way modern astrologers want you to persuade that Aries = Mars = 1th house - that all those things mean the same. And most of them make no difference in their delineations between the 1th house and Aries or between Mars and the 1th and so on. In this way reading a chart is like wading through swampland on a foggy day. Everything looks the same and means the same no matter in which way you look at it.

But I don't know Zoller's writings to that extent. Does he state something of Morin?

Yes, he mentions him a lot.

Perhaps you have skipped it but Tom too has indicated, that the status coelestis or the state of the planet in house is essential because it is the key of decision.

Yeah, I skipped it in the beginning. But you all were right - one may not overlook this.

I`m glad that my question on this interesting topic lead to such a vital discussion. And I hope that it will go further

Best wishes to you all
J?rgen

Martin Gansten wrote:...Thus, if Jupiter rises in a Mars sign, the native's constitution and other 1st house matters will be primarily Jupiterian, but conditioned by the nature and accidents of Mars and by the relation (or lack thereof) between Jupiter and Mars.

I took the liberty of editing your thoughts on this matter, I hope you don't mind Martin.

My question is suppose Jupiter in Aries and the ruler (Mars) in Scorpio; would you consider that there is a relation between Jupiter and Mars due to the like-engirding (same ruler) principle?