Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2009 8:09 pm**

?THE? big question in traditional astrology is whether or not the ?new? planets have a place in traditional astrology. And, what do they mean?

How about looking at them from the perspective of; ?Why are they here??

We had Saturn as the ruler of Aquarius and Jupiter as the rule of Pisces, so why did we need to bring Uranus and Neptune in?

I think primarily because we felt that they fit better with the sign and house interpretations.

We have kind of become conditioned to see the old planets in a limited way. Jupiter is labeled, ?the greater benefic? and Saturn is labeled ?the greater malefic? and no matter how long we have been working with them when we first see them in a chart we have a tendency to see Jupiter and thing ?good? and to see Saturn and think ?bad?.

Doing that has no reflection on your competence as an astrologer. It is just a naturally conditioned response. Everybody does it.

If we think of negative aspects of Jupiter we may think in terms of some corpulent capitalist and a positive Saturn brings out maybe some overly structured Type A personality. But somehow we can?t get our heads around seeing Jupiter as neither the dark cloistered monk of Pisces nor the radical rebel of Aquarius. So, we have shunted them off to the side and brought in the new planets to symbolize those elements of the 12th and the 11th house that somehow our ?traditional? rulers don?t seem to fit.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves. We have kind of labeled ourselves into a corner where we do not have the full appreciation for the intricacies of the planetary meanings.

I know I personally have a problem trying to reconcile Jupiter with Neptune and Saturn with Uranus, because I have conditioned myself over the years to see them as different. But Saturn did not rule Aquarius and Jupiter rule Pisces for millennia without the meaning bring there. Turning to Uranus for Aquarius and Neptune for Pisces was, for me, an easy way out of having to reconcile the seeming contradictions.

Posted: **Tue May 12, 2009 11:27 pm**

The biggest problem is that "rulership" does not mean the same thing to a traditionalist as it does to a modern. The traditionalist sees it as having influence over something and the modern sees it as having a similarity. However I've never been quite reconciled to the idea that Uranus the rebel has a lot of similarity to Aquarius the fixed air sign.

If we think of negative aspects of Jupiter we may think in terms of some corpulent capitalist and a positive Saturn brings out maybe some overly structured Type A personality.

Economic prejudices aside, the idea of Saturn being associated with a "Type A" personality might raise a few eyebrows on this forum.

Tom

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 12:26 am**

Also, a traditionalist wouldn't say this:

JohnofManomet wrote:So, we have shunted them off to the side and brought in the new planets to symbolize those elements of the 12th and the 11th house that somehow our ?traditional? rulers don?t seem to fit.

Just because Aquarius is the 11th sign and Pisces the 12th, doesn't mean Saturn rules friends and Jupiter secret enemies. That kind of connection is a modernism. Actually, what sometimes is shown in traditional texts is the planets in their classical order placed around the the chart. Thus Saturn gets the first house, Jupiter, the second and so on. In this model, Jupiter rules the 11th and Mars the 12th. Even here it wasn't used as a primary way to delineate.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 9:31 am**

Mithra6 wrote:

Just because Aquarius is the 11th sign and Pisces the 12th, doesn't mean Saturn rules friends and Jupiter secret enemies. That kind of connection is a modernism.

I think that maybe the idea of ?not? Saturn ruling friends and Jupiter ruling secret enemies is modernism.

I don?t know if I can explain how I got on this train of thought briefly, but it came out of writing an article on a different subject entirely, which I posted on my blogspot.

http://spiritwalkministry.blogspot.com/

The subject was ?American Witchcraft? and it deals with the traditions of witchcraft that are particular to ?American? witches. A lot of people want to label them as ?new? types of witchcraft as being they some neo-pagan idea or something that has come out of Wicca.

My assertion is that they are, in fact, ways of looking at and incorporating the old traditions, in light of new societies. Rather than being a new way of looking at the meaning of the symbols, they are looking at them from the old perspective and applying them to culture that the people interpreting them live in today. They are new ?tribes? adapting old allegorical references.

If we go back, pre-Lilly, back to Ptolemy and further and think about an ancient astrologer doing some horary chart we have to look at it as they would have looked at it in relationship to their time and their cultural reference.

When an ancient astrologer was thinking in terms of Pisces and 12th house and secret enemies, what planet would they first think of? To them the 12th house and Pisces ruled secret enemies, so their first thought would have to be Jupiter. To ?not? think of Jupiter would be going against everything they had learned.

Every horary author I have read from Lilly to Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson has said that when doing horary you don?t have the latitude that you do in a natal interpretation. You have to go with the traditional classic rulership. So you can?t take Jupiter as the classic ruler of the sign and house of secret enemies and toss it aside. It is up to you to get your head around it as symbolizing secret enemies.

Because the cultural references of the times in which you live tends to pull you away from seeing Jupiter as being symbolic of secret enemies, that is the modernism. Seeing Jupiter as the ruler of secret enemies is in keeping with the allegorical references of the times and people when the system was created and the rulerships assigned. That is the traditional interpretation and if you want to take that away then the system will fall apart.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 11:03 am**

>>Just because Aquarius is the 11th sign and Pisces the 12th, doesn't mean Saturn rules friends and Jupiter secret enemies. That kind of connection is a modernism.<<

I think that maybe the idea of ?not? Saturn ruling friends and Jupiter ruling secret enemies is modernism.

No I think you missed Mithra's point. The idea that sign=planet=house is a modernism. Traditionalists do not and have not ever believed such a thing. In traditional astrology Jupiter has no connection with the 12th and Saturn has no connection with the 11th.

Also Mithra pointed out that many traditionalists associate planets with houses using the Chaldean order. To wit:

Saturn=structure= 1st house
Jupiter = wealth = 2nd house
Mars = siblings (brothers really) = 3rd house
Sun = ancestry, the father = 4th house
Venus = pleasure = 5th house
Mercury = servants = 6th house
Moon = wife = 7th house (yes it's patriarchal)
Saturn (starting over with the order) = death and destruction = 8th house
Jupiter = religion = 9th house
Mars = action = 10th house
Sun = inexhaustible bounty (gifts from God) = 11th house
Venus = sin (at least sins of the flesh) = 12th house
[Witches are the one named enemy associated with the 12th and witches in this sense are the perversion of the feminine]

The joys of the planet also help define the houses. Saturn joys in the 12th, not the 11th and Jupiter joys in the 11th not the 12th.

Every horary author I have read from Lilly to Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson has said that when doing horary you don?t have the latitude that you do in a natal interpretation.

Where does Lilly say this or anything like it?

Because the cultural references of the times in which you live tends to pull you away from seeing Jupiter as being symbolic of secret enemies, that is the modernism. Seeing Jupiter as the ruler of secret enemies is in keeping with the allegorical references of the times and people when the system was created and the rulerships assigned. That is the traditional interpretation and if you want to take that away then the system will fall apart.

This quote leaves me wondering: just where do you get your information about traditional astrology? Please post a reference that supports this statement. As an FYI, the idea of secret enemies being differentiated from open enemies dates only from the middle ages. The Hellenistic Greeks used the 7th* for enemies period, and their system did not fall apart. The association of Jupiter with any kind of enemies, hidden or open, is new to me (unless he rules or occupies the 12th or 7th, and then, of course it is an accidental determination).

Tom

*Edit: Should be the 12th as GR subsequently pointed out below. The Hellenistic Greeks did not use the 7th for enemies. Jupiter still has no connection with enemies or the 12th (other than accidentally). The idea of the greater benefic being associated, essentially, with evil makes no sense

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 12:28 pm**

There's also the Thema Mundi, that starts with Cancer as the rising sign and so on.

Tom wrote:The Hellenistic Greeks used the 7th for enemies period

That's the 12th, actually. Though, I do believe in Valens, the statement is made that the sign opposite a topical house shares in its significations, so the 6th would also be considered. Not sure how the Arabic astrologers made the shift to the 7th, probably in keeping with a more Aristotelian mindset, no doubt due to the cursed Ptolemy.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 12:44 pm**

That's the 12th, actually.

Yes it is the 12th. Brain slippage on my part. I'll leave it unedited as your correction won't make sense if I change it.

Thanks for pointing out the error.

Though, I do believe in Valens, the statement is made that the sign opposite a topical house shares in its significations, so the 6th would also be considered.

Morin makes the same point 15 centuries later. Others may have as well. I didn't know Valens did. I have Valens here, I just haven't read him much.

Tom

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 12:59 pm**

Not sure how the Arabic astrologers made the shift to the 7th, probably in keeping with a more Aristotelian mindset, no doubt due to the cursed Ptolemy.

The 7th house was always associated with danger and destruction, and references to situations regarding enemies are there - but like the issue regarding detriment, they are often found by implication. We discussed this before in the forum some time ago.

I really don't get this recent fashion to demonise Ptolemy. He was a great astronomer; and a great intellectual who offered a rationale for astrology which preserved its status as a reputable study, (which helped protect many subsequent astrologers from prosection). I used to think his work was dry and boring, but the more I read his arguments the more I admire his work - and the more I understand why it gained the attention it did.
But most of all, I don't believe that any of the great names in the history of astrology should be looked upon as 'cursed'. Anyone would think that he engaged in ritualistic murder or something.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 1:41 pm**

Tom wrote:
Saturn=structure= 1st house
Jupiter = wealth = 2nd house
Mars = siblings (brothers really) = 3rd house
Sun = ancestry, the father = 4th house
Venus = pleasure = 5th house
Mercury = servants = 6th house
Moon = wife = 7th house (yes it's patriarchal)
Saturn (starting over with the order) = death and destruction = 8th house
Jupiter = religion = 9th house
Mars = action = 10th house
Sun = inexhaustible bounty (gifts from God) = 11th house
Venus = sin (at least sins of the flesh) = 12th house
[Witches are the one named enemy associated with the 12th and witches in this sense are the perversion of the feminine]
Oops I got my house rulerships wrong. That's what happens when you rush type a post about traditional astrology while eating a taco at lunch.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 1:45 pm**

That's what happens when you rush type a post about traditional astrology while eating a taco at lunch..

I've always suspected there was danger in tacos - now I know why.

Tom

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 2:30 pm**

I would think that with the ongoing Jupiter/Neptune conjunction, this would be a time to reflect on the sign Pisces and the connection of the two planets symbolically.

One point that does jump out right at the moment is the concept, symbolically that would bring the two in a harmony of interpretation would be in the idea of religious intolerance.

Tom wrote:

[Witches are the one named enemy associated with the 12th and witches in this sense are the perversion of the feminine]

That is ?hate speech?. It is hateful to witches as worshippers of the ?Old Religion? and especially to women as worshippers of the ?Devine Feminine?.

There is your Jupiter/Neptune conjunction at work.

If that is the level we are going to get down to, I would prefer to drop the matter, though I am glad that I brought it up to get attitude put out on the table.

Posted: **Wed May 13, 2009 2:56 pm**

the idea of religious intolerance ?

And speaking of which ?

?That is ?hate speech?. It is hateful to witches as worshippers of the ?Old Religion? and especially to women as worshippers of the ?Devine Feminine?.?

Was this post meant to be a helpful little demonstration of how religious intolerance works? If in doubt, blame Tom I say, although actually he didn?t make the remark you said he did.

But I can?t help thinking that claiming the moral high ground has been used here as a diversion tactic

Skyscript Astrology Forum

The Traditional Planets in Modern Astrology

The Traditional Planets in Modern Astrology

Re: The Traditional Planets in Modern Astrology

The Traditional Planets in Modern Astrology

The Traditional Planets in Modern Astrology