Skyscript Astrology Forum

There's a very good correlation between the major religions and the feminine or negative signs:

Taurus - Hinduism, ref sacred bull, showiness

Cancer - Islam ref crescent Moon on flag of Moslem countries, emphasis on safety

Virgo - Judaism ref 6th sign/star of David, importance of diet

Scorpio - Buddhism ref 8th sign/8-fold path, doing without

Capricorn - Confucianism ref worldly advancement

Pisces - Christianity ref Age of Pisces, 12 disciples, walking on water, mother a virgin (Jewish Virgo)

I'd suggest that the 6 positive signs match with branches of philosophy, thus corrosponding to the two halves of the brain - perhaps Libra, Aesthetics? But unfortunately I don't know enough about philosophy - does anyone else?

Hi, AstroOliver!

It seems as though you have been reading my mind!
I have spent the past 2 months trying to collect as many material on this as possible, both from literature and from astrologers who, on occasions, do not agree with everything that has been in said in it and have their own approach. So far, I don't think that i have been able to find either a classification that every one would agree on or a list that would make much sense to me when everything is taken into account.

Oddly enough, I don't think that good explanations or even lists can be found very often in literature (or maybe my list of references is too short when it comes to mundane astrology) which maybe isn't all that strange given that such lists are usually provided in literature that also contains the lists of countries and nations and their corresponding signs which, as you, of course, know, often become outdated soon after publishing due to constant geopolitical changes.

Having said that, I have to ask you if you are familiar with the origin of this classification? (the book, the author?)

Now, as for the major religions (and the philosophies that accompany them), the more I look at the lists provided by different authors, the more confused I get. I have just spent about 1/2 hour meditating on this list and I'm not sure that I can make a parallel between the astrological signs mentioned in t and what seems like the most apparent manifestation of these religious movements/groups or even the professed philosophy, holly scriptures etc. Whilst some parallels sound familiar all right, other came as a surprise.

Of course, when it comes to religions and religious movements, we are usually restricted to the symbolics of signs and their correlation with the philosophy/religion in its essence because, in most (if not all) of the cases, we lack that most important information on which the astrological readings are usually based and that is- the time of birth. The facts are mixed with myths, the calendars have changed, the facts have been politicised and so on . Also, even if the date and time of the prophet's birth were known, many would still disagree with the idea of using that time as the time of birth of the religion professed by these people and would say that the moment when the first "public gathering" took place should be taken as the only relevant time (event chart, basically) which, again, is something we are not familiar with in most of the cases.

So, we're left with the symbolics. Or, with the era (i.e., ex.Age of Pisces). But, at this point, i find it so very unconvincing that a period f time as long as a whole age can determine the quality of such a massive and important movement that has influenced (and that still influences) the development of the human society (in both positive and negative way) on many planes.Here I may be completely wrong and under the influence of my Mercurian nature that feels that such descriptions are not precise enbough.

On the one hand- Christianity was born during the Age of Pisces and is commonly accepted as a "Piscean religion" but, on the other (and, I'll quote Rabbi Joel C.Dobin here), Judaism's birth, however, was during the Age of Aries (you can find his article HERE ) and yet, in the list that you have posted, it ruled by Virgo and, obviously, Mercury.

I am aware that it might sound as an extreme example of oversimplifying a very complex set of facts but, aren't all major religions (or religions in general), to a great extent described by Jupiter and Pisces (and, if you like Neptune). The transcendental mind, the after-life, the monasteries, the Unknown etc. ?!

But, back to the list! Do I find it convincing enough? I'm not sure I do, to tell you the truth. If the general symbolics of the signs and their correlation with the general attitude or beliefs of the aforementioned religions is all that we have, I actually think that some of the facts do not make much sense to me. I am not a cultural anthropologist, of course, I am not deeply familiar with all of the religions mentioned in your list and I'm not a mundane astrologer after all, but, like many other people, I do have some general knowledge and I admit that, based on why I am familar with, some things do not seem logical to me.

I may sound like a total amateur when I say this but isn't Virgo very descriptive of Christianity? (Virgin Mary, no premarital sex, ascetic life, fasting, immaculate conception, etc.) Or, is maybe Virgo the "co-ruler" of Catholicism? (Unlike in Orthodox Christianity and some other denominations, celibacy is still a requirement for ordination to the priesthood in the Catholic Church).
Surely, the "masculine principle" is very present in this religion too.

Also, for something as profound, complex and deep as a religious thought or teaching , the analogies such as "the 6th sign/the start of David" , "the 8th sign/the Eightfold path" or the 12th sign/12 disciples to me seem a bit trivial (here I'm just sharing my personal impressions, of course.)

Not only do I find the idea of the number 6 being a reason enough to put Judaism under the rulership of Virgo/Mercury unconvincing (if of course, that was indeed the main reason to put it under the rulership of Virgo) but I also believe that all of these numbers could actually be applied to almost every religion mentioned above. And not only that, but I believe that there are numbers that are, at least in some cases, even more important than those mentioned in this classification.

Here are some examples: besides The 12 disciples, Christians also have the Decalogue or The 10 commandments (and so do Jews) and, again- in my head, this list seems to be even more representative of this religion than the 12 disciples (in terms of the religious teaching, its essence, the concept of the spiritual life etc.) . Also, there are 7 Capital Vices.
In Orthodox Christianity, the number Three carries a very important symbolics and some Orthodox Christians even insist on using three fingers when making the sign of the cross (The Father, the Son and the Holly Spirit - and this is closely connected to the origins of this religion if not the most important fact; God exists and Jesus was his son and one cannot truly consider him/her self to be a Christian if one does not believe that it were so.)

Similarly, in Buddhism, the 8-fold path is a path but a path towards something higher and, in the Buddhist scripts, we can find other equally important lists some of which contain the very basics of this teaching. First and foremost, we have The 4 noble truths (it all starts from there), then we have The 6 realms , The 5 precepts, The 12 links etc. Finally, number three is also very important because, when a person becomes a Buddhist, he/she actually takes refuge in the Three Jewels or the Three Treasures (Triple Gem or simply Three Refuges) i.e. the Buddha (the ideal or highest spiritual potential that exists within all beings), the Dharma (teachings), and the Sangha (community).

And so on and so on.

Similarly, I'm a bit confused by the choice of the main characteristics of each religion. Having mentioned Buddhism, and after seeing that Capricorn rules Confucianism (worldly advancement ), I'm not sure that, at least to me personally, Scorpio and the 8th look like the best representatives of Buddhism (And I am very much in love with the teachings of Buddha). Parinirvana, Nirvana, the sufferings listed under the 4 noble truths indeed do ring a few bells but it is worth mentioning that, though Buddhism is often labeled as "mystical" by the westerners, it is actually a non-theistic religion and the mention of suffering does not imply pessimism but actually optimism (it is all in our hands; no faith, no predetermination etc.) - Buddhism does not accept the idea that we are unable to overcome sufferings or that we are dependant upon the God's will - in Buddhism, the perfection lies inside of our own mind and it is the man (the individual) who is the central figure, not the God or Gods. Surelyt, pure (zen) mind correlates with the modern term of subconscious mind and no wonder Jung is often mentioned in the books about Zen Buddhism but, personally, I'm not perfectly sure if Pure mind and subconsciousness are best described by the 8th (i'm not sure if they have anything in common with the 8th), they sound like 12th to me and, technically, they are achieved (or can be reached) through the 9th (meditation has always been a combination of the 9th and 12th in my opinion, not the 8th; the 12th/subsonciousness via 9th/meditation and spiritual knowledge). Of course, we can say that the painful spiritual transformation (not that it is necessarily painful), the idea of reincarnation and so on correlate with the 8th but, at the same time, most religions assume that something happens after death (eternal life, Hell, Paradise etc.).
The conditioned arising or Dependent Origination i.e. the law of cause and effect that Buddhism is based on, is very "modern" and implies that we only have to obey to the laws of nature and it also includes a very rational approach that could be described by mercury too.

Assuming that perfection is hidden in every single human being that is so natural for Buddhism, might put this religion under the rulership of the Sun (individuality) and it is indeed a common thing to find parallels between Nietzsche's work and Buddhist scripts (especially Zen Buddhist teachings). It is also, in a way, applicable to the fact that the ceremony of lay ordination is not necessary in Buddhism (you can become a Buddhist at home) as well so, again- we have a strong sign of individualism. But, at the same time, we need to bare in mind that Buddhism, (like most other religions), stresses compassion (in terms of Buddhism, I believe that cancer is the best choice).


And, finally, this was the biggest surprise, I must say:

Taurus - Hinduism, ref sacred bull, showiness

I have been reading a lot about Hinduistic religions (and, the plural here might be very important since we are talking about numerous religions classified as Hinduism but by Westerners and not by the Hindu people)- but I am not familiar enough with their teachings to know if this classification would be acceptable to them. But it does look a bit strange to me. Hindu people are mainly vegetarians and they do not eat meat because they believe that a human should never kill another living being and that we can do just fine by eating plants and dairy products- for this reason, cows are highly appreciated and even holly animals (holly cow, aye?! )- because they produce milk, and milk is very important in Indian vegetarian cuisine. But, Taurus likes to eat and when I think of a Taurean individual, i see a person who loves to eat everything, including meat. Now, as for the showiness, that i wouldn't know!

Oh yes, and in addition to my scepticism about the 8th and Scorpio being the representatives of Buddhism, maybe I should add how I see it (a very provisional and personal vision, of course) .

I've mentioned a few possible analogies of the Buddhist teachings in astrology but since we need only one sign, if I were to answer "Which sign rules Buddhism?" - I'd probably go for a human sign- Aquarius most likely. The other option would probably be Sagittarius and Jupiter.

The Buddhism stresses the need for constant self-improvement and learning and says that every person posesses the Buddgha nature i.e. that perfection is "hidden" in all human beings, not in Gods. You can't just sit and "believe in the Buddha", with such a passive approach, according to Buddhism, you would get no where- Buddha was just man and can't help people as Gods could or answer their prayers but, he has left his teachings to the humanity instead and they should help people to become Enlightened themselves. His statues have no religious meaning, they're just monuments (as any other) and are used as reminders (of what we can achieve). For this reason, i believe that a human sign makes much more sence. Gemini isn't a good candidate (it's fast and chatty and...youthfull) whilst Virgo makes no sense for all the reasons mentioned in my previous post (Christianity-yes; Buddhism-no! ).
Naturally, we can't expect a religion to always be described so literally (human sign = man in the centre of the teaching) but, in this particular case, I believe that it actually makes a lot of sense.

Also, and probably under the impression of A. Einstein's words:

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....?

... I vote for Aquarius.
This sounds like a very Aquarius type of religion.
It was inovative 2500 years ago and it is still controversial due to the fact that it does not include the will of god. It's is not dogmatic, it stresses individuality and humanitarian work, practicality and so on. Mercury is exalted in this sign (constant learning), it is a fixed sign and, despite various schools of Buddhism that have been established throughout the last 25 centuries mainly with the aim of adjusting this teaching to various people or to simply concentrate onto a specic aspect of the original teaching, Buddhism has kept the authentic shape, it is a good keeper of its own tradition (saturn) and it can easily adapt to all new periods very easily due to its own flexibility (so it is fixed because it is not dogmatic, sort of speaking; it has the durability and strength of Saturn because the nature of Aquarius helps it keep an open mind).
For some poeple, even Buddhists, the idea that this religion being ruled by Saturn might sound strange and, like I said, I myself think that Jupiter is a good candidate too, but Saturn is also a teacher. Buddha died at a very old age,he taught for 50years, this religion is currently going through its rebirth and it has been 2500 years since it was established so, it has become an old "man" too (and, incidentally, its arrival into the western societies coincided with the begining of the Age of Aquarius or around that time), it stresses the importance of the inner wisdom, cold-headed approach and knows the importance of experience (not everything can be learnt from the books).

If Capricorn can rule Confucianism them i'm sure that Aquarius makes a great candidate for the ruler of Buddhism if not the best. (Just think of Zen gardens- they're very saturnian; strict forms, stones and sand!).

But, of course, being a very rare example of a religion that does not have a "prophet" or even a god but The Teacher as the main figure (at least from the cultural point of view because it still the man who gets the central place, be it Gauthama Buddha or any other man), Jupiter and even Sagittarius do have a lot in common with it. It is absolutely impossible to walk the path towards Enlightenment without meditating and the 9th and Jupiter describe meditation well enough. The Great Teacher is Jupiter.

But, I'd still go for Aquarius.

The only thing that makes sense in the idea that buddhism is ruled by Scorpio (appart from transcendental mind) is the fact Buddhism "gave birth" to martial arts. But even so, it is karate that is a form buddhist practice, not the other way around.

aglaya wrote: I may sound like a total amateur when I say this but isn't Virgo very descriptive of Christianity? (Virgin Mary, no premarital sex, ascetic life, fasting, immaculate conception, etc.) Or, is maybe Virgo the "co-ruler" of Catholicism? (Unlike in Orthodox Christianity and some other denominations, celibacy is still a requirement for ordination to the priesthood in the Catholic Church).

Orthodox Christianity demands celibacy too, if one is to be a monk or to reach higher ranks. Unlike Catholicism and some other denominations, the 'wholly holy" or "all holy" as Virgin Mary is called, has the highest value amongst saints, almost/practically equal to God and as far I've seen, She surpasses the Holy Spirit in essence and influence.
I agree Virgo seems more fitting to represent Christianity than Judaism thought, it is tough to ignore the traditionally given Pisces. Perhaps a pisces sign with virgo asc?

Dione T wrote: Orthodox Christianity demands celibacy too, if one is to be a monk or to reach higher ranks.

Yes I'm aware of that! I didn't mention monastic rules since in Christianity , as in most other religions, they include celibacy "by default". I was basically referring to priests but it is good that you pointed this out. Thank you.
And, yes, since it is the monks who can traditionally become the patriarchs, the highest ranks are "reserved" for monks as well.

I actually come from an Orthodox christian family, only my parents were never really practical believers and, besides, I grew up in a town where the majority of religious population are Catholics.

Unlike Catholicism and some other denominations, the 'wholly holy" or "all holy" as Virgin Mary is called, has the highest value amongst saints, almost/practically equal to God and as far I've seen, She surpasses the Holy Spirit in essence and influence.

To be perfectly honest, I never really understood this part much. In Orthodox Christianity the "holly trinity" is so commonly mentioned and insisted on but, if I understand everything well, there are certain differences in the approach to the trinity on both sides and I think that they go beyond just trivial facts (or they simply need to collect as many aparent differences as posible ). I have found an explanation on the internet that might help (at least others) to understand what I'm not sure I completely do:

2. In the 5th century a new doctrine surfaced which was called the Filioque. The Filioque is the name of an additional phrase of the Nicene Creed that says, "and the Son". The Nicene Creed originally said, "I believe.....in the Holy Spirit....who proceeds from the Father." The Filioque makes the Creed say, "I believe....in the Holy Spirit....who proceeds from the Father and the Son." This additional phrase became more and more accepted in the west over the centuries until the 9th-10th centuries when more and more popes began to declare it divinely inspired. This phrase was recognized as creating a false perception of the Trinity, as though there is a hierarchical structure to the Trinity, rather than a perfect Triad. This is why Eastern Orthodoxy cannot accept this new doctrine.

And as for this:

the 'wholly holy" or "all holy" as Virgin Mary is called, has the highest value amongst saints, almost/practically equal to God and as far I've seen, She surpasses the Holy Spirit in essence and influence.

I don't think I was ever aware of this- my main impression has always been that her importance was, in a way, neglected (there are no examples of virgin Mary apparitions in eastern christianity or, at least, there are very few). I'll have to do a better investigation, obviously.

I agree Virgo seems more fitting to represent Christianity than Judaism thought, it is tough to ignore the traditionally given Pisces. Perhaps a pisces sign with virgo asc?

Isn't that a great idea?! I really think that a more in-depth analysis of, not only each religion, but also each denomination in particular is necessary in order to create a more complex astrological profile of each religious movement. Just think of all the differences between some Christian denominations and, even more importantly- off all the blood spilled and the wars rooted in such differences.

aglaya wrote:

2. In the 5th century a new doctrine surfaced which was called the Filioque. The Filioque is the name of an additional phrase of the Nicene Creed that says, "and the Son".

I don't think I was ever aware of this- my main impression has always been that her importance was, in a way, neglected (there are no examples of virgin Mary apparitions in eastern christianity or, at least, there are very few). I'll have to do a better investigation, obviously.

Filioque is the reason (or excuse if you prefer) eastern (orthodox) and west (catholic) schism happened and the main reason why eastern church considers itself to be the "correct dogma/belief" hence its name.

You were not 'aware' because you have the facts right about "AllHoly"'s thesis in the dogma.
She is not a god, unlike the trinity and certainly the Jewish originating religion wouldn't have a female high in hierarchy. Orthodox church just recognize her as a saint with special reference for being mother of Christ; nothing more typically.
However, if we accept what the first churches stood for, that is the body of people that make The Church. If that stands, then how those people address and esteem the AllHoly may be essentially significant. I am not sure about Russia (they are the bulk of orthodox) but in Hellas, we never call her Mary or Virgin. She was always the AllHoly, even the priests refer to her like that or when they try to be dogmatically correct as "mother of christ" but the later is rarer and I do not think there is a single church book (the ones used in ceremonies and litanies) where they completely skip calling her AllHoly.
The choice of the title is rather suggestive and its predominance point to a body of church that raises a simply respected figure to practically deity condition. I would hate to mislead you (because you are absolutely correct on Her place in the dogmas themselves) but, I can claim with certainty that AllHoly is not neglected in the slightest; completely the contrary.
And - I think - even Catholics (of Italy) are not that far in how high they esteem their "Madonna mia", though they seem to be rather clear on her position in the dogma. Both dogmas have tremendous churches for her glory.
One could argue about maternal deities that preceded and the elevation of Mary to allholyness may just be the collective from earlier times, but both Greeks and Romans before they turned christians, had "equal opportunity" panthea with an inclination towards patriarchy. It is a riddle...

I really think that a more in-depth analysis of, not only each religion, but also each denomination in particular is necessary in order to create a more complex astrological profile of each religious movement. Just think of all the differences between some Christian denominations and, even more importantly- off all the blood spilled and the wars rooted in such differences.

That would be a great research. And the thread with Bill and Juan raises arguments that could be used. I think rather than trying to nail down the actual inception moments of the religions (we have dates for christians and muslims at least), conceptual charts of what the religions stand for may be more fitting. (Just an idea).
Undoubtedly it will cause some uproar, the mention on blood and wars you made, reminds me of the cannibalistic nature of the Dinner (this is my blood and body - consume them). Or the repulsion, even hatred or disgust, against women in some religions.
It will prove hard to point out the hard aspects of each religion objectively and therefore it is likely we end up with very optimized ideal charts that will lack unity and fullness.
Intellectually I find your idea a blast; simply great. I just worry about how we go about the complex issues behind the dogmas, stripping out preconceptions.

aglaya wrote:The only thing that makes sense in the idea that buddhism is ruled by Scorpio (appart from transcendental mind) is the fact Buddhism "gave birth" to martial arts. But even so, it is karate that is a form buddhist practice, not the other way around.

In my teens I did karate and although it was indeed the philosophical side that got me into martial arts, I don't think it's entirely correct to say that Buddhism gave birth to martial arts. Combat has been of all ages and while it is true that buddhist monks had to learn to fight to protect their temples from invasions, the combination of martial arts with Buddhist philosophy was not always there. In Japan during periods of peace Bu-do, the 'way' of the combat evolved out of Bu-jutsu, the art/technique of the combat. Instead of the battle on the battlefield, the developement of the inner battle became equally important.

Didn't this occur in the West? I think it did but with the strong development and use of firearms, the perfection of the use of the sword and the following inner development wasn't that necessary anymore and was forgotten in later ages. However we may perhaps see some of the non-asian 'Budo-spirit' in classical western movies. 'The Magnificent Seven' with a.o. Yul Brynner being a good example. This film was inspired by the Japanese movie 'Shichinin no Samurai' / 'Seven Samurai'.

I dunno. The old rulerships still work for me, with Saturn being Judaism, Jupiter Christianity, Venus Islam, Mars for heretics and atheists, and so forth.

Judaism isn't emphasis on diet so much as it is emphasis on action - in this world. Not for the sake of heavenly reward because there's no way of knowing if there even is one, but it's considered incumbent - probably the most important thing - to heal this place. Possibly the most important sentence in the Tanach: The Torah (God's teachings or guidance) is not in heaven.

It's here in this world. Including the stars, as about half the talmudic rabbis, as well as rabbis like Ibn Ezra were astrologers themselves.

Or to quote the first mishnah of the second book of the Avot (the first is mostly a long list of transmission of the Torah from who to whom):

Rebbie said: Which is the proper path for man to choose for himself? Whatever brings beauty to he that does it and is beautiful to mankind.

Just coincidence - it's traditional to study the mishnayot between Pesah and Shavuot - the equinoxes, roughly speaking, and this was the most recent. The mishnayot are the actual short statements of Jewish law that spawned those millions of pages of arguments in the Talmud, responsa literature, and so forth.

But is it Virgo? Hmm......it might be in the precision, but I'm not so sure.

I wonder if the followers of certain religions would be pleased if they were 'listed' under a planet? Some of the 'mystery cults' have the planets incorporated in their belief systems but as representants of certain (negative) charactertraits (related to the 'seven sins"?) to get rid of in life, rather than one of them ruling their belief system.

I wonder if the followers of certain religions would be pleased if they were 'listed' under a planet?

Probably not.

Even because astrology of these religions have already done this correspondence and no new one is needed or asked for modern western astrology. I don?t know if Jyiotish astrologers use any special correspondence for hinduism, but arabic astrologers (most of them jews in reality) used venus for Islan and Saturn for judaism.

Of course every know and them we have at skyscript an angry newbie with "strong opinions" about how Islan should be mars or pluto (obviously from people who never met an arab or an Islamic in their whole life).

Olivia wrote:I dunno. The old rulerships still work for me, with Saturn being Judaism, Jupiter Christianity, Venus Islam, Mars for heretics and atheists, and so forth.

Mercury for Christians, not Jupiter. Because it's the religion of the Book and of scholars during Middle Ages, see Albumasar who gives the list.
Anyway other authors, Cardano for example give Jupiter.

margherita

margherita wrote: Mercury for Christians, not Jupiter. Because it's the religion of the Book and of scholars during Middle Ages, see Albumasar who gives the list.
Anyway other authors, Cardano for example give Jupiter.

Perhaps some characteristics of Christianity had altered, which justified this change.