Skyscript Astrology Forum

Looking at this article (http://www.azastrologers.org/Articles/noblehorsepr.pdf) recently, a matter I'd given some thought to, for quite some time, came back again, and I'd like to ask about the experience of fellow astrologers in the community.

The problem: according to the interpretation of modern students in ancient greek astrology, if a ruler of a house, let's say, Jupiter, does not behold Pisces by aspect, he can not manage that house's affairs - please, keep in mind I'm working with Whole Signs here - therefore, Jupiter become useless in regards to the house Pisces stands for. If all the other rulers, like Venus, or the water triplicity ruler in sect are in the same condition, we could go as far as saying that the house itself is unmanaged, and it's matter never comes to fruition.

Ok. My problem with this take is: my experience does not show that.

Now, I'm not pointing a profusion of particular examples, because this happened time and time again, before I finally gave up on the whole "unmanaged concept", and those cases have been long lost from memory. I know some may argue that aspect (vision) is not the only relationship possible between planets, as there others like antiscia, for example, so, there's that as well, and I admit I did not look into those possible relations every time this problem arose in my practice.

Still, that's what I have noticed, that even in aversion, a ruler will still be able to take care of the house it has rulership over. Actually, if that ruler is more angular than a ruler in aspect, it is quite common to see manifestation through the most angular planet, rather than the one in aspect, but cadent.

A simple example would be Saturn in Scorpio in 8th, supplanting a Venus in the 3rd, Gemini, so that every direction and event related to the 7th house (Saturn is exalted ruler of the 7th) comes about when Saturn is involved, rather than Venus. Of course, because Saturn in 8th is involved, the quality of the matter suffers, but I'd say that is not the point...

Also, I concur that aversion between the rulers themselves does indeed point to no realization of a matter (for example, aversion between rulers of 1st house and rulers of 5th house have resulted in childlessness in more than a coulple of charts I took a look upon) but the same result does not follow from the aversion of a planet to its own sign, something I found very amusing.

Now, I'm not saying I'm right and every other student and authority is wrong, and, to wrap it up, have any of you fellow skyscripters had this same impression? That while inconjunction between the rulers themselves does prevent realization, the same condition between the planet and his own sign/house doesn't yield a similar result?

An unmanaged domicile would be an extremely rare condition. It is unusual for no planet whatsoever to either cast a ray into a place and to not witness any other planets that might rule over a place.

When it happens, this is like maltreatment; a condition similar to a VOC Moon (where the Moon does not encounter any planet or ray in the next 30 portions)... This doesn't mean that there will be no effect. In fact, I'd expect for the results to be quite striking in the chart and in the native's life.

Thanks for the answer Curtis. For some time I've been under the impression that I interpreted this notion of unmanagement badly, and in the end I was ready to accept that, if any star cast its rays on said house while in aspect with its domicile ruler, it would work similarly to a "translation", where a 3rd planet function was akin to that of a "bridge" between a ruler and his house.

Would you say this take is closer to a correct assessment to the matter? Furthemore, would you say that this planet that works as a "bridge" would be more profitable to the house, as long as it also had some kind of dignity in the sign/house it casts its ray upon? If it had no dignity there, would it be better to look at another planet that might have some dignity there, to work as the "bridge"?

In his book "Traditional Astrology for Today" B.Dykes states that aversion of a ruler to his domicile may show disconnection, estrangement,ignorance, not seeing.

He illustrates the principle by describing the (lack) of relationship between the ascending sign and the four signs in aversion to it.

Goran

The doctrine of participation is in Schmidt's translation of the lost Antiochus text which says that the exaltation lord participates with the domicile lord. It doesn't help for the favorable working out of the place when these fall amiss, but that doesn't mean that other planets that cast rays into a given place have no effect. Sometimes planets do cast rays, but are "turned off" as time lords and there too this has an effect. There is a good example on how planets get turned on and off when time lords in this article: http://www.projecthindsight.com/article ... 0Kerry.pdf

Good morning,

If another planet aspects both the place ruler and the place by sign, it is said to become an intermediary for the communication between both, thus mitigating the aversion. Certain mirroring conditions based on axial relationships amongst the signs like antiscia, 'seeing' and 'hearing' are also cited as possible sources of mitigation of aversion.

There remain, however, some cases of hard, unmitigated aversion. Obviously, the doctrine of aversion assumes application of 'Ptolemaic' aspects excluding all 'minor' aspects introduced during the Renaissance.

Best regards,

lihin

-lihin

I was hoping you could clarify for me what you said real quick. Basically my second house is in aries, with mars in virgo in the 7th house. I also have saturn in sagittarius in the 10th house. So if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that saturn in sagittarius would mitigate the aversion since it trines my second house in aries and squares my second house ruler (mars in virgo)?

Good morning Mr AstroNovice,

Unless my inner visualisation of the chart misfunctioned, methinks your understanding is basically correct.

However, please note that 'mitigation' does not mean 'complete removal' of an aversion. In your example Kronos in 10 is expected to communicate between Ar?s in 7 ruling 2. Both are maleficient. Using only the data you have given, angular Kronos (one should check this in a quadrant field system) will strongly tend towards activity but is mostly undignified in Sagittarius. Ar?s (the quicker planet), also angular at least by sign, aspects Kronos by dexter quartile, strong but unfriendly, and has little dignity in Virgo.

Are any classical planets posited in 2?

So the mitigation may function but not harmoniously and not work wonders for 2. Nevertheless, some mitigation is usually better than none.

Best regards,

lihin

AstroNovice wrote:-lihin

I was hoping you could clarify for me what you said real quick. Basically my second house is in aries, with mars in virgo in the 7th house. I also have saturn in sagittarius in the 10th house. So if I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that saturn in sagittarius would mitigate the aversion since it trines my second house in aries and squares my second house ruler (mars in virgo)?

This would be of great help but only if Mars still applied to an angular Saturn.

Moreover, Aries/Virgo are signs of equal daylight, so this might also help in mitigating aversion.

The exalted lord of Aries is the Sun, so if it aspects Aries...

Goran

alright, thanks guys for clearing that up.

lihin-the only classical planet I have in the second house is jupiter

cor scorpii- unfortunately my sun is also in virgo

Good afternoon,

Depending of course on his debilities, dignities and configurations., Zeus in 2 should positively influence matters of that place. He may even be the Sect Ruler of the chart depending upon whether H?lios in 7 is above (diurnal chart) or below (nocturnal) the horizon. As Zeus has a domicile in Pisces, he is averse to the Horoscope (Ascendant) using whole sign places and thus presents another question of possible mitigation.

Although not containing ' mitigation of aversion' explicitly, Dr. phil George C. Noonan's Classical Scientific Astrology includes a figure of the Equipollent Signs and Signs Corresponding in Course and is otherwise quite useful. Chapters IV The Planets and V The Aspects cover much of what we have been discussing here.

The various symmetries applied to evaluate possible mitigations of aversions work with entire signs in a tropical zodiac and are quite difficult to apply using a 'sidereal' equal-sign zodiac as they do not fall on sign boundaries but rather shift with the geocentric procession of the fixed stars relative to the equinoxes.

Best regards,

lihin

PS Until now i have never encountered a 100 % positive natal or other chart. Permanent 'conventional well-being' from cradle to grave is improbable.

AstroNovice wrote:alright, thanks guys for clearing that up.

lihin-the only classical planet I have in the second house is jupiter

cor scorpii- unfortunately my sun is also in virgo

That's good because Jupiter is a natural significator of substance/wealth and in Aries it certainly has a testimony of triplicity(maybe even term, depending upon its exact position). However, since the Sun is in Virgo, Jupiter is retrograde and that weakens him considerably.

Anyway, if he rules your ascendant the aversion to Pisces is again mitigated because Pisces/Aries are signs of equal ascension.

And where's the POF and its lord?

Also, in matters of substance, one should pay attention to the lot of substance and its lord.