Which is more significant, planets or signs?

dr. farr

Well-known member
Remember too that signs represent (are) energies: each sign is an elemental energy (quality) and, further, each sign is a modulation of energies (ie, cardinal, fixed, mutable) So signs are not completely passive, or "only" symbolic, in their essential nature.
We have a sign with no planets, ok: but that sign is an energy and is a modulation of that energy, and thus has an influence: Aries on the 10th house, but no planets (or dodekatemorion of planets) therein: an "empty" 9th house, to be delineated ONLY by the situation of the planetary "lord" (in this case Mars)? No way is that all there is to it: Aries on the 10th house means we have FIRE qualifying that 10th house, and an active modulation of FIRE, ie, CARDINAL FIRE, which, TOGETHER with the condition of the lord (Mars) all typify the 10th house, in that chart.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
@dr. farr - Isn't a person a group of things in some senses? Which means they should be their ruling planet and its sign?

Yes, and that's why both are significant: but your question was about picking one, and I responded to that (a theoretical question to me; in actual delineation I would not emphasize one over the other)
 

sandstone

Banned
dr farr - what is with that silly logo next to your name? did you have to pay for that, or is it like when you do over 5000 posts and someone gives you a golden handshake or something? it looks bizarre, but it doesn't show up when i go to hit reply..
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Hi!
No, its what AW uses to denote those who have purchased a membership: a few others have these too, eg, Culpeper and Wintersprite.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Hi waybread! I've been thinking about you, lol...

I agree, though I do think it needs to go a step further. Venus in Aries is in detriment, and I think it is important to understand why this is, and how that will manifest in the native. What about the nature of Venus is antithetical to being in Aries? Traditionally, we can consider the nature of Aries vs. the nature of Venus, and then too it would depend on the placement of the Moon. Is it in Capricorn, ruled by Saturn? How is Saturn situated? Or, is it in Cancer, the domicile of the Moon? This is why the signs matter in determining how the planets will express their inherent nature, isn't it?

While I have studied traditional astrology to a limited extent, my sentiments still remain modern in approach.

While I think domiciled planets are extra-strong and exalted planets have a weakly happy relationship with their signs, I dislike the whole concept of "detriment" and "falls." I don't think the moon or Jupiter, for example, get harmed in Capricorn. Rather, I would see them working differently, or merely in Capricornian ways.

Take the perspective of the natives of Planet Capricorn. On Planet Capricorn, its values and goals are the normal ones. Cancer is the sign that is too needy and clingy; and Sagittarius is the sign that is too easy-breezy and unrealistically optimistic. The moon and Jupiter in Capricorn still behave like the moon and Jupiter, but they behave in pragmatic and possibly opportunistic ways. On Planet Capricorn, these are sensible ways to operate.

Because people's charts and life experiences will sometimes surprise you. You might think that, all things being equal, a sensitive watery person with the "correct" sign and house placements would be super as a nurse. Well, actually, she's thought about it but she just can't stand to be around human suffering. It's too much. In contrast, a lunar Capricorn is the nurse who takes a very practical approach to her patients, and who takes pride in her competence. Similarly, Jupiter in Capricorn can express itself as someone with administrative ability; where Jupiter mellows the colder, more focused potential side of Saturn or Mars in Capricorn.

Smilarly, on Planet Aries, relationships that give the natives plenty of space and independence are to be prefered to a Libran desire to be half of a couple.

Plus, if you really do traditional astrology, you can get into terms, faces, joys, and all the rest of it that begin to modify the basic domicile/exaltation placements.

I use "accidental house cusp rulers" or "lords" extensively. But mostly i follow the principles of Dutch astrologer Karen Hamker-Zondag in her book The House Connection. She emphasizes the house cusp ruler's house placement and aspects.

Hi Frank-- No problem from me with how you've posted a different astro-grammar than mine. Either way, I found thinking of planet pairs in terms of sentence structure to be extremely helpful in chart interpretation.
 

GalacticEgg

Well-known member
The singer is the sign. The song is the planet. The singer can have many original songs, but the song only has one original signer, just as signs can have many planets, but planets have one sign.

This.

I'll add that planets are universal archetypes until they are put through the lenses of the Zodiac; imo, they are equally significant, as astrology requires both these concepts to function as a proper interface between your self and your universe.
 

sandstone

Banned
hi waybread,

i like the saying 'take the best and leave the rest'.. i think it is a helpful approach to anything, even if i get sidetracked with my own stuff to the point of forgetting this saying..

i think planets do have more of an affinity with certain signs then with others.. i do think a planet can be stronger or weaker in a chart for these reasons.. i do think an astrologer needs to figure these things out in order to be better able to assess a chart. the concept of detriment and fall are the flip side of at home and exaltation.. a lot of stuff to trad astro like faces and triplicities and a lot of the stuff seems to be generally ignored by many folks that claim to be practicing trad astro to the degree that i ask the question - what exactly are you practicing? do read the thread at skyscript on the mystery chart to get an idea... these folks are supposed to be enamoured of trad astro, but dang, you don't see a lot of it being practiced the way you would think...

anyway, i think it is an interesting dynamic and always enjoy bouncing ideas on this stuff as i think it is very relevant for me and others doing astrology..

hey galactic egg - you stole franks pic and that seems like an odd thing to do.. do you think frank would approve?
 

serafin5

Well-known member
This.

I'll add that planets are universal archetypes until they are put through the lenses of the Zodiac; imo, they are equally significant, as astrology requires both these concepts to function as a proper interface between your self and your universe.

Perfect; I couldn't have said it better. Thanks. Serafin5:cool:
 

waybread

Well-known member
hi waybread,

.....
i think planets do have more of an affinity with certain signs then with others.. i do think a planet can be stronger or weaker in a chart for these reasons.. ......

But wouldn't your statement be correct only if you interpreted planets in very specific ways? If we think of the moon as one's capacity to care and nurture (among other things), for example, are the Cancerian or Taurean models the two best ways to do this?

On Planet Aquarius, for example, Cancerian moons seem way too needy and moody. Taurean moons might seem too stolidly materialistic, without recognizing the airy world of ideas that also nourish the soul.

It just seems that the traditional system of detriments and falls pigeon-holes planets into a rigid heirarchical system of "good-better-best" and "bad-worse-worst" that doesn't admit to the possibility that on Planet Aries, Venus in Aries might operate just fine. In fact Venus with a martial tinge might be really hot stuff in her own independent way. Would a Libran care for it? Probably not. But that's because he lives on Planet Libra.

I just don't see the need for these sorts of heirarchies. As I said above, I think a domiciled planet is extra-strong, but there are reasons for this, because such planets are apt to be final depositors or house cusp lords, as well.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
But wouldn't your statement be correct only if you interpreted planets in very specific ways? If we think of the moon as one's capacity to care and nurture (among other things), for example, are the Cancerian or Taurean models the two best ways to do this?

On Planet Aquarius, for example, Cancerian moons seem way too needy and moody. Taurean moons might seem too stolidly materialistic, without recognizing the airy world of ideas that also nourish the soul.

It just seems that the traditional system of detriments and falls pigeon-holes planets into a rigid heirarchical system of "good-better-best" and "bad-worse-worst" that doesn't admit to the possibility that on Planet Aries, Venus in Aries might operate just fine. In fact Venus with a martial tinge might be really hot stuff in her own independent way. Would a Libran care for it? Probably not. But that's because he lives on Planet Libra.

I just don't see the need for these sorts of hierarchies. As I said above, I think a domiciled planet is extra-strong, but there are reasons for this, because such planets are apt to be final depositors or house cusp lords, as well.

These are good points, and I think where traditional and modern can bridge each other. I don't see the planetary hierarchy as a "bad-worse-worst" situation, but rather another means for understanding how the energies will express. You mention Venus in Aries not being to the taste of a Libra...well what if it's Venus in Aries not being in taste to a Libra planet within the same chart? So how would you describe the aspect of Venus in Aries opposing Moon in Libra? (I just picked that one off the cuff, probably not the best example...)

I don't think I quite understand accidental cusp rulers correctly yet, but...is it that there are (modernly) natural house rulers based on the order of the signs/houses of the zodiac? So Mars rules 1st (Aries) Venus 2nd (Taurus) and so on around the circle? The "accidental" rulers are the planets that rule the actual degree position of sign on the cusp of each house? For example, in my own chart, the 7th house cusp is in Aries. So the natural ruler would be my Venus in Virgo, but the accidental ruler would be my Mars in Capricorn?

The other question that occurs is how often we have/hear the laments of "why am I so unhappy in this area?" or "why does nothing about this ever work out for me?" Wouldn't understanding more about things like detriment and debility, or planetary sect, help us gain a better insight into the answers to these questions? All applied within the modern frame work created by today's delineations?

Lastly, I wanted to point out that often we view natal charts through the lens of just the native. But, my understanding is that the planets in natal charts don't just signify aspects of our own personalities. Every ancient source credits the planets as significators of other people or situations the native will encounter throughout his/her life. Understanding of the circumstances of these significators will help explain the nature of the relationships/interpersonal encounters a native will have?
 

tsmall

Premium Member
Remember too that signs represent (are) energies: each sign is an elemental energy (quality) and, further, each sign is a modulation of energies (ie, cardinal, fixed, mutable) So signs are not completely passive, or "only" symbolic, in their essential nature.
We have a sign with no planets, ok: but that sign is an energy and is a modulation of that energy, and thus has an influence: Aries on the 10th house, but no planets (or dodekatemorion of planets) therein: an "empty" 9th house, to be delineated ONLY by the situation of the planetary "lord" (in this case Mars)? No way is that all there is to it: Aries on the 10th house means we have FIRE qualifying that 10th house, and an active modulation of FIRE, ie, CARDINAL FIRE, which, TOGETHER with the condition of the lord (Mars) all typify the 10th house, in that chart.

This is an excellent explanation, and yet another reason to understand the condition of the planet that rules the sign/house. So to take your example further, if Aries is the 10th house, we have cardinal fire in an active modulation of the 10th. Plop Mars in Taurus in any degree other than 26-30 in a day chart, and what do we get? Mars in an environment completely against his nature? (Though I believe that Mars is co-ruler of the Earth triplicity, so something beneficial there?) What then can we expect to see regarding this chart's 10th house?
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
An active FIRE element modified by the detrimented Mars, elementally bringing active fire into connection with fixed EARTH; now, each of these elemental states have "meanings" (ie, influences), plus the generic Aries meaning plus the generic Taurus meaning, plus the detrimented Mars meaning; the blending of these divergent influences, into a synthesis, will give the likely 10th house situation. Now, this is much more complex than simply saying "Aries on the 10th disposited by a detrimented Mars": but the more complex sythesis will yield a more precise, individualized picture, than the simpler, more generalized analysis (ie, "Aries on the 10th disposited by a detrimented Mars") would be capable of.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Lastly, I wanted to point out that often we view natal charts through the lens of just the native. But, my understanding is that the planets in natal charts don't just signify aspects of our own personalities. Every ancient source credits the planets as significators of other people or situations the native will encounter throughout his/her life. Understanding of the circumstances of these significators will help explain the nature of the relationships/interpersonal encounters a native will have?
Which is more significant?

(1) That you (as signified by a planet) are traveling within


(a) a secure, homely familiar safe neighbourhood


(b) a city where drive-by shootings occur hourly


(c ) an area with luscious verdant farmland


(d) an arid desert


(e) an ocean


(f) the home of a fussy friend who continually cleans the place while you are attempting to relax


(g) an austere windswept plain


(h) an icy mountainous region


(2) or is it more important that you are simply traveling somewhere? i.e. are your surroundings of any consequence? Is it advisable to take note of your surroundings? Is it a good idea to be fully aware of your surroundings? :smile:

 

waybread

Well-known member
Hi tsmall-- you raise some good questions. My take on them:

1. Like many astrologers I sometimes think of planets in a horoscope as members of a committee, or members of an extended family. They don't always get along. Maybe this is similar to observing that most people experience inner conflicts or competing wishes. As the Jewish saying goes, "With one tuchus you can't dance at two weddings." In a more choice-oriented astrology, people can work to empower and optimize both planets, however.

So let's suppose for the sake of argument that someone has Venus in Aries and the moon in Libra in opposition (to use your example). This looks like rough sledding, yet the two planets are definitely communicating. Maybe a good use of this combo would be for the person to recognize a Venusian commonality with both placements, and to enter into relationships that are committed yet that grant both individuals a fair bit of space. Libra likes equality (or is at least receptive to the idea) and is able to rationalize things (as an air sign.) Maybe the person has independent and somewhat daring (Aries) artistic tastes (Venus, Libra) which she can express in her home decorating (Venus, moon.)

I have a fair number of oppositions in my chart and have found this kind of deliberate strategy to be really helpful. Mars is one of the easier ones because it can be converted to an athletic activity; and even Saturn isn't too hard because it keeps an eye out for self-discipline and caution.

2. Accidental house cusp rulers are the planets domiciled in the sign on the house cusp. I usually look at both traditional and modern rulers. A good book on this is Karen Hamaker-Zondag, The House Connection. "The house over which a planet rules serves the purposes of the house in which that planet stands." So, for example, if someone has Virgo on the cusp of the 10th house of career and Mercury (rules trade) is in the 4th house of "home" perhaps this person would make a good real estate agent.

I usually use Placidus houses (unless it's a guesstimated birth time or a high-latitude birth,) so you oftentimes get a house cusp sign that is different than the sign of planets in that house. I find Placidus gives a chart a lot more sensitivity than whole-signs, because you can always look at a planet's "natural" sign ruler if you want to. Also, with an unequal house system you can get intercepted signs, which I think have real interpretive value.

But just to bolster this technique.... sometimes people wonder why some Aquarians seem more Saturnine, and some more Uranian. Well, some have Saturn (Capricorn on the cusp) as their sun's house ruler; and some have Uranus.

This method is really helpful for interpreting untenanted houses. If someone has no second house planets, for example, look at the planet ruling the sign on the second house cusp. What house is it in and what aspects does it make?

Don't bite my head off, whole-signs advocates!!! Your milage may vary.

3. I don't follow the belief adopted by some modern astrologers of "natural" house rulers according to their rank-order around the horoscope. [Moon rules the 4th house because Cancer is the 4th sign, and so on.] Apparently Lilly proposed this correspondence for medical astrology, and then C.E.O. Carter and other mid-20th century astrologers picked it up.

Some planet-sign-house combinations work fairly well (likeJupiter, Sagittarius, and the 9th) but others seem very badly matched, such as Mars- Aries-first house, and Venus-Taurus-second house. In the first instance, the first house is your outward personality and body; and it won't seem very "martial" unless you happen to have Aries rising or Mars in the first. The second house is your money house, yet Mercury rules money and trade, not Venus (modern misunderstandings, notwithstanding!)

4. Since I don't work with a lot of the info-bytes of traditional astrology, I can't say whether they explain why someone is unhappy about her love-life, or what-have-you.

But oftentimes you find difficult planetary aspects involved; either in the 7th house or with the ruler of the 7th in the case of the lovelorn. Or sometimes she's got moon-Neptune in the 7th, which can be soooo idealistic.

A tough combo with the 40-and-still-single example is Cancer rising, with Capricorn on the DC. Cancer wears her heart on her sleeve, and closes up within her shell if her feelings have been hurt too often. Saturn ruling the DC can indicate frustration and disappointment-- or simply a marriage late in life.

Maybe I don't use the negatives of traditional astrology because my sun is in Aquarius. Once I learned, Popeye style, that "I yam what I yam," it hasn't bothered me in the slightest that my sun is supposedly in its detriment. I mean, are we saying that something like 600 million Aquarians have a problem with their sense of identity simply because they were born in late January through mid-February?

My Jupiter is supposedly in its fall in Capricorn (4th house), yet I love living surrounded by old (Saturn) books and furniture, studying family history (Capricorn, 4th house), and living in the mountains on a small rural acreage (Capricorn rules mountains and farming). Is this supposed to be a problem?

5. I do think that you can use planets and angles to learn something about other people and events in the native's life: they are not 100% interior. Mom and Dad, for starters. A biggie is a planet opposite the sun, which will often be experienced as an 'enemy" opposed to the native's interests and who seemingly embodies the other planet's characteristics.

But the more self-aware and responsible people are, I think the less any negative exteriorizing is likely to happen. We actually are not Mom or Dad, for example, but we are our experiences of them.
 

sandstone

Banned
hi waybread,

i always enjoy your independent approach and think i share in much of it... for me symbolism is the basis for so much of astrology and much of it is based on observation.. whether it is of the self fulfilling kind or actually objectively based is an ongoing question.. i think the moon is a more self centered energy and in this sense i think it works better with taurus or cancer... it doesn't work so well with a more universal outlook, but then these are just my thoughts on this based on years of trying to understand the nature of all the symbolism. the self centered-ness of a moon in taurus which puts it's needs before those of others means the moon is functioning in a very strong way at self preservation even more then moon in cancer i think, as the water element keeps the moon more fluid then it would be in taurus..

there are countless ways to look at astrology and the symbolism associated with it, but i think much of it is based on a deeper understanding of the characteristics of them..

as for house systems and intercepted houses and etc. etc... to me much of that is much more subjective in nature.. i read certain astrologers reading all sorts of things into technical approaches which i don't share... different strokes for different folks..

i don't think anything is pigeon holed, or rigid, or if it is, it is the person who opts to do this with the astrology.. it is the approach of the astrologer, not design of these different branches that are as much of a concern for me.. while i don't like a number of word definitions in the trad astro, i don't like the mush factor to much of modern astro either.. we have had this conversation before and i am agnostic when it comes to all of it.. i am going to pull from it all what i want that i think has merit and not waste my time getting caught up in any of the dogma around any of it. if i find something i can use that i think has value, i am going to use it.. if you see me saying something is evil based on it being in detriment or its fall, shoot me as i will have gone beyond the pale, lol... i think you are spinning your wheels trying to stir up things and i enjoy watching you do it.. i still think there is much meaning to such things as moon is at home in cancer and exalted in taurus.. it doesn't mean it is all peachy keen, but i do see the meaning in it none the less.. lets use another example.. i see the merits in this one and there is a down side to it as well as i have tried to articulate..


But wouldn't your statement be correct only if you interpreted planets in very specific ways? If we think of the moon as one's capacity to care and nurture (among other things), for example, are the Cancerian or Taurean models the two best ways to do this?

On Planet Aquarius, for example, Cancerian moons seem way too needy and moody. Taurean moons might seem too stolidly materialistic, without recognizing the airy world of ideas that also nourish the soul.

It just seems that the traditional system of detriments and falls pigeon-holes planets into a rigid heirarchical system of "good-better-best" and "bad-worse-worst" that doesn't admit to the possibility that on Planet Aries, Venus in Aries might operate just fine. In fact Venus with a martial tinge might be really hot stuff in her own independent way. Would a Libran care for it? Probably not. But that's because he lives on Planet Libra.

I just don't see the need for these sorts of heirarchies. As I said above, I think a domiciled planet is extra-strong, but there are reasons for this, because such planets are apt to be final depositors or house cusp lords, as well.
 

dhundhun

Well-known member
Of course Planets
And then some sensitive points and stars.

Signs get there characteristics from stars. Every year, tropical sign moves away from sidereal and there has been so many discussions, which one is more accurate. Refer to books/articles on stars: such as http://www.amazon.com/The-Fixed-Sta...=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331190887&sr=1-2

Vedic Astrology has sign significant, but astrims (nakshatra) are more significant for transit. A child gets astrological name based in astrim in which Moon is located. Astrim is finer division of sky (27 divisions) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakshatra

Hope it helps.
===

An example of star: β (Beta) Arietis is located at 3° Tau 50. It is unfortunate, and signifies violence, accidents, injury, defeat. Now some one has Sun there. Do you expect Sun to take characteristic of Taurus or β (Beta) Arietis? This is an example, where conventional Astrology is likely to fail. There are about 15 significant stars in Taurus and characteristic of Sun in Taurus is a generalization. However each star can act differently and sometime giving quite opposite results compared to what you expect.
 
Last edited:

sandstone

Banned
thanks for chiming in dhundhun - i was mentioning the difference between sidereal and tropical higher up in the thread as a reason for focusing more on planets then signs.. you have just offered some strength to the diversion of sid to trop that is a quagmire for folks attached to signs more strongly to fall into..
 

waybread

Well-known member
thank you, sandstone! The fact that even within a single "school" of astrology we can get astrologers using different techniques yet stll getting valid results suggests that there is no single "right way" to read a chart. This isn't to ignore astrology's "deposit of faith" from the past 2500 years.

Something else has to be afoot. I suspect it has more to do with astrology as a type of divination.
 
Top