Natal rulers vs. Natural Rulers

[serena]

Hi everybody,

I've been studying astrology for a couple of years but I'm still very unsure.

I read a lot of books and I attended a course... to make a long story short, I was taught in the course to look almost only at natural rulers but I know most astrologers look at natal rulers.

For ex. if second house is in Capricorn, Ii consider it to be in Capricorn and then I look to Venus and Jupiter, natural rulers of the second house and not Saturn (natal ruler of 2nd since it is in Capricorn).

I'm wondering if you also look at natural rulers and in case you look at both (natal and natural) how you manage data.

Sorry for my English

[Anachiel]

That is a modern association of the signs with the houses. It is based on the assumption that since Aries is the first sign, then Taurus the second, etc. Since Taurus is ruled by Venus then it must also "natually" rule the 2nd house.

This same train of thought associates Jupiter with the 2nd because Jupiter is thought to be "expansive"

Of couse, the signs and houses are completely different. If they weren't then we wouldn't need one or the other since they would be the same. Also, there is flaw in the association of houses and signs since Aries has not always been the "first" sign so, this is just a historical preference picking Aries over another "first" sign.

However, a pie can be divided in many ways but, the above is the basis for how those associations of the planet with houses came to be.

Blessings,

Anachiel

[serena]

Thank you Anachiel,

but.... do you think it is less valid than the traditional approach?

[wilsontc]

serena,

You said:

Originally Posted by serena

For ex. if second house is in Capricorn, Ii consider it to be in Capricorn and then I look to Venus and Jupiter, natural rulers of the second house

I've never heard the "Jupiter" is the natural ruler of the second house. "Venus" yes, but not Jupiter.

Confused,

Tim

[serena]

Hi Tim,

according to my teacher, Venus has its domicile in Taurus, but Jupiter is exalted in Taurus, that's why

My teacher lernt astrology from Lisa Morpurgo, who is still considered the greatest Italian astrologer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Morpurgo

If you choose the same wikipedia page in Italian, there's a chart with all domiciles and exaltations.

[astrologer50]

Originally Posted by serena

Hi everybody,

I've been studying astrology for a couple of years but I'm still very unsure.

I read a lot of books and I attended a course... to make a long story short, I was taught in the course to look almost only at natural rulers but I know most astrologers look at natal rulers.

For ex. if second house is in Capricorn, Ii consider it to be in Capricorn and then I look to Venus and Jupiter, natural rulers of the second house and not Saturn (natal ruler of 2nd since it is in Capricorn).

I'm wondering if you also look at natural rulers and in case you look at both (natal and natural) how you manage data.

Sorry for my English

there are many ways to interpret house rulers, but I think firstly the most important must the the planet that rules the cusp. As in your example, Capricorn, I would look to Saturn and it's aspects. But any planet posited in 2nd would take on a taurean flavour...

Houses/signs are like the backdrop of a stage/theatre, planets in houses behave like actors on a stage, the *aspects* show how these planets/actor behave in a house

[Anachiel]

Originally Posted by serena

Thank you Anachiel,

but.... do you think it is less valid than the traditional approach?

No, but, it doesn't have as long a history of use. It is a modern perspective.

Perhaps you should ask for practical examples to demonstrate the point. I mean, it either can be demonstrated to work or it doesn't, right?

[Anachiel]

Originally Posted by serena

Hi Tim,

according to my teacher, Venus has its domicile in Taurus, but Jupiter is exalted in Taurus, that's why

But, the Moon is exalted in Taurus, not Jupiter. Where did she get this information from? According to the oldest and most diverse sources, Jupiter really hasn't any strong dignity in Taurus at all. But, I'm open to other information as well.

[miquar]

Hi Serena.

The idea of Jupiter being exalted in Taurus is a new one to me too, though I wouldn't say no to a 2nd house Jupiter.

There is a kind of technique, that you might have come across, that makes use of something called the astrological alphabet. The first letter is Aries, the first house and Mars. The second letter is Venus, the 2nd house and Taurus, etc. If someone has, say Mars in the 5th house, and Sun in Aries, with an aspect between Sun and Mars too, then this is 3 occurrences of the bringing together of the 1st and 5th letters, making this a strong theme in the chart. So you can see that this technique makes use of natural rulership because it associates Sun and the 5th house, etc.

Originally Posted by Anachiel

Also, there is flaw in the association of houses and signs since Aries has not always been the "first" sign so, this is just a historical preference picking Aries over another "first" sign.

Hi Anachiel. Another way of looking at this could be that the horizon axis in a chart is the intersection of the ecliptic plane (the zodiac plane) with the plane of the rational (rather than visible) horizon of the birth place. Likewise, the 0 degrees Aries/0 degrees Libra axis is the intersection of the ecliptic plane with the plane of the Earth's rotation on its axis. Therefore there is a symbolic link between the first point of Aries and the the Ascendant.

[serena]

Originally Posted by Anachiel

But, the Moon is exalted in Taurus, not Jupiter. Where did she get this information from? According to the oldest and most diverse sources, Jupiter really hasn't any strong dignity in Taurus at all. But, I'm open to other information as well.

The idea comes from the studies Morpurgo made

Here's the chart with exaltation and domicile according to her (Morpurgo). In her books she explains also why she believes it is that way.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by serena

Hi Tim, according to my teacher, Venus has its domicile in Taurus, but Jupiter is exalted in Taurus, that's why
My teacher lernt astrology from Lisa Morpurgo, who is still considered the greatest Italian astrologer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Morpurgo
If you choose the same wikipedia page in Italian, there's a chart with all domiciles and exaltations.

Margherita Fiorello is also an Italian astrologer http://heavenastrolabe.net/ - I think you can have the page in Italian as well

[dr. farr]

For me (my opinion and practice ONLY) in natal and astro-medical delineations, I pay no delineative attention to the various systems of natural rulerships; I simply use the signs that are on the houses, and the (traditional) planetary dispositors of those signs (here I was much influenced by the teachings of Charles Carter and Vivian Roberts, whose instructional books in horoscopic analysis are still available @ astroamerica.com)

But certainly other whole system models can be applied to this matter, probably with excellent results in the hands of experts in those other models.

[Rebel Uranian]

I heard that Neptune is fall in Aquarius, not exaltation. Which one is true? Also, natural rulerships make sense from my experience of having a domiciled 6th house Moon and a bizarre need for all things Mercurian (natural 6th house ruler), but that's just me.

[waybread]

I don't pay much attention to so-called natural house rules, with the exception that sometimes you find someone with a heavy emphasis on, say, the 2nd house, Taurus, and Venus; or the 11th house, Aquarius, and Uranus. They seem to operate via a "chord" or "key"-- the 2nd and 11th, respectively, in these examples.

I think it is a mistake to conflate signs and houses. They are not the same thing, yet many modern astrologers will write about "the sun in Scorpio or the 8th house" as though it didn't matter which was which. It does matter. Signs and houses to do not give the same information; expect in a few cases. For example, the first house is your outward personality and body. Unless you happen to have Aries rising, your first house might be occupied to very different signs, such as Libra or Pisces. Your body and personality should show your actual rising/1st house sign/s, not Aries.

I use "lords" or "accidential house cusp rulers." Look at the planet/s ruling the sign on the house cusp, by its own house and aspects. These rulers will tell you a lot about the house in question.

[Claire19]

Originally Posted by serena

Hi everybody,

I've been studying astrology for a couple of years but I'm still very unsure.

I read a lot of books and I attended a course... to make a long story short, I was taught in the course to look almost only at natural rulers but I know most astrologers look at natal rulers.

For ex. if second house is in Capricorn, Ii consider it to be in Capricorn and then I look to Venus and Jupiter, natural rulers of the second house and not Saturn (natal ruler of 2nd since it is in Capricorn).

I'm wondering if you also look at natural rulers and in case you look at both (natal and natural) how you manage data.

Sorry for my English

i am surprised that you have been studying for a couple of years and are unsure as to the basic astrology principles. No, you must always look at the sign ruler on your own house cusp as that is the unique birth chart which is calculated from your day time and place of birth. Jupiter is not the natural ruler of the 2nd house by the way..... Yin Venus is natural ruler, of sign Taurus....If your 2nd house cusp is Capricorn you must look at Saturn and what it is doing also any planets in your 2nd house in your birth chart always override your house cusp ruler.

Good luck.

[Claire19]

Originally Posted by waybread

I don't pay much attention to so-called natural house rules, with the exception that sometimes you find someone with a heavy emphasis on, say, the 2nd house, Taurus, and Venus; or the 11th house, Aquarius, and Uranus. They seem to operate via a "chord" or "key"-- the 2nd and 11th, respectively, in these examples.

I think it is a mistake to conflate signs and houses. They are not the same thing, yet many modern astrologers will write about "the sun in Scorpio or the 8th house" as though it didn't matter which was which. It does matter. Signs and houses to do not give the same information; expect in a few cases. For example, the first house is your outward personality and body. Unless you happen to have Aries rising, your first house might be occupied to very different signs, such as Libra or Pisces. Your body and personality should show your actual rising/1st house sign/s, not Aries.

I use "lords" or "accidential house cusp rulers." Look at the planet/s ruling the sign on the house cusp, by its own house and aspects. These rulers will tell you a lot about the house in question.

I agree!!!!!The signs and the houses are not the same sort of thing and do not give the same information. The house is THE area of life experience and the sign is the WAY it is experienced.

[Claire19]

Originally Posted by dr. farr

For me (my opinion and practice ONLY) in natal and astro-medical delineations, I pay no delineative attention to the various systems of natural rulerships; I simply use the signs that are on the houses, and the (traditional) planetary dispositors of those signs (here I was much influenced by the teachings of Charles Carter and Vivian Roberts, whose instructional books in horoscopic analysis are still available @ astroamerica.com)

But certainly other whole system models can be applied to this matter, probably with excellent results in the hands of experts in those other models.

Yes I agree..

[MSO]

First you have to understand that the system of rulership is based on the planets behaving particularly strong in certain signs, and weak in others. Venus rules Libra because it expresses itself well there, not because of any connection between the planet and the sign. That is especially true for the houses, which are similar to the signs, but in a different way.

Personally I'd take the first house to be Leo, not Aries, due in part to it being a matter of appearance, but also because Leo is self-expression and that is essentially what the ascendant does!

Of course it's irrelevant to astrology and also to this discussion which house is like which sign because the interpretations of the houses do not change. With that said, I have to agree with dr. farr. The only time I bother to pay attention to a House ruler is when the planet that co-signifies or joys in that house is in it. And even then, with both modern and traditional house rulers, it's still confusing as to what exactly these dignities even do sometimes.

[astrologer50]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

I heard that Neptune is fall in Aquarius, not exaltation. Which one is true? Also, natural rulerships make sense from my experience of having a domiciled 6th house Moon and a bizarre need for all things Mercurian (natural 6th house ruler), but that's just me.

detriment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detriment_(astrology)
http://altairastrology.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/understanding-the-three-debilities-of-detriment-fall-and-being-perigrine/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_dignity
http://altairastrology.wordpress.com/2008/03/03/understanding-the-three-debilities-of-detriment-fall-and-being-perigrine/

Exaltation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaltation_(astrology)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_(astrology)

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by MSO

First you have to understand that the system of rulership is based on the planets behaving particularly strong in certain signs, and weak in others. Venus rules Libra because it expresses itself well there, not because of any connection between the planet and the sign. That is especially true for the houses, which are similar to the signs, but in a different way.

Personally I'd take the first house to be Leo, not Aries, due in part to it being a matter of appearance, but also because Leo is self-expression and that is essentially what the ascendant does!

Of course it's irrelevant to astrology and also to this discussion which house is like which sign because the interpretations of the houses do not change. With that said, I have to agree with dr. farr. The only time I bother to pay attention to a House ruler is when the planet that co-signifies or joys in that house is in it. And even then, with both modern and traditional house rulers, it's still confusing as to what exactly these dignities even do sometimes.

It is not possible to use both modern and traditional house rulers simultaneously. For example, using Traditional techniques Uranus, Neptune and Pluto cannot rule Aquarius, Pisces or Scorpio because Traditional Astrologers did not use the outer planets so these signs are ruled by Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. There has been a discussion regarding the outer planets and why Traditional Astrologers did not use Uranus, Neptune or Pluto in the past and do not use them today here's a link http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=39021


Using Traditional Astrology, Dignities are not confusing because Mars rules Aries and Scorpio, Venus rules Taurus and Libra, Mercury rules Gemini and Virgo, Moon rules Cancer, Sun rules Leo, Jupiter rules Sagittarius and Pisces and Saturn rules Capricorn and Aquarius. Traditional Astrology is completely independent from Modern Astrology.


BUT Modern Astrology is built on Traditional Astrology and is entirely dependent on Traditional/Ancient astrological techniques that are thousands of years old.


Confusion occurs when Modern Astrology borrows/adopts a technique from Traditional/Ancient Astrology and re-works it or adds on to it by using the outer planets as rulers of signs. Thousands of years ago astrology began. We have evidence that in Ancient Egypt and Babylon observations were made of the visible stars. The Ancients noticed that amongst the six thousand or so visible stars (which are actually distant suns) there were five which travelled much faster than these smaller more distant, back ground stars: the five planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. In ancient times Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn had different names. The sun and moon are not planets but they are referred to as such, that's why astrologers refer to the seven visible planets as being the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

Some Astrologers continue using the Ancient techniques but also have added their own opinions as to the meanings of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to their delineations and these astrologers are amongst those referred to as Modern Astrologers.

[wilsontc]

serena,

You said:

Originally Posted by serena

...Jupiter is exalted in Taurus...

Never heard of this. Jupiter is usually stated to be exalted in Cancer. I see in the article it says:

The main characteristic of Lisa's work was the attempt to link empirical observation to zodiacal symbology...

Which seems to be another way of saying that if she decides a proven astrological system doesn't work, she just decides to ignore it!

Still confused,

Tim

[wilsontc]

Jupiter,

You said:

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

It is not possible to use both modern and traditional house rulers simultaneously....Traditional Astrology is completely independent from Modern Astrology....BUT Modern Astrology is built on Traditional Astrology and is entirely dependent on Traditional/Ancient astrological techniques...

While you may not LIKE astrologers using both modern and traditional rulers, it IS possible to do so. Some charts I have interpreted have clearly show a pattern using traditional and modern rulers. Other charts have shown a pattern with modern rulers alone. For example, a chart with a strong Mars and Pluto, both of which rule Scorpio, with strong Scorpio energy in the chart showed a very strong Scorpio influence in the chart. On the other hand, another chart I have interpreted has clearly shown a strong Uranus, ruled by Aquarius, with strong Aquarius energy in the chart showed a very strong Aquarius influence in the chart. So in one case the traditional rulers add some extra information. And in another case the modern rulers are enough on their own.

And there is a little flaw in your logic...if modern astrology is linked to traditional astrology, so traditional astrology has a link to modern astrology...whether it wants it or not! And, while you may not like it, there ARE things modern astrology has that are NOT dependent on traditional astrology. For example, I don't think the traditional astrologers were using asteroids that much...so that's something NOT dependent on Traditional astrology!

Having it both ways,

Tim

[MSO]

^What he said, but also some other things.

I wasn't actually talking about using them both at once. I was making the point that the house rulers didn't always seem to work, regardless of traditional or modern. Which brings me to my last point.

I wasn't talking about the signs. I was talking about the houses. The confusion arises no matter which system you use. For example, Mars in modern house systems rules the 1st house. That makes no sense. Why would you want a malefic there? You'd have too much direct energy and end up with tons of scars throughout your life. But, in traditional, Saturn co-signifies the 1st house! What a step up from the lesser malefic, eh?

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by serena

The idea comes from the studies Morpurgo made
Here's the chart with exaltation and domicile according to her (Morpurgo). In her books she explains also why she believes it is that way.

Originally Posted by serena

Hi Tim, according to my teacher, Venus has its domicile in Taurus, but Jupiter is exalted in Taurus, that's why My teacher lernt astrology from Lisa Morpurgo, who is still considered the greatest Italian astrologer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Morpurgo If you choose the same wikipedia page in Italian, there's a chart with all domiciles and exaltations.

Originally Posted by serena

The idea comes from the studies Morpurgo made
Here's the chart with exaltation and domicile according to her (Morpurgo). In her books she explains also why she believes it is that way.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

serena has said that a modern astrologer claims that Jupiter is Exalted in Taurus

Originally Posted by wilsontc

Never heard of this. Jupiter is usually stated to be exalted in Cancer. I see in the article it says:Still confused, Tim

Traditional Astrology entirely independently of Modern Astrology states that Jupiter is exalted in Cancer.
So wilsontc, would you say whether you agree or whether you disagree with Jupiter being exalted in Taurus?

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by wilsontc

Jupiter... there is a little flaw in your logic...if modern astrology is linked to traditional astrology, so traditional astrology has a link to modern astrology...whether it wants it or not! And, while you may not like it, there ARE things modern astrology has that are NOT dependent on traditional astrology. For example, I don't think the traditional astrologers were using asteroids that much...so that's something NOT dependent on Traditional astrology!
Having it both ways, Tim

If you quote what I actually wrote then there is no logical flaw because I did not use the substituted and inadequate word 'linked'… Instead, I used the comprehensively descriptive phrase 'entirely dependent on'...

To clarify then,
(1) Modern Astrology is entirely dependent upon Traditional/Ancient astrology without which modern astrology could not exist.

(2) Traditional Astrology functions independently of Modern Astrology

re-iterated clarification for wilsontc - it is not possible to use modern and traditional rulers simultaneously, simply because as I have already said, for Traditional Astrologers, the outer planets are not depicted in a natal chart at any time. – whether anyone likes the idea or not is irrelevant – it is not possible.

In contrast, Modern Astrologers have borrowed/adapted Traditional Techniques of rulership in order to claim that Uranus rules Aquarius, Neptune rules Pisces and Pluto rules Scorpio whereas the whole idea of rulership is borrowed from Traditional Astrology. The facts are:

Modern Astrologers
(1) remove the rulership of Aquarius from Saturn and substitute Uranus instead
(2) remove the rulership of Pisces from Jupiter and substitute Neptune instead
(3) and remove the rulership of Scorpio from Mars and substitute Pluto instead.
Similarly, having removed the Moon from the Sign of its Traditional Exaltation, a modern astrologer has substituted Jupiter for the Moon, and is claiming that Jupiter is Exalted in Taurus.

wilsontc Although Traditional/Ancient Astrologers did not use asteroids at all, nevertheless, when delineating asteroids Modern Astrologers base their interpretations on Traditional/Ancient astrological House and Sign interpretations.

Ancient Astrology functions as a system of delineation, completely independently of Modern Astrology.

Modern Astrologers claim to be Modern while clinging to ancient astrological techniques because modern astrology needs Traditional/Ancient astrology in order to function at all. In contrast, Traditional/Ancient Astrology does not need Modern Astrology

what I posted is:

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

It is not possible to use both modern and traditional house rulers simultaneously. For example, using Traditional techniques Uranus, Neptune and Pluto cannot rule Aquarius, Pisces or Scorpio because Traditional Astrologers did not use the outer planets so these signs are ruled by Saturn, Jupiter and Mars. There has been a discussion regarding the outer planets and why Traditional Astrologers did not use Uranus, Neptune or Pluto in the past and do not use them today here's a link http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum...ad.php?t=39021
Using Traditional Astrology, Dignities are not confusing because Mars rules Aries and Scorpio, Venus rules Taurus and Libra, Mercury rules Gemini and Virgo, Moon rules Cancer, Sun rules Leo, Jupiter rules Sagittarius and Pisces and Saturn rules Capricorn and Aquarius. Traditional Astrology is completely independent from Modern Astrology.
BUT Modern Astrology is built on Traditional Astrology and is entirely dependent on Traditional/Ancient astrological techniques that are thousands of years old.
Confusion occurs when Modern Astrology borrows/adopts a technique from Traditional/Ancient Astrology and re-works it or adds on to it by using the outer planets as rulers of signs. Thousands of years ago astrology began. We have evidence that in Ancient Egypt and Babylon observations were made of the visible stars. The Ancients noticed that amongst the six thousand or so visible stars (which are actually distant suns) there were five which travelled much faster than these smaller more distant, back ground stars: the five planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. In ancient times Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn had different names. The sun and moon are not planets but they are referred to as such, that's why astrologers refer to the seven visible planets as being the Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
Some Astrologers continue using the Ancient techniques but also have added their own opinions as to the meanings of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto to their delineations and these astrologers are amongst those referred to as Modern Astrologers.