Virgo the great mother and divine feminine energy

She wss THE Virgin Goddess, both nurturing and protecting. Virgo is the most underrated Sign. Athena was a sky goddess, originally winged herself, then with a winged companion as a messenger. Virgo is usually depicted as having wings.

Three realms of EARTH: Sky (Earth's air, its atmosphere, :virgo:), Sea (Earth's waters, :capricorn:, originally the Sea goat), and solid ground (Earth's sold land mass_ :taurus:). The material world is made up of vapor, liquid, and solidity. So, Virgo is the airy Earth-sign, the Mutable one, and is known for analytical thinking--it's the materialistic Air-sign.

Lol do you even know what it means to be watery ? It means flowy, flexible and Capricorn is non of that cos they’re unmovable but Virgo is more changeable
 

david starling

Well-known member
Lol do you even know what it means to be watery ? It means flowy, flexible and Capricorn is non of that cos they’re unmovable but Virgo is more changeable

Taurus is most unchangeable, with "fixed" opinions and is known for stubbornness. It's symbolized by the solidly built land-dwelling animal, the ox, or Bull.

Capricorn was originally symbolized as the Sea goat, or Goatfish, which is about water.

Virgo is usually depicted as a winged maiden, which is about the sky. Under the label "Earth-sign", Virgo is the most Mutable of the 3, just as the sky changes more rapidly than the Sea.

All three are materialistically oriented, and Virgo is known for analytical thinking, with is a form of thought, in line with its Air qualities.

This is about the Signs only, which impart qualities to the placements. When people say "You're A Virgo" they almost always mean Sun in Virgo ONLY, which gives a very incomplete picture.
 
Taurus is most unchangeable, with "fixed" opinions and is known for stubbornness. It's symbolized by the solidly built land-dwelling animal, the ox, or Bull.

Capricorn was originally symbolized as the Sea goat, or Goatfish, which is about water.

Virgo is usually depicted as a winged maiden, which is about the sky. Under the label "Earth-sign", Virgo is the most Mutable of the 3, just as the sky changes more rapidly than the Sea.

All three are materialistically oriented, and Virgo is known for analytical thinking, with is a form of thought, in line with its Air qualities.

This is about the Signs only, which impart qualities to the placements. When people say "You're A Virgo" they almost always mean Sun in Virgo ONLY, which gives a very incomplete picture.


All earth signs are analytical in nature just as they’re all materialistic, I have a Virgo rising and a cancer sun and I come off a bit materialistic and very adaptable
 

Osamenor

Staff member
I have never heard of this interpretation of astrology, I only know that ruling planets, modalities, constellations, symbols and houses make up the personality of a zodiac sign 🤷🏼*♀️......
Semi-correct on houses, incorrect on constellations, correct on the rest of it. Zodiac signs actually have nothing to do with constellations. They're simply measurements of the ecliptic based on the solstice and equinox points.

Constellations have some association with the zodiac signs they're named for, mainly due to their proximity to those signs at the time our current astrological system was established, but they're separate from signs, and there's no real astrological significance to constellations. To certain individual stars in them, yes--fixed stars are a whole other layer of astrology, and many of the fixed stars used are in the constellations named for the zodiac--but most fixed stars have a quite different symbolism from the constellations they're in, and the only association between a fixed star and the zodiac sign it's in is that the zodiac sign is used to locate it in a chart.

Houses are also separate from signs. When interpreting an astrological chart, the combination of a sign's meaning and the meaning of the house it's in is relevant, but if you're just considering the zodiac signs alone, houses are irrelevant.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Semi-correct on houses, incorrect on constellations, correct on the rest of it. Zodiac signs actually have nothing to do with constellations. They're simply measurements of the ecliptic based on the solstice and equinox points.

Constellations have some association with the zodiac signs they're named for, mainly due to their proximity to those signs at the time our current astrological system was established, but they're separate from signs, and there's no real astrological significance to constellations. To certain individual stars in them, yes--fixed stars are a whole other layer of astrology, and many of the fixed stars used are in the constellations named for the zodiac--but most fixed stars have a quite different symbolism from the constellations they're in, and the only association between a fixed star and the zodiac sign it's in is that the zodiac sign is used to locate it in a chart.

Houses are also separate from signs. When interpreting an astrological chart, the combination of a sign's meaning and the meaning of the house it's in is relevant, but if you're just considering the zodiac signs alone, houses are irrelevant.


Can't resist asking: What about the Vernal Point, (which also locates the First Point of tropical Aries), transitting the Aquarian Constellation? That's how the astrological Age of Aquarius idea began.
 
Semi-correct on houses, incorrect on constellations, correct on the rest of it. Zodiac signs actually have nothing to do with constellations. They're simply measurements of the ecliptic based on the solstice and equinox points.

Constellations have some association with the zodiac signs they're named for, mainly due to their proximity to those signs at the time our current astrological system was established, but they're separate from signs, and there's no real astrological significance to constellations. To certain individual stars in them, yes--fixed stars are a whole other layer of astrology, and many of the fixed stars used are in the constellations named for the zodiac--but most fixed stars have a quite different symbolism from the constellations they're in, and the only association between a fixed star and the zodiac sign it's in is that the zodiac sign is used to locate it in a chart.

Houses are also separate from signs. When interpreting an astrological chart, the combination of a sign's meaning and the meaning of the house it's in is relevant, but if you're just considering the zodiac signs alone, houses are irrelevant.

You can’t tell me constellations have nothing to do with zodiac signs, it has a whole lot to do with it , without the constellations, there wouldn’t be zodiac signs, if you feel it has nothing to do with it then that doesn’t mean that it’s the way it is generally, do you think they just sorted out animals, mythological creatures , humans and objects and labeled them names according to a particular time of the year , infact the constellations even play a major role , I don’t know about others but that of Gemini, Virgo , Aquarius, Pisces and Taurus does
 

paul1

Well-known member
The ear of wheat held by Virgo represents the fertility of the earth

That's correct, but the fertility of the earth or human is a stage preceding harvest. It is not necessarily followed by physical harvest, but can be diverted to higher use. Physical harvest is ruled by the god Demeter, the origin of the word 'demented.' Renunciation is a process not familiar to common materialist thinking, yet some world religions today are based on it. Not only that but gen Z is less sexually active than any of the generations before.The Greek gods included the quality of celibacy whereby the priestesses devoted their being to the gods. The zodiac signs are a linear series of stages of development beginning with Aries birth and ending with Pisces death, and there is a place for the virgin or renunciation as a sphere of human experience, and the sign Virgo represents that. Virgo is placed in the second group of four, and its qualities are a necessary qualification for entrance to the maturity of higher thinking. The constellations are simply the largest representation of the same sequence of development seen in every process on earth, where their passage in the sky was linked to seasonal activities.
 
Last edited:

Osamenor

Staff member
You can’t tell me constellations have nothing to do with zodiac signs, it has a whole lot to do with it , without the constellations, there wouldn’t be zodiac signs

Without the constellations there would indeed be zodiac signs. Whole systems of astrology exist with no association at all between signs and constellations: Chinese astrology, for instance.

The Western system has developed such a close association between signs and constellations that most people think they're the same thing. They're not, however. If they were, the dates when the sun is in each sign would be different (thanks to precession, the namesake constellations no longer align as closely as they once did with their signs) and wildly unequal. Signs of the zodiac are an even 30 degrees apiece, but none of the constellations are exactly 30 degrees. Some are much smaller. Others are much bigger.

The constellation Virgo, incidentally, is arguably the biggest of the constellations associated with the zodiac, encompassing not only Virgo, but also Libra and part of Scorpio. The maiden (Virgo) holds the scales (Libra) which are also the claws of the scorpion (Scorpio). Some see Virgo, Libra, and Scorpio as one big constellation, in fact, rather than three separate ones.
 
Last edited:

Osamenor

Staff member
Any astrological significance, in your opinion?

Only if fixed stars are involved. Otherwise, I don't see it as having astrological significance. More to the point, I don't see it as having an astrological significance I can work with. Precession isn't anything I've ever paid much attention to, aside from knowing it exists, or worked with.

Others may see it differently, of course.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Only if fixed stars are involved. Otherwise, I don't see it as having astrological significance. More to the point, I don't see it as having an astrological significance I can work with. Precession isn't anything I've ever paid much attention to, aside from knowing it exists, or worked with.

Others may see it differently, of course.

Well, one thing is, the Precessional transits of stars is so slow (less than a minute of arc per year) that the stars pretty much stay where they are. One glaring exception is Regulus, which is strongly associated with the Constellation of Leo, but is now transiting Virgo.
 

Osamenor

Staff member
Well, one thing is, the Precessional transits of stars is so slow (less than a minute of arc per year) that the stars pretty much stay where they are. One glaring exception is Regulus, which is strongly associated with the Constellation of Leo, but is now transiting Virgo.

Regulus isn't an exception. It's precessed at the same rate as all the other fixed stars. It just so happens to have crossed a sign cusp in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean it's moving any faster, any more than having a birthday means you've aged a whole year since the day before.

The majority of the most commonly used fixed stars in astrology are no longer in the tropical sign associated with their constellation. Regulus is no exception there, either.
 
Last edited:

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
Madonna is a Leo sun

And it picked up a strong Virgo, similarly within the week when Michael Jackson is born had a strong Leo, are they both Piscean associated with music, media and entertainment, but Michael Jackson's ascendant sign is Pisces conjunct his moon. There were rumors of a hidden LGBTQ identity and possibly was on the Autistic spectrum, speculation of what was behind his behaviors when he's in the public eye...can his natal chart confirm any of this was true?
 

Osamenor

Staff member
And it picked up a strong Virgo, similarly within the week when Michael Jackson is born had a strong Leo,

Michael Jackson and Madonna were both born outside the window when the sun is kind of sort of both signs. It would have to be within a day of the sign change for that to be relevant.

However, Madonna has Mercury in Virgo and Michael Jackson had Mercury in Leo. That gives them Virgo and Leo communication styles, respectively. On top of that, Michael Jackson also had Venus and Uranus in Leo (as does Madonna) while Madonna has a Virgo Moon and Virgo rising.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Regulus isn't an exception. It's precessed at the same rate as all the other fixed stars. It just so happens to have crossed a sign cusp in our lifetimes. That doesn't mean it's moving any faster, any more than having a birthday means you've aged a whole year since the day before.

I didn't mean it was faster than the other stars. But it's still associated with the Leo Constellation, even though it's in Virgo. That's its history, and it's still about royalty in most interpretations.
 

Osamenor

Staff member
I didn't mean it was faster than the other stars. But it's still associated with the Leo Constellation, even though it's in Virgo.

Most of the commonly used fixed stars have precessed into a different tropical sign from the one associated with their constellation. The ones whose sign and constellation still match are the exception, not the rule.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Most of the commonly used fixed stars have precessed into a different tropical sign from the one associated with their constellation. The ones whose sign and constellation still match are the exception, not the rule.

Good point. I singled out Regulus because it changed Signs recently, and so clearly has its meaning as a "King-maker" so firmly attached to the constellation Leo, even though it no longer occupies the tropical Sign Leo.

Now that Regulus, "the Heart of the Lion" in the Leo Constellation is now in Virgo, does that mean the lion is no longer the "King of Beasts"? :lol:

Does this explain the Biblical prophecy that "the Lion shall lay down with the lamb"?
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
I actually see Virgo as the water 💧 of earth signs cos of their docility, fluidity and sensitivity

Capricorn as the fire 🔥 of earth signs cos of their ambitious nature , strong-will and Stubbornness

Taurus as the air 🌪or earth 🌍 of earth signs cos of their superficial nature , argumentative nature and materialistic tendencies

Virgo -watery earth as it’s mutable
Capricorn-Fire of earth cos it’s Cardinal
Taurus-Earthy or airy earth cos it’s fixed

I suppose each of us can make up astrology to say whatever we want it to say.

To me it makes more sense to stick with the traditional qualities of signs as cardinal (Capricorn, Libra, Cancer, Aries,) fixed (Leo, Aquarius, Scorpio, Taurus,) or mutable (Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, Pisces.)

Traditionally in astrology Virgo is one of the barren signs, because a Virgin by definition is not impregnated. For example, if you plant a garden by moon signs, this would just be one to avoid.

This doesn't mean that Virgo cannot rule other emblems of the earth's fertility like the grain harvest.
 

Osamenor

Staff member
Traditionally in astrology Virgo is one of the barren signs, because a Virgin by definition is not impregnated. For example, if you plant a garden by moon signs, this would just be one to avoid.

Unless you're planting a root crop and you go by the rule that root crops should be planted when the moon is in an earth sign. Or you go by moon phase, not sign, and you're planting during Sun in Virgo month (perhaps a more common thing to do in the southern hemisphere than the northern, but there are plants that do fine with a late summer or any time of year planting).

The traditional barren signs are barren because of their rulers. Gemini is barren along with Virgo because those signs are ruled by Mercury, which is a gender bending, rule breaking, non-fertile planet. Leo is barren because it's ruled by Sun, which is hot and dry, not what you need for life (keep in mind the kind of climate astrology originated in). Yet neither Leo nor Gemini is symbolized by a virgin.
 
Top