Neptune in Dignity and Debility

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Modern science originates from old science as well. It doesn't mean that we still think the world is flat. Science evolves. Astrology is an occult science, they evolve too.

Nah I was referring to the old house system hat was ruled by planets instead of signs.

Whole sign houses are useful still. It's not the 1st system I use, but it's useful in its own way to me. Many still use it primarily as well.
Traditionalists, yes. You seem to be the most vocal about it. Imo it's not far fetched to say that ppl in the modern era have the faculties to assign dignities and debilities just as their ancestors did hundreds of years ago.
Most of today's astrologers lack the faculties to practice astrology without the aid of computer software producing natal charts

Ancient astrologers had the faculties to use math and draw natal charts without the aid of computers
:smile:
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
One of the reasons I like to bring over the ancient (pre-CE) Vedic evaluative technique called "ashtakavarga" (8 sources of energy) into Western astrology, is that this method provides an alternative way of ascribing dignity and debility WITHOUT the issues of sign rulerships: in the sarvashtakavarga application, each sign is given "bindu's (energy points) by each of the 7 planets and the ascendant: then, the strength of any planet posited in that sign is determined based on the total bindus given to that sign by ALL the planets (and the ascendant), these allocations being based exclusively upon the POSITION of each sign from each planet (and from the ascendant) The number of bindus each planet thus receives (from each other planet and the ascendant) via the SIGN it posits, determines the strength (dignity) or weakness (detriment) of that particular planet (or other horoscopic point, such as a Lot) Use of the sarvashtakavarga evaluative method thus eliminates all contentions and controversies regarding sign rulership, exaltations, falls, terms, faces, triplicities, etc etc, in coming to a determination of what amounts to the essential dignity (high bindu total) or essential detriment (low bindu total) of each planet-and this can be applied equally well to the outers (and to other horoscopic points like Lots)...
Not trying to advocate ashtakavarga evaluation, but for me this most ancient evaluative method in finding essential dignity and detriment, has worked so well that I now prefer it to any other method, in coming to such determinations (just my experience and opinion, for what its worth...)
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
One of the reasons I like to bring over the ancient (pre-CE) Vedic evaluative technique called "ashtakavarga" (8 sources of energy) into Western astrology, is that this method provides an alternative way of ascribing dignity and debility WITHOUT the issues of sign rulerships: in the sarvashtakavarga application, each sign is given "bindu's (energy points) by each of the 7 planets and the ascendant: then, the strength of any planet posited in that sign is determined based on the total bindus given to that sign by ALL the planets (and the ascendant), these allocations being based exclusively upon the POSITION of each sign from each planet (and from the ascendant) The number of bindus each planet thus receives (from each other planet and the ascendant) via the SIGN it posits, determines the strength (dignity) or weakness (detriment) of that particular planet (or other horoscopic point, such as a Lot) Use of the sarvashtakavarga evaluative method thus eliminates all contentions and controversies regarding sign rulership, exaltations, falls, terms, faces, triplicities, etc etc, in coming to a determination of what amounts to the essential dignity (high bindu total) or essential detriment (low bindu total) of each planet-and this can be applied equally well to the outers (and to other horoscopic points like Lots)...
Not trying to advocate ashtakavarga evaluation, but for me this most ancient evaluative method in finding essential dignity and detriment, has worked so well that I now prefer it to any other method, in coming to such determinations (just my experience and opinion, for what its worth...)
Probably an excellent method dr. farr, however one would necessarily need to master Vedic astrology in order to comprehend the method :smile:
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Not really!
One need only learn the technique for allocating bindus (points) to the signs, in order to make a sarvashtakavarga evaluation as I described it above. The table in V. Aditya's book, "Dots of Destiny", in chapter 3 of that book, can be used for this purpose, without any other knowledge of Vedic astrology being required to apply the technique.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Not really!
One need only learn the technique for allocating bindus (points) to the signs, in order to make a sarvashtakavarga evaluation as I described it above. The table in V. Aditya's book, "Dots of Destiny", in chapter 3 of that book, can be used for this purpose, without any other knowledge of Vedic astrology being required to apply the technique.
You have studied astrology for more than forty years dr. farr
including Vedic astrology
so for you perhaps this is a simple matter
- however a newcomer who has studied astrology for only a year or two may find the concept not so easy
:smile:
 

byjove

Account Closed
... I took his points on since outer planets holding the power of generational effects as well as transcendence these three should not rule any signs as well as debility. ...

Yes I have to say I feel the same. My beliefs could change - I am open to change and learning. But for some time I've been uncomfortable with assigning the outers to signs for the sake of rulership. I really do think they are generational. Perhaps Saturn is the limit of "me" and Uranus and beyond is "we".

Every single time that I see one of those double-ruler signs on a cusp I hesitate to interpret. I haven't always been vocal about this, I'm not nearly so learned on this as others here so I don't rush to overthrow what I'm still learning about. I agree also with the outers showing affinities to certain signs though I don't know how this fits in yet.

I wonder is modern literature on astrology much affected by international astrological institutions? If there is a general preference for say using the others to soley rule a sign, do many modern astrologers follow suit? If there is much disagreement about this, why is it not reflected in these organisations? Are they simply not regarded much so they could believe in the Easter Bunny and no one would pay attention? :whistling: It just seems that the more discerning you are in astrology, the fewer of you there are ...

Neptune's transit in Pisces - with the two being apparently compatible, I would have thought that religion would benefit from a renewed interest and faith in religion! But, alas, nope, as you have pointed out with the scandals. Perhaps this because of the changes going in with Uranus in Aries and Pluto in Capcricorn?

I like the discussion here, it's a good exchance of ideas!
 

poyi

Premium Member
byjove,

With double rulership, I always look at both to compare. And each time they both work quite well. But then I don't think they should truly just be dignified in one particular sign each and really don't know how to give them signs for debility. Logically speaking how many of us had experienced all of their transits over the 12 zodiacs? No, so slow that will take a long time to truly assess which is the most exalted, dignified or debilited sign They do function in many different forms in each sign, and I think all of them have their essential purposes during their slow transit.

The main point is that they are truly transcendence planets meaning they don't rule and not under any rule, beyond the physical world and rules, Saturn.

The combination of Neptune in Pisces, Pluto in Capricorn, and Uranus in Aries to me as a whole is collective force challenging the previous great power structure.
 

gracea

New member
I am in a vague agreement with Draco, although I think the planet's typical themes can have more in common with one sign than another. Where I think the outer planets differ from the inner ones is that they have the ability to transform the sign they are in.

For example a Venus in detriment will have its essence in opposition to the sign in which it is placed, which will cause difficulty.

But a Neptune in detriment or exaltation will only mean that the Neptunian themes are similar to those of the sign. As Neptunian themes can be positive or negative detriment and exaltation are less useful as terminology.

The key question then is what is it about a Venusian essence that distinguishes it from a Neptunian theme? The outer planet themes are much broader and more social than the inner planet. The inner planets often manifest in material form- Venus is associated with beautiful things for example, or women etc. The outer planets have a much more transcendental and intangible manifestation- subconscious feelings of guilt, beauty and anger, that permeate throughout society and the individual. Violence is intangible- it is an action and its results can be seen but the planet and cause itself cannot.

That aside, I think that Neptune shares many themes with Leo rather than Cancer. Leo is all about the image, the personality, character, all things which are illusory. Cancer in contrast is the family, genes, blood ties and the home, which are all physical manifestations. Creativity and aesthetics in their highest forms are said to be divine or the more perfect manifestation of man. Neptune and Leo evoke a filmstar glamour such as Marilyn Monroe, or a fantasy world, of Hollywood etc.


I resonate with what you are sayin here ! - (A capricorn with my neptune in cap and a midheaven in Leo)
 

Dima Gur

Member
Hello everyone,

An article on the topic of "Neptune as a benefic".
In it there's an argument that traditional aspect doctrine and sign rulership may indicate Neptune's role as a benefic.
There's also a discussion on Uranus and Pluto's roles as probable malefics.
Would love to hear what you think.

***Link to the article***
 
Top