sun trine descendant in synastry?

[Emily56]

I know this is a stretch but people always talk about planet aspects to the ascendant but these planets would also aspect the descendant. Are they just not mentioned because already covered by the aspect to the ascendant?

 

[waybread]

I suspect it's because the ascendant is such an important point in a horoscope.

In synastry, A's sun sextile B's ascendant would be an important attraction.

 

[AstroPerson]

I agree with waybread, the importance of the ascendant frequently opaques the descendant.

However, I don't think the interpretations of aspects to the ascendant would include the descendant (just as the interpretations of, let's say, the sign of the 2nd house cusp doesn't cover the 8th's cusp, even though the sign in the 2nd tells which one is in the 8th).

For example, the Sun trine descendant aspect may be interpreted from the descendant point of view, or from the ascendant's:

• Sun trine descendant: The descendant person sees the Sun person as a potential partner due to the Sun's behavior harmonizing with descendant's attraction standards.
• Sun sextile ascendant: The ascendant person feels confortable around the Sun person because the Sun person's behavior harmonizes with ascendant's raw nature.

As you may noticed, these extremely generalized interpretations aren't the same, nor refer to the same, nevertheless, they complement each other (since the ascendant and descendant are in natural, forced opposition, they're complementing points [one provides the other what they lack, and vice versa], so, the interpretation of one aspect to one of these points, is complemented by the interpretation of the aspect it makes with the other point).

I hope I have expressed myself clearly.

 

[wan]

Personally I only look at the hard aspects (conjunction, square and opposition) to the points. Points like descendant are not real physical entities, as such there is a lower number of aspects that can be made to them. I don't even consider trine to ascendant to be significant.

 

[AstroPerson]

Points like descendant are not real physical entities, as such there is a lower number of aspects that can be made to them.

Why? The Moon's nodes aren't physical entities neither and they're often interpreted (alongside) with non-hard aspects. I mean, yeah, maybe a Quintile of X with the Mc isn't as powerful than with the Sun, however (at least from my point of view; without diving into the interesting debate) Astrology aspects aren't really based on the physical entities sharing physical energy with each other, but in mathematical ratios, proportions and angles which shape the planets' energies interaction (not the planets themselves [physical forces interchange], but their energies/influences [immaterial/ethereal energy interchange]).
That's the reason why, let's say, a square is an aspect given by 90° of distance of two points in the chart, regardless of the actual metric distance (miles, kilometers) between them.

Given this theorical framework, my interpretation of the lowered intensity aspects with the Asc and Mc points compared to the intensity with a planet is that their energy is, half concentrated in their cusp, and the other half is actually distributed throughout the rest of the house, meanwhile, a planet has all its energy condensed in one point (its location in the chart), therefore, their aspects are more sensible.

Did I express myself clearly on this? What do you think?

I don't even consider trine to ascendant to be significant.

Yeah, agreed 👍.

 

[wan]

Why? The Moon's nodes aren't physical entities neither and they're often interpreted (alongside) with non-hard aspects. I mean, yeah, maybe a Quintile of X with the Mc isn't as powerful than with the Sun, however (at least from my point of view; without diving into the interesting debate) Astrology aspects aren't really based on the physical entities sharing physical energy with each other, but in mathematical ratios, proportions and angles which shape the planets' energies interaction (not the planets themselves [physical forces interchange], but their energies/influences [immaterial/ethereal energy interchange]).
That's the reason why, let's say, a square is an aspect given by 90° of distance of two points in the chart, regardless of the actual metric distance (miles, kilometers) between them.

Given this theorical framework, my interpretation of the lowered intensity aspects with the Asc and Mc points compared to the intensity with a planet is that their energy is, half concentrated in their cusp, and the other half is actually distributed throughout the rest of the house, meanwhile, a planet has all its energy condensed in one point (its location in the chart), therefore, their aspects are more sensible.

Did I express myself clearly on this? What do you think?
.

You are probably right. I haven't really delved into it too much, tbh. But what you said seems to make sense.

 

[waybread]

Actually ,there is some reality on the descendant and ascendant, as the points on the horizon where planets set and rise, respectively.

However, the chart angles cast no orb.

 

[Emily56]

Just to add a note, I found this: https://astrologybyte.com/sun-trine-descendant-synastry/

 

[PussInBoots]

I would say that the Sun of one partner in 'easy' aspect to the other's asc/desc axis is a very nice aspect to have.

Obviously there needs to be a accurate birthtime for it to be meaningful.