Hi Yoi.
Sorry, I didn't see your last post.
I hope you can comment on the strength of Jupiter.
There are four potential candidates for the weakest planet in your chart, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn all of them being peregrine.
Now, Mars and the Moon are slow in motion, which is an accidental debility. Saturn is succedent, which is an somewhat dignified, and fast in motion. The Moon is in the first house, the opposite house to the house of it's rulership, so this is a debility. Apart from being peregrine, Jupiter is angular and succedent, so I wouldn't say he was the weakest.
Of Moon, Mars and Saturn, well, the latter two are malefics, but the Moon is slow as well as opposite it's own house, and in that it is in the first giving it great power to act out it's less desirable qualities, then I'd probably go for the Moon. Then again, consider that Mars is naturally malefic, as well as being conjunct the South Node, so I probably opt for Mars too. So I'd go for Mars/Moon.
I don't suppose seeking out the weakest planets in our chart is the healithiest exercise however. Identifying the LoG is about knowing what essence to draw upon in life in order to conduct yourself appropriately and surpass fate and access destiny.
Hello Bob.
it seems people want the 'easy' lazy answer without using ones brain.
Which people particularly?
I see you all prefer the numbers of Lilly
I take this personally, as I was the one mentioning 'numbers' originally, but it's a teaching aid.
You'll notice I didn't place 'scores' next to the houses, as I'd consider this as would be to reduce it to the level of splitting hairs.
If you read the boards regularly you will have noticed that I am constantly reiterating that Lilly's 'numbers' are a general rule of thumb, a guideline only, to be used with a good dash of common sense, and with 'all things being equal', they are not a mathematical formula. Astrology is not a science, it's an art, it's deals with qualities not quantities.
The 'numbers' come in handy when you are trying to put across a concept to a person who is unfamiliar with it, about how to identify the Lord of the Geniture.
That's why it's a teaching aid. It always was. When that person has become familiar with the concept, they may find that the 'numbers' become less and less necessary as a reference.
To have done otherwise would certainly have made it a more complicated task to explain things that it would need to be.
You call people 'lazy', but you know yourself that there is so much astro-trash out there, that it is hard to find the real gems of wisdom amidst it all. If they were lazy they wouldn't be asking questions out of a desire to learn.
I am always,
always trying to point out about the way in which people follow Lilly's rules as if they are strictures and foolproof formulae, they are not, they are broad guidelines to be used with common sense, and a mixture of 'discretion with art'.
Yes, there are those that think that Lilly's numbers are a mathematical formula, but these tend to be the less imaginative types that would make better astronomers, or those, who through no fault of their own, are simply ignorant of this fact. So then teach them, persuade them, share in what you know, but don't berate them.
It's like those who think that if the Moon is void, or if the ascendant is early, that this disqualifies interpretation in a horary. Not true! These are examples of 'considerations before judgement', not 'strictures before not bothering to judge at all', but this misinterpretation is most often propounded by those whose careful studies of Lilly have never extended quite so far as reading any of his work.
It's just I don't appreciate being tarred with the wrong brush.
