Dignity and Debility Confusion

Davi_Alan

Davi_Alan

Well-known member
Hello Everyone,

I was on the net last night searching for articles on the dignities and debilities of the planets so I could better understand this topic in astrology. But I came across the fact that most tables don't seem to agree with each other. Take for example, these four tables here taken from different websites:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html

http://www.drstandley.com/astrologycharts_dignity_debility.shtml

http://www.astrologycom.com/dignities.html

http://www.skyviewzone.com/astrology/dignities.htm

It seems that one is considering the dignities in relation to the signs while the other is considering it in relation to the planets, so while both agree that the Sun is exalted at 19° Aries, one says that the Sun's detriment is in Venus, while the other says it's in Aquarius and that it falls on Saturn while the other says that is in 19° Libra. To further the confusion, one of these tables takes into consideration the planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto as rulers of Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio, instead the traditional planets (Saturn, Jupiter and Mars). I feel lost, how can measuring the dignity/debility of a planet be trustworthy if the tables don't agree perfectly with each other? Can somebody better explain this to me?
 
tsmall

tsmall

Premium Member
Davi_Alan said:
Hello Everyone,

I was on the net last night searching for articles on the dignities and debilities of the planets so I could better understand this topic in astrology. But I came across the fact that most tables don't seem to agree with each other. Take for example, these four tables here taken from different websites:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html

http://www.drstandley.com/astrologycharts_dignity_debility.shtml

http://www.astrologycom.com/dignities.html

http://www.skyviewzone.com/astrology/dignities.htm

It seems that one is considering the dignities in relation to the signs while the other is considering it in relation to the planets, so while both agree that the Sun is exalted at 19° Aries, one says that the Sun's detriment is in Venus, while the other says it's in Aquarius and that it falls on Saturn while the other says that is in 19° Libra. To further the confusion, one of these tables takes into consideration the planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto as rulers of Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio, instead the traditional planets (Saturn, Jupiter and Mars). I feel lost, how can measuring the dignity/debility of a planet be trustworthy if the tables don't agree perfectly with each other? Can somebody better explain this to me?
Click to expand...

I didn't check the links, but you can bet the one from skyscript is the best to use. You should take the tutorial on dignity and debility there to get a better understanding. Briefly, planets are dignified or debilitated in signs, not in planets. Think about that. We never say Saturn is in Venus, and we never <should> say that Libra is in Venus (or any other planet for that matter.) Planets can be in signs, signs cannot be in planets. It's like saying houses can be in people. I suppose if you ate your house, but...:w00t:

What I think may be confusing you is that there is more than one sign of dignity or debility for each planet.

A planet has two home signs (except for the Sun and Moon which get one each) called domiciles, and the signs opposite these are called detriments. Then each planet has a sign of exaltation (the whole sign, not just the degree) and the sign opposite that is it's fall. Domiciles and exaltations are dignity, detriments and falls are debility. Make a little more sense?
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Davi_Alan said:
Hello Everyone, I was on the net last night searching for articles on the dignities and debilities of the planets so I could better understand this topic in astrology. But I came across the fact that most tables don't seem to agree with each other. Take for example, these four tables here taken from different websites:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html
http://www.drstandley.com/astrologycharts_dignity_debility.shtml
http://www.astrologycom.com/dignities.html
http://www.skyviewzone.com/astrology/dignities.htm
It seems that one is considering the dignities in relation to the signs while the other is considering it in relation to the planets, so while both agree that the Sun is exalted at 19° Aries, one says that the Sun's detriment is in Venus, while the other says it's in Aquarius and that it falls on Saturn while the other says that is in 19° Libra.
Click to expand...
Traditionally, the sun's detriment IS NOT 'in Venus' BUT IS in 'one of the domiciles aka homes of Venus' - i.e. Libra

The traditional homes aka domiciles of the planets are based (for more than a thousand years now) on the seven planets that are visible in the sky without the use of a telescope or other artificial aid and are as follows:

Leo is the domicile of the SUN
Cancer is the domicile of the MOON
Gemini, Virgo are homes aka domicles of MERCURY
Taurus, Libra are homes aka domicles of VENUS
Aries, Scorpio are homes aka domiciles of MARS
Sagittarius, Pisces are homes aka domicles of JUPITER
Capricorn, Aquarius are homes aka domicles of SATURN
Davi_Alan said:
....To further the confusion, one of these tables takes into consideration the planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto as rulers of Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio, instead the traditional planets (Saturn, Jupiter and Mars). I feel lost, how can measuring the dignity/debility of a planet be trustworthy if the tables don't agree perfectly with each other? Can somebody better explain this to me?
Click to expand...
Only very recently – in astrological terms – were the three 'outer planets' Uranus, Neptune and Pluto 'made visible' with the use of powerful telescopes.

Uranus, discovered 13 March 1781, is at the extreme edge of visibility and is so rarely/infrequently seen that it is not possible to note its 84 year orbit of the sun without the assistance of a telescope.

Neptune, discovered 23 September 1846 is always invisible to the naked eye on its 165 year orbit of the Sun

Pluto, discovered 18 February 1930 is always invisible to the naked eye and takes 248 years to orbit the sun

Experimental astrology has made unsuccessful attempts to cram/crowbar the newly discovered invisible outer planets into the more than a thousand years old ancient Dignity/Debility Table http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html

Not all astrologers subscribe to the three 'new' outer planets having Exaltation/Dignities/Debilities :smile:
 
aquarius7000

aquarius7000

Well-known member
Hello,

Maybe first try to understand and register the signs of dignity and exaltation of planets (and later the degress).

An easy way to remember is: a planet is in dignity in the sign it rules (so, the sign of its domicile). It is hence in detriment ('opposite' of dignity) in the sign lying 'opposite' to the one it rules. E.g.: the Sun rules Leo, hence it is in dignity in Leo. The sign opp to Leo is Aquarius, so that is where the Sun is in detriment.

Then come exaltations (sign that treats this planet as a special guest) and their opposite: falls. Now, the Sun is in exaltation in Aries, and in fall in the opposite-lying sign of Libra.

I agree on studying the skyscript tutorial for this.

:)AQ7
 
A

Anachiel

Well-known member
Davi_Alan said:
Hello Everyone,

I was on the net last night searching for articles on the dignities and debilities of the planets so I could better understand this topic in astrology. But I came across the fact that most tables don't seem to agree with each other. Take for example, these four tables here taken from different websites:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html

http://www.drstandley.com/astrologycharts_dignity_debility.shtml

http://www.astrologycom.com/dignities.html

http://www.skyviewzone.com/astrology/dignities.htm

It seems that one is considering the dignities in relation to the signs while the other is considering it in relation to the planets, so while both agree that the Sun is exalted at 19° Aries, one says that the Sun's detriment is in Venus, while the other says it's in Aquarius and that it falls on Saturn while the other says that is in 19° Libra. To further the confusion, one of these tables takes into consideration the planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto as rulers of Aquarius, Pisces and Scorpio, instead the traditional planets (Saturn, Jupiter and Mars). I feel lost, how can measuring the dignity/debility of a planet be trustworthy if the tables don't agree perfectly with each other? Can somebody better explain this to me?
Click to expand...

The 2nd and 4th links you posted are modern renditions, while the 1st and 3rd are traditional.

OK, first let me say this right off the top: Even the traditional astrologers did not agree with each other and even Ptolemy's terms are somewhat suspect to begin with. And, then we have Morinus who was REALLY different from the rest of the pack.

It's a big vast field and not everyone out there is using the same compass to navigate it. So, what to do with that all that hot mess?

Historically, there are several versions of Ptolemy's terms and then you also have the Egyptian terms. Dorotheus used the Egyptian terms if I'm not mistaken. Most traditional astrologers use one of the forms of Ptolemy's terms. Usually, you only see differences in the terms and a few with the Triplicities (for example, Dorotheus and Alexandrinus). Other than that, most everything is the same unless you read Morinus.

Personally, I do not think that all of this is mix-and-match. If you study Mornius, then use what Morinus did. If you study William Lilly then use what Lilly did. Find a master and follow their way. Don't skip about and get yourself confused until you are familiar with the terrain. The dignities and debilities were traditionally used in specific ways and for specific reasons. They were not just thrown into any chart at any time for any reason.

That's part of the confusion with mosern astrology that (sorry to say) just throws anything in to everything anytime. That's not astrology, it's divination, like throwing a handful of rocks on a board and interepreting where it all falls.

You want to study a traditional source of some sort because that is the root of astrology and where all this originates from. Traditional astrology has methods and meanings, it offers a guide of sorts as to how and why you are reading a chart a specific way and when and when not to add certain things into it to get a specific answer.

Check out the post by tsmall who commented above. She has a post about the Thema Mundi that will help to really understand why the planets have dignity at all and where those are.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Anachiel said:
The 2nd and 4th links you posted are modern renditions, while the 1st and 3rd are traditional.
That's part of the confusion with modern astrology that (sorry to say) just throws anything in to everything anytime. That's not astrology, it's divination, like throwing a handful of rocks on a board and interepreting where it all falls.

You want to study a traditional source of some sort because that is the root of astrology and where all this originates from. Traditional astrology has methods and meanings, it offers a guide of sorts as to how and why you are reading a chart a specific way and when and when not to add certain things into it to get a specific answer.

Check out the post by tsmall who commented above. She has a post about the Thema Mundi that will help to really understand why the planets have dignity at all and where those are.
Click to expand...
tsmall's THEMA MUNDI post is viewable at http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52099:smile:
 
Top