Are ascendant aspects similar to aspects to their ruler?

L

lantlos

Member
I've been thinking about this for a while, and it makes sense to me. I've asked about it before, and some seem to agree while others aren't even sure that ascendant aspects other than the conjunctions matter at all. One site I've come across doesn't even offer descriptions for any trines or squares or anything to the ascendant other than the conjunctions.

Do the different ascendants give each aspect to it a specific ascendant ruler quality? For instance, would a Mercury square Pisces ascendant be similar to a Mercury square Neptune (or Jupiter, if you want to use ancient rulers)? Would a Mercury trine to Gemini/Virgo ascendant be like Mercury trine Mercury? Is that even a thing? Is that where my theory falters, or could it still apply? I'd like some other opinions on this.
 
K

katydid

Well-known member
lantlos said:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and it makes sense to me. I've asked about it before, and some seem to agree while others aren't even sure that ascendant aspects other than the conjunctions matter at all. One site I've come across doesn't even offer descriptions for any trines or squares or anything to the ascendant other than the conjunctions.

Do the different ascendants give each aspect to it a specific ascendant ruler quality? For instance, would a Mercury square Pisces ascendant be similar to a Mercury square Neptune (or Jupiter, if you want to use ancient rulers)? Would a Mercury trine to Gemini/Virgo ascendant be like Mercury trine Mercury? Is that even a thing? Is that where my theory falters, or could it still apply? I'd like some other opinions on this.
Click to expand...

"For instance, would a Mercury square Pisces ascendant be similar to a Mercury square Neptune..."


I would agree it would be 'similar.'

But it does also depend a lot on where the Neptune is placed.

Mercury square a Pisces ascendant does have a Neptunian quality to it, in my opinion, because that energy flavors the ascendant. BUT IT IS STILL THE ASCENDANT. ...and it is not Neptune. :wink:


Mercury square a Pisces ascendant , be it from Sag or Gemini, might have a softer, more sensitive, emotional and compassionate energy than those Mercuries might other wise have. But it could be an inner struggle as it comes so automatically and spontaneously, being the ascendant.

But if it was a square to Jupiter or Neptune, and in the 11th, for example...would Mercury be affected in the same way as it would be by the ascendant square?

I am not sure it would have the same personal impact as seen with the ascendant.

"Would a Mercury trine to Gemini/Virgo ascendant be like Mercury trine Mercury?"


Yes, it would be similar, although obviously one cannot have natal merc trine natal merc. It rarely even progresses that far, if ever. You can have natal mercury trine mercury but it is too quick to notice usually.


I totally get what you are seeing/sensing. There is a similar energy and it can help one interpret the aspects to the ascendant. But it is not exactly the same because
of all of the variables involved.:ninja:
 
IleneK

IleneK

Premium Member
lantlos said:
I've been thinking about this for a while, and it makes sense to me. I've asked about it before, and some seem to agree while others aren't even sure that ascendant aspects other than the conjunctions matter at all. One site I've come across doesn't even offer descriptions for any trines or squares or anything to the ascendant other than the conjunctions.

Do the different ascendants give each aspect to it a specific ascendant ruler quality? For instance, would a Mercury square Pisces ascendant be similar to a Mercury square Neptune (or Jupiter, if you want to use ancient rulers)? Would a Mercury trine to Gemini/Virgo ascendant be like Mercury trine Mercury? Is that even a thing? Is that where my theory falters, or could it still apply? I'd like some other opinions on this.
Click to expand...

Actual bodies in the chart, the Sun and the planets, are what can actually aspect. In traditional astrology terms, they reflect and can throw light, so to speak, by aspect to other bodies.

The ascendant, descendant, mid heaven, imum coli, the North and South Node, the Part of Fortune are all points. For example, the ascendant is the degree of the zodiac at the eastern horizon as the time you are born. Points are important, the Asc especially, but they have no actual substance, literally.

So while points are important, many don't consider aspects from planets to them.

You ask a lot of really thoughtful questions, to which I take off my hat to you. Good work.

Specifically you ask:

Do the different ascendants give each aspect to it a specific ascendant ruler quality?​


To this question, I would have to say no.

Keep on thinking...:smile:

Wishing you the best.
 
L

lantlos

Member
Thank you for your responses. I still think that there's something to what I'm theorizing, if you can even say that that's what it is I'm doing. I have Mercury trining my ascendant which is Aquarius, and Mercury trine Uranus descriptions are pretty accurate to me, as well as descriptions for Mercury trine Saturn. I also have Venus sextile ascendant and the Venus/Uranus/Saturn sextile descriptions also seem accurate-ish for me.

I've just been thinking a lot about how many aspects and placements in the chart are similar to others. Like Sun conjunct Venus, for example, can give Venus a Leo quality and make someone Leo-like in their charm, similar to a Venus in Leo person but with the added qualities of the sign their natal Venus is actually in. Or on the flip side, it could just make someone seem really Taurus-like or Libra-like. Again, it's just something I think about; and it makes sense to me, given how complex astrology is. But maybe I am just seeing what really isn't there.

IleneK said:
You ask a lot of really thoughtful questions, to which I take off my hat to you. Good work.
Click to expand...

Thank you for saying this! I appreciate it :joyful:
 
K

katydid

Well-known member
lantlos said:
Thank you for your responses. I still think that there's something to what I'm theorizing, if you can even say that that's what it is I'm doing. I have Mercury trining my ascendant which is Aquarius, and Mercury trine Uranus descriptions are pretty accurate to me, as well as descriptions for Mercury trine Saturn. I also have Venus sextile ascendant and the Venus/Uranus/Saturn sextile descriptions also seem accurate-ish for me.

I've just been thinking a lot about how many aspects and placements in the chart are similar to others. Like Sun conjunct Venus, for example, can give Venus a Leo quality and make someone Leo-like in their charm, similar to a Venus in Leo person but with the added qualities of the sign their natal Venus is actually in. Or on the flip side, it could just make someone seem really Taurus-like or Libra-like. Again, it's just something I think about; and it makes sense to me, given how complex astrology is. But maybe I am just seeing what really isn't there.



Thank you for saying this! I appreciate it :joyful:
Click to expand...


I do agree with the way you are describing it all above.

I think it is a very intelligent way to 'synthesize' all of the complex influences in a chart.

I totally agree that a lot of placements and aspects in a chart have similarities.

But at the same time, there are nuanced differences, even in very similar aspects.
 
IleneK

IleneK

Premium Member
katydid said:
So in traditional astrology, there is no notice taken of a Saturn squaring the ascendant? Or Mars squaring the ascendant?

I have often seen those to be very important indicators.

ETA:

Perfect example of potential significance of Saturn square Asc :

https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=113796
Click to expand...

I did not mean to suggest that no notice is taken. I was mainly trying to contribute to the discussion by bringing up what the concept of the aspect means and the distinction between bodies and points in astrological delineation. It seemed to fit with what the OP was pondering.

Traditionally, the word 'aspect' comes from the Latin aspicio, 'to regard'. It is first encountered during the Middle Ages but before this similar words were used to say that the planets 'regarded', 'beheld', 'viewed', 'looked at', 'witnessed' or 'saw' each other.

I thought it might be of interest to a newer student of astrology.
 
Top