What celestial bodies could be considered a ruler?

In the other post I asked about "what defines the functions, themes and influences of a planet". I've got some answers. Some said that we have to trust the lores, some said we have to look at the old texts, some said we have to rely on the simultanity that makes astronomers give "right" names to new discovered celestial bodies, some said to look at the myths, some said to look at the astrophysical characteristics of the bodies or to pay attention to the events which have happened in the occasion of the discovery. Maybe we'll never know what is the right method to define the functions of the planets in Astrology, but I'm still searching for this method.

Now, I want to know your opinion about "rulers"

For you all... What defines if a celestial body can be a ruler or not?


- Does it have to be a planet?
- Does it have to be visible, big or next to us?
- Does it have to have a relevant gravitational influence over the Earth?
- Are centaurs, like chiron, relevant enough to rule a sign?
- Are minor planets, like Pluto and Ceres important enough?
- What does really make some celestial body a likely ruler of a sign?


Now... Let's talk about the rulers, people!

Thank you :biggrin:
 
Just to remember what I always say:

The discussion will be more intriguing and interesting if we tell the sources where our opinion where based on. There's no need to deep research to give it... Just tell the source is your intuition, an impression, a practical experience or a site (with the link)... It would be good as well if we read what other people wrote before answering... An answer without listening will never be a sensible one. These are only suggestions, by the way.

Thanks for the participation again! :tongue::whistling:
 

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
The solar system has 7 astrologically important planets, plus our Moon orbits the Earth and the Sun the planets orbit around. There are 5 significant dwarf planets: Ceres in the Asteroid belt, Chiron between Saturn and Uranus, Pluto (formerly a planet), Eris (the largest dwarf planet) and Sedna (the farthest in our solar system). And here;s the proposed realignment of planetary rulers by radical-minded astrologers.

* Aries: Sun (current rulers in parenthesis: Mars, co-rulers: Pluto)
* Taurus: Mercury (Venus)
* Gemini: Venus (Mercury)
* Cancer: Moon/Ceres
* Leo: Mars (Sun)
* Virgo: Jupiter (Mercury)
* Libra: Saturn (Venus)
* Scorpio: Uranus (Pluto, Mars)
* Sagittarius: Neptune/Chiron (Jupiter)
* Capricorn: Pluto (Saturn, Uranus)
* Aquarius: Eris (Uranus, Saturn)
* Pisces: Sedna (Neptune, Jupiter)

The regular planets are larger masses, the dwarf planets have masses able to be detected in scientific instruments, and our moon have gravitational influences on Earth (like our seas/oceans' tidal patterns). Our sun "acts" like a planet - it appears to travel through all the signs of the zodiac - one sign per month. But it's the Earth that orbits the sun to make it appear the sun "travels" when it really doesn't. Astrology remains geocentric to this day.
 
I have to much to say and ask abour it all, but I don't have time enough, now.

I made a little research and I found out that Chiron isn't a dwarf planet. It is a Minor Planet: Centaur. It is a different category.

Could you answer the questions I made CapAquaPis?

What defines if a celestial body can be a ruler or not?

- Does it have to be a planet?
- Does it have to be visible, big or next to us?
- Does it have to have a relevant gravitational influence over the Earth?
- Are centaurs, like chiron, relevant enough to rule a sign?
- Are minor planets, like Pluto and Ceres important enough?
- What does really make some celestial body a likely ruler of a sign?


I saw what you posted about the radical-minded astrologers' thought, but do you have an opinion or some info about it?

What would be your proposition?

It sounds strange for me to accept that any kind of celestial body could be a ruler or a dispositor of a sign.

For example:

In traditional astrology we have one star, one satellite and five planets of different sizes in the "rulers team".

What different categories of "bodies" could make the modern team of rulers?
Is there any criterion which would put some of the bodies aside or any body could be part of the rulers team?
 

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
- Does it have to be a planet?
Yes, simple as that.
- Does it have to be visible, big or next to us?
Yes, either bigger than our planet or it exists overall.
- Does it have to have a relevant gravitational influence over the Earth?
The Moon sure does, but if it affects human or cultural affairs, the presence of such a celestial body in our solar system would do just that.
- Are centaurs, like chiron, relevant enough to rule a sign?
Sure it can, Chiron is the "healer"-Scorpio and Sagittarius are "healing" signs with medical qualities/attributions, the centaur is ideal to represent them.
- Are minor planets, like Pluto and Ceres important enough?
I believe they are. Pluto is the planet of death and Ceres the planet of plenty.
- What does really make some celestial body a likely ruler of a sign?
Eris, for example, is the goddess of both discord and prosperity, a powerful female influence for a masculine sign like Aquarius - we (I'm speaking for myself) are caught between genders regardless of individual biological sex, and Eris makes a perfect ruler planet for bigenderfluid-neutral types like us.
 
The solar system has 7 astrologically important planets, plus our Moon orbits the Earth and the Sun the planets orbit around. There are 5 significant dwarf planets: Ceres in the Asteroid belt, Chiron between Saturn and Uranus, Pluto (formerly a planet), Eris (the largest dwarf planet) and Sedna (the farthest in our solar system). And here;s the proposed realignment of planetary rulers by radical-minded astrologers.

* Aries: Sun (current rulers in parenthesis: Mars, co-rulers: Pluto)
* Taurus: Mercury (Venus)
* Gemini: Venus (Mercury)
* Cancer: Moon/Ceres
* Leo: Mars (Sun)
* Virgo: Jupiter (Mercury)
* Libra: Saturn (Venus)
* Scorpio: Uranus (Pluto, Mars)
* Sagittarius: Neptune/Chiron (Jupiter)
* Capricorn: Pluto (Saturn, Uranus)
* Aquarius: Eris (Uranus, Saturn)
* Pisces: Sedna (Neptune, Jupiter)

The regular planets are larger masses, the dwarf planets have masses able to be detected in scientific instruments, and our moon have gravitational influences on Earth (like our seas/oceans' tidal patterns). Our sun "acts" like a planet - it appears to travel through all the signs of the zodiac - one sign per month. But it's the Earth that orbits the sun to make it appear the sun "travels" when it really doesn't. Astrology remains geocentric to this day.

Do you agree with these rulers?
 

greybeard

Well-known member
If it works dont fix it. 7 rulers or 10 if you like work just fine.

And what is wrong with a geocentric astrology.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
In the other post I asked about "what defines the functions, themes and influences of a planet". I've got some answers. Some said that we have to trust the lores, some said we have to look at the old texts, some said we have to rely on the simultanity that makes astronomers give "right" names to new discovered celestial bodies, some said to look at the myths, some said to look at the astrophysical characteristics of the bodies or to pay attention to the events which have happened in the occasion of the discovery. Maybe we'll never know what is the right method to define the functions of the planets in Astrology, but I'm still searching for this method.

Now, I want to know your opinion about "rulers"

For you all... What defines if a celestial body can be a ruler or not?


- Does it have to be a planet?
- Does it have to be visible, big or next to us?
- Does it have to have a relevant gravitational influence over the Earth?
- Are centaurs, like chiron, relevant enough to rule a sign?
- Are minor planets, like Pluto and Ceres important enough?
- What does really make some celestial body a likely ruler of a sign?


Now... Let's talk about the rulers, people!

Thank you :biggrin:
It's simply a matter of individual opinion - astrologers have different opinions :smile:
as greybeard just mentioned
and I quote:
If it works dont fix it.

7 rulers

or 10
if you like

work just fine.
And

what is wrong with a geocentric astrology.
seven rulers have been agreed on for at least two thousand years
these seven rulers are illustrated below


traditional-zodiac-rulerships.jpg






the ten rulers system is in dispute
because
there is no consensus amongst ten rulers system users
as to which rules what
also
ten rulers system astrologers use modern outers as CO-RULERS
not as sole rulers

adding Centaurs, asteroids, "data points" specks of dust et al could be fun
HOWEVER

If it works dont fix it.

7 rulers

or 10
if you like

work just fine.
And

what is wrong with a geocentric astrology.
 

greybeard

Well-known member
N

In my opinion...

Planets acquire their meanings wholly from their inherent characteristics, by analogy. No reliance on mythology based on a planet's name is necessary. Nothing artificial or synthetic need enter the picture.

The original 7 planets, being the only show in town, acquired universal symbolism; they described and represented anything and everything in the universe.

When Eratosthenes introduced the armillary sphere about 300 BC, it represented a complete and whole system of astrology. Fundamentally, nothing more was needed.

I'm writing this on my phone, have lost at least a half-dozen paragraphs and had to rewrite. Enough. 7 planets are sufficient.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Re: N

In my opinion...

Planets acquire their meanings wholly from their inherent characteristics, by analogy. No reliance on mythology based on a planet's name is necessary. Nothing artificial or synthetic need enter the picture.

The original 7 planets, being the only show in town, acquired universal symbolism; they described and represented anything and everything in the universe.

When Eratosthenes introduced the armillary sphere about 300 BC, it represented a complete and whole system of astrology. Fundamentally, nothing more was needed.

I'm writing this on my phone, have lost at least a half-dozen paragraphs and had to rewrite. Enough. 7 planets are sufficient.

Is Mercury about communication and travel? If so, why?
 

david starling

Well-known member
Re: N

In my opinion...

Planets acquire their meanings wholly from their inherent characteristics, by analogy. No reliance on mythology based on a planet's name is necessary. Nothing artificial or synthetic need enter the picture.

The original 7 planets, being the only show in town, acquired universal symbolism; they described and represented anything and everything in the universe.

When Eratosthenes introduced the armillary sphere about 300 BC, it represented a complete and whole system of astrology. Fundamentally, nothing more was needed.

I'm writing this on my phone, have lost at least a half-dozen paragraphs and had to rewrite. Enough. 7 planets are sufficient.

Greybeard, I much appreciate the "In my opinion" opening. You have a method that works for you, and there's no need to change that for yourself. I'm obviously of a different opinion when it comes to connecting characteristics assigned to the deities in the ancient cultures to the planets, in my own astrological paradigm, but I can definitely see the value of the 7/12 rulership pattern, especially with Sect considerations and the Triplicites. I'm just onto a 12/12 pattern I've discovered for myself, and I have to go where it leads. Notice I've diverged from the 10/12 pattern of conventional, Modern-astrology as well.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
The measured points of the Lunar Nodes have something like Sign-rulership in the lore. NN at its strongest at 3 degrees Gemini (mine's at 5 degrees). That would be NN exalted in Gemini. But, I'm not using it that way--just an example for not completely dismissing measured points as Sign-rulers. The only celestial objects I'm using as rulers are the standard 10 of Modern: Moon, Sun, and Mercury through Pluto. Then, the Asc and the Age-indicator make 12. It's one-on-one "Native-rulership" as the head of the rulership-group of 4 for each Sign. But, which of the 4 takes actual ruling precedence in the Chart depends on the configuration. Definitely :uranus: for Aquarius, although the extremely slow movement of the Age-indicator makes it so impersonal for Taurus I usually go with Venus first for that Sign (Venus being a member of its rulership-group).
 
Last edited:

greybeard

Well-known member
I think it was Bill Clinton who said, "Keep it simple, Stupid."

I know it was Henry David Thoreau who said, "Simplify, simplify."

Occam's Razor, a pillar of modern science, advises that the simplest is best.
 
Last edited:

greybeard

Well-known member
Mercury is about communication because he fast. He is messenger of the gods because his orbit is first out from the Sun.

If you don't know why Venus is goddess of beauty, you have never had your breath taken away by the Morning Star.

Saturn is the lord of time because his orbit is farthest from Sun. He is slow and grinds fine. Time conquers all. Beyond him is nothingness.

In my opinion...

In your rush to become the Father of the New (and Improved) Astrology, you are missing entirely one of the key elements of astrology, which is Analogy.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Osirus/Pluto is lord of Eternity, an "invisible" planet named for a deity ruling the unseen, in the Underworld. The Ancient Greeks were known to other cultures as the "sea-people", and had another "invisible" deity, Poseidon/Neptune, living beneath the waves. In the beginning, the Earth (Gaia) was wrapped in Heaven (Ouranos/Caelus), until Time (Cronus/Saturn) tore them asunder. Hermes/Mercury was first and foremost Zeus/Jupiter's messenger, not the Sun's (Helios/Sol). If you ignore the connections between the ancient religions and the naming of the planets, you're missing out on a very rich historical legacy.[IMO]
BtW, Innanna/Ishtar (now only evening-star, Aphrodite/Venus) also included the morning-star version of the planet as goddess of justice.
Nothing simpler for me than the 12/12 pattern. Traditional Astrology isn't simple at all. One of the complaints of Trads is that Mods have OVERSIMPLIFIED the basics of astrology. :biggrin:
 

david starling

Well-known member
Mercury is about communication because he fast. He is messenger of the gods because his orbit is first out from the Sun.

If you don't know why Venus is goddess of beauty, you have never had your breath taken away by the Morning Star.

Saturn is the lord of time because his orbit is farthest from Sun. He is slow and grinds fine. Time conquers all. Beyond him is nothingness.

In my opinion...

In your rush to become the Father of the New (and Improved) Astrology, you are missing entirely one of the key elements of astrology, which is Analogy.

Love conquers all, even Time.
I lack Sense of Purpose in my Chart, according to my own methods. I do have some Catalytic ability, but I'm really not out to create a new version of Modernistic astrology for everyone, just one that works better for me. Since you're satisfied with your version, that's what really counts. But I need to share my views, and I always appreciate it when others are willing to share theirs, without needing to discourage anyone else's.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Saturn has been connected with death, because the "Grim Reaper" is carrying Saturn's harvest scythe , and there's a time-limit on length of life. When Saturn dethroned his father, the god of the eternal Heavens, the Rule of Time began on Earth, and although the Olympian gods overthrew him, they didn't restore the god of the Heavens to his rightful place, and the temporal and eternal realms remained asunder.
Here's where it gets really strange: As the story told by the Ancient Greco-Romans goes, Cronus/Saturn castrated his father, Ouranos/Caelus, and threw his genitals into the Sea. That symbolized taking his power, and ending his dominion--the temporal had defeated the eternal. But from that act, a new deity was born, now known as Aphrodite/Venus, goddess of Love. And, in effect, she's the daughter of Ouranos and Amphitrite, the goddess who personified the Sea.

Don't let her good looks fool you. It's Venus who will overthrow the Rule of Time, and enable the god of the Eternal Heavens to regain his throne. With Gaia's approval and support, of course.
 
Top