An Introduction to Planetary Dignity and Debility

Moog said:

Yes, that principle is called neecha bhanga in Indian astrology. If an exalted planet or a domiciled planet is in the same sign/house as a debilitated planet, it cancels the debility. There's a number of other rules for debility cancellation.

It is said that you get the debilitated effects first then the cancellation effect comes in later. Albert Einstein is often given as an example.

Sidereally, your Jupiter is in Pisces/9th along with Mercury, Venus is in Aquarius. It's a very strong Jupiter.

Click to expand...

I've long hoped to find more info. on finding solutions in the chart to help Mercury (Moon and Mars also). Thank you!

Are there any other rules on these kinds of cancellation that you could tell us about, or if you have on another thread? If they are too complex for here I understand.

When you say that the cancellation comes later, you mean in life? Yes I noticed Albert was also such a native and another member here Frank has done some studies on Pisces Mercury.

Thanks again.

byjove said:

I've long hoped to find more info. on finding solutions in the chart to help Mercury (Moon and Mars also). Thank you!

Are there any other rules on these kinds of cancellation that you could tell us about, or if you have on another thread? If they are too complex for here I understand.

When you say that the cancellation comes later, you mean in life? Yes I noticed Albert was also such a native and another member here Frank has done some studies on Pisces Mercury.

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

You're welcome. I enjoy these 'technical' discussions.

There's some disagreement about what counts and what doesn't, as is typical with astrology. Here are the common neecha bangha rules that I've come across:

Debilitated planet is in an angular house, from the ascendant or from the Moon.

If the ruler of the debilitated planet is angular from the ascendant or the Moon.

The ruler of the debilitated planet is exalted (best result) or domiciled (good result).

The sign/house that contains the debilitated planet also contains an exalted planet.

Ruler of the debilitated planet aspects the planet (including by conjunction) (aspects in Indian astrology work differently to western ones).

Debilitated planet is in a favourable Navamsa division.

Debilitated planet is retrograde (interesting one).

The more cancellation 'testimonies' the better the effect.

Example:

The debilitated planet is in the 10th house (angular), the ruler is in the 4th along with the Moon, an exalted planet is present with the debilitated planet etc.

Would theoretically give a much better effect than a single cancellation testimony.

I'm afraid I've used all of my thanks for today but thanks for sharing the knowledge and yes I really enjoy these discussions also!

May I test to see if I'm applying this correctly?

3 examples

Moon in Virgo house 3 and a little afflicted
ruler of Virgo is Mercury in Pisces, joined by exalted Venus
Moon is then ok?

Mars in 11th/12th of Gemini, seems peregrine
ruler of Gemini is Mercury in Pisces, joined by exalted Venus
Mars is maybe ok?

Mercury in Pisces, lost at sea
ruler of Pisces is Jupiter, angular in 10th, joined by exalted Sun, Mercury is also joined in Pisces by exalted Venus
Mercury is maybe ok and saves the day for all the other troubled planets?

Could it be??

Interestingly, transiting Jupiter is about to move through Gemini and touches everything in my chart within the next one year.

byjove said:

Could it be??

Click to expand...

You've got it

There's an example in my own chart; Venus debilitated in Virgo, but Mercury is also in Virgo. When I was a kid I had typical debilitated Venus issues; alcohol dependency and drug abuse. I just gradually gave everything up by my late twenties.

Moog said:

There's an example in my own chart; Venus debilitated in Virgo, but Mercury is also in Virgo. When I was a kid I had typical debilitated Venus issues; alcohol dependency and drug abuse. I just gradually gave everything up by my late twenties.

Click to expand...

Ah you have the Mercury and Venus situation also! So we benefit but from opposite signs. That's a long time to wait for the stronger planet to radiate it's benefits. So for you it was waiting for a troubles Venus to transform. And how was your love life up until that point may I ask?

For me I did a lot of debating in school and early in college and did well, though I found academic study always. I definitely do have concentration and over-imagination issues from time to time.

byjove said:

Ah you have the Mercury and Venus situation also! So we benefit but from opposite signs. That's a long time to wait for the stronger planet to radiate it's benefits. So for you it was waiting for a troubles Venus to transform. And how was your love life up until that point may I ask?

Click to expand...

Good point. My love life was absolutely negligible for many years. Venus rules my 7th house too. I have never married and may not. Women just wouldn't give me time of day. I do a bit better now, but I'm no Cassanova

Kaiousei no Senshi said:

No, no planet is exalted in Leo. Sol is in domicile in Leo and exalted in Aries, that's two different things.

As for Triplicity rulers, there isn't a 'better' between night-time and day-time rulers. It's just they switch over after the sun sets.

Click to expand...

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this as I have not read the entire thread but, many astrologers believe Neptune is exalted in Leo.

Element said:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this as I have not read the entire thread but, many astrologers believe Neptune is exalted in Leo.

Click to expand...

That's interesting Element. Are there any reasons given for the choice of Leo? Some astrologers seem to prefer Pisces - so the matter is at the experimental stage and currently unresolved. Perhaps an explanation for this may be found in the following abbreviated 98 word information sourced from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaltation_(astrology)

QUOTE
“The exaltations are one of the most ancient astrological factors remaining from an era pre-dating the known use of the zodiac.... Medieval astrologers assigned numerical values to each dignity in a hierarchy in use today by astrologers... After Uranus/Neptune/Pluto were discovered modern astrologers speculated that Neptune was the 'true' domicile ruler of Pisces (usurping one of Jupiter's two domicile rulerships).

The ancient system was complex and symmetrical, making no allowance for additional, unseen planets, and it is difficult to include them in traditional techniques.

Most modern astrologers have therefore abandoned attempts to assign exaltations to these newer planets”

JUPITERASC said:

That's interesting Element. Are there any reasons given for the choice of Leo? Some astrologers seem to prefer Pisces - so the matter is at the experimental stage and currently unresolved. Perhaps an explanation for this may be found in the following abbreviated 98 word information sourced from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaltation_(astrology)

QUOTE
“The exaltations are one of the most ancient astrological factors remaining from an era pre-dating the known use of the zodiac.... Medieval astrologers assigned numerical values to each dignity in a hierarchy in use today by astrologers... After Uranus/Neptune/Pluto were discovered modern astrologers speculated that Neptune was the 'true' domicile ruler of Pisces (usurping one of Jupiter's two domicile rulerships).

The ancient system was complex and symmetrical, making no allowance for additional, unseen planets, and it is difficult to include them in traditional techniques.

Most modern astrologers have therefore abandoned attempts to assign exaltations to these newer planets”

Click to expand...

This is how I had seen it explained. Leo is the sign of the self, the arts and acting (among other things). Neptune is the planet of selflessness (selflessness of the self in Leo?), inspiration (every artist needs inspiration) and illusion (every actor needs to be able to maintain an illusion of the self).

This would place Aquarius as its fall. Aquarius rules commune style living, friendship and radical change. Neptune rules solitude (which would be the antithesis of communal living and friendship) and transcendence of the spirit (change yes, but a very different kind of change).

Element said:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this as I have not read the entire thread but, many astrologers believe Neptune is exalted in Leo.

Click to expand...

I believe there were other reasons that no planet was exalted in Leo as the Sun's domicile. Can you provide references to the "many astrologers" who believe Neptune is exalted there? I would be interested. Especially since I have seen modern ideas that give sign rulership to the outer planets, but none that give exaltation. Exaltation was more than just "where the planet performed best" but another concept of rulership along with domicile and triplicity rulers.

tsmall said:

I believe there were other reasons that no planet was exalted in Leo as the Sun's domicile. Can you provide references to the "many astrologers" who believe Neptune is exalted there? I would be interested. Especially since I have seen modern ideas that give sign rulership to the outer planets, but none that give exaltation. Exaltation was more than just "where the planet performed best" but another concept of rulership along with domicile and triplicity rulers.

Click to expand...

I'm on my phone right now so providing links would be a serious pita. I had just found the theory while playing on google one day and found some articles on it. I'm not claiming it is gospel, just something to think about. Also, see my previous post for an explanation as to why some may think this.

My understanding is that no planet would be exalted in Leo since Leo is in aversion to the Ascendant of the Thema Mundi.

Kaiousei no Senshi said:

My understanding is that no planet would be exalted in Leo since Leo is in aversion to the Ascendant of the Thema Mundi.

Click to expand...

Yeah, someone told me that once.

Element said:

I'm on my phone right now so providing links would be a serious pita. I had just found the theory while playing on google one day and found some articles on it. I'm not claiming it is gospel, just something to think about. Also, see my previous post for an explanation as to why some may think this.

Click to expand...

Element, I apologize, but I can't find a previous post on this thread that gives an explanation as to why some may think this.

Element said:

This is how I had seen it explained. Leo is the sign of the self, the arts and acting (among other things). Neptune is the planet of selflessness (selflessness of the self in Leo?), inspiration (every artist needs inspiration) and illusion (every actor needs to be able to maintain an illusion of the self).

This would place Aquarius as its fall. Aquarius rules commune style living, friendship and radical change. Neptune rules solitude (which would be the antithesis of communal living and friendship) and transcendence of the spirit (change yes, but a very different kind of change).

Click to expand...

Ok, for some reason I wasn't able to see this post before.

Please, don't feel like I am attacking your ideas or sources (if you can help us out with providing them?), just that...Leo as the sign of the self? Really? Leo is the domicile of the Sun, but it isn't the sign of the self, because the sign of the individual self involves a process that is both complicated and yet simple, and includes the planets, the angles, and a host of other things specific to any chart. Also, I'm pretty sure that even modern astrologers give the Venus signs, or Venus herself, to the arts, and acting.

Neptune is what? I've seen it as delusion, illusion, or even the...mists? I haven't seen it as the planet of selflessness...again, and only because I really am interested in all opinions/ideas, do you have a reference for this idea?

Ok, so now we are at Neptune, the planet of selflessness, being exalted in the sign of selfishness....why? Because being selfish works better for the native if it is selfless? And further, if it is exalted in the domicile of the Sun, does the Sun then exalt Neptune? Of all the planets? Further...if Neptune is then in fall in Aquarius (since the sign opposite exaltation is fall) why is the planet according to these sources that represents selflessness in it's fall/depression in the sign that modernly is represented as the sign of being concerned with the greater good? And, if Neptune is in fall in the sign of the Sun's detriment (and that has a relationship to Saturn) does this actually equate Neptune to the level of the Sun?

For me (as a working hypothesis only), the most I can do is assign an affinitive relationship of the outer planets to signs based upon elemental resonance: Uranus, air, so affinitive to the air signs; Neptune, water, and so affinitive to water signs; Pluto, fire, and so affinitive to the fire signs (here I differ even from the greats like Charles Carter, and do not assign co-affinity of Pluto to Scorpio: but realize that all Modernists do assign Pluto to Scorpio)
However, this entire subject (affinities/rulerships of the outers) is very speculative and highly theoretical, and so is a rather nebulous area open to many varied opinions.

I'm of the opinion that unless the pre-existing schema for assignation of exaltation is fully understood, we have no reason to 'tinker' by adding in newer planets: On what grounds would we do so if we do not understand its current logic?

Clearly the current logic was not based upon "this planet really really suits this sign" kind of mentality. Therefore I would encourage Element to move away from his rationale.

I agree with whomever mentioned the aversions of the Thema Mundi. But really I'd be inclined to not see Neptune as ruling Pisces either so I'm not sure how popular that theory would be. I think I'm saying the same thing as Dr Farr (if I understand him properly) and would say that the modern planets may have some affinity with certain signs - I just do not think that the affinity is to rule over the sign, and to have domicile dignity therefore in that sign.

I see some connections with Neptune and Pisces, it is true, and also see some with Pluto and Scorpio. I tend to see more connections with Uranus and Aries tbh, but I'm not advocating anyone else follow that mentality of course. It is just that I see Neptune as a 'blending' quality, and Uranus as having an 'individuating' or 'separative' quality that suits my understanding of Aries.

please delete

astro.teacher said:

A Triplicity are Planets that agree in the same Element. For example the Signs Aries, Leo and Sagittarius are considered "fiery" or part of the fire Element, their rulers are Jupiter, Sun and Mars make up the Fiery Triplicity. When there is a mixing in a chart of Jupiter, Sun or Mars together, there is a certain agreement between them because they are of the same Element.

Click to expand...

I was just refreshing and learning more about essential dignitaries. And I must have gotten confused about triplicities, my understanding was the determining factor is if one's birth time was day or night and then this was proceeded by looking to sun/day or moon/night. This is where I may have gotten confused, once deciding on Moon/Sun, I then looked to the occupying sign, and then to the planet triplicities assigned to sign/day or night. And this is where I began to see where dignities or detriment may pursue. Am I completely off base..