What signs does Pluto rule?

Bunraku

Bunraku

Well-known member
Wikipedia writes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_in_astrology#Pluto
To most modern Western astrologers, Pluto is the ruling planet of Scorpio and is exalted in Virgo.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know why it is exalted in Virgo, or what the logic behind it is?


So it rules Scorpio and Aries, but exalts in Virgo?
Or It rules Scorpio and Exalts in Virgo? Does that mean its fall is in Pisces?
Can signs share the same rulers?

What is going on here :bandit:
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Bunraku said:
Wikipedia writes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets_in_astrology#Pluto


Does anyone know why it is exalted in Virgo, or what the logic behind it is?


So it rules Scorpio and Aries, but exalts in Virgo?
Or It rules Scorpio and Exalts in Virgo? Does that mean its fall is in Pisces?
Can signs share the same rulers?

What is going on here :bandit:
Click to expand...
Traditionally there is no question that for thousands of years Mars is ruler of Scorpio

However since the discovery of dwarf planet pluto in 1930
a mere 85 years ago
There remains no consensus amongst modern astrologers regarding this topic :smile:
Paul_ said:
Just as an historical interlude that some people may find interesting,

it's note worthy that modern rulerships were assigned

not because of some arduous research and investigation

- as you often hear from many modern astrologers,

but instead

by astrologers of the time, cogniscant of the tradition of rulership, basically went ahead and followed Ptolemy's logic,
by assigning the next planet out with the next sign out.
So flowing from the Sun is the rulership scheme which normally reflects back to the Moon,
but breaking this they just carried on projecting out from the sun.

So the next out from the Sun is Mercury, then Venus, then Mars, then Jupiter and then Saturn,
and then when Uranus was discovered we see astrologers explicitly invent the rulership to Aquarius
because Aquarius is the next sign out after Capricorn,
then when Neptune comes along it's assigned the next one out which is Pisces.

This is explicitly stated in the very earliest sources we have for modern rulership.

So the outer planetary rulerships came about by trying to stay true to the tradition at large

and absolutely not by channelling

or study of numerous charts.


Pluto is discovered and the pattern continues.
It is assigned to Aries and there is a conference in Germany to discuss the matter more fully.
UNANIMOUS agreement dictates that Pluto rules Aries,
and the counter idea, that some were positing at the time, that it should rule Scorpio are squashed.

Until someone beats them to print
and writes up the attributions of Pluto
and that it rules Scorpio.

The author beat them to print and published a successful book and the rest is history.

It stuck, and from that day forth Pluto magically started ruling Scorpio.

I point this out because in the context of rulership even the modern rulership scheme bows to the traditional logic as much as it can.
It does not reinvent anything, instead it recognises the superiority of the traditional schema
and tries to accommodate itself into it as much as it can.


The only exception is that
the general lack of understanding of the broader tradition by the time of Pluto amongst the basic astrologer
thanks to a deliberate watering down of astrological technique coupled with the unlucky timing of Pluto coming out when the astrological world was still struggling
to emerge from the mini-dark period it underwent
meant that one of the outers went to another sign.
Click to expand...
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
image073.jpg


Skyscript's has a useful study aid to check domicle rulership - as well as dignity in general.

Notice that Pluto is absent from this traditional table.

There is disagreement amongst modern astrologers
but some assign Pluto co-rulership of Scorpio :smile:

dignities2.gif
 
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
I believe-and use in practice- that Pluto is the co-significator of Scorpio; however I do not accept that the outers are "rulers" or "primary significators" of any sign; but co-significators, yes, and it is my personal opinion that those who completely ignore the outers in astrological delineation place themselves at a disadvantage, by doing so.
 
SteveGus

SteveGus

Well-known member
I love how the astronomy and the Enlightenment gave the world three extra malefics.

But Pluto's been observed in just over half of his orbit since being discovered. Nobody knows what the world is like when Pluto is in Aries, since Pluto has never been in Aries and most of us will be dead by the time he gets there.

Assigning sign rulerships to the outer planets breaks the symmetry of the traditional system, messes up sect, and they're too slow to have much to do in horary. In birth charts, they are at the same degree in the charts of millions.

I would be open to the fact that Pluto may have some kind of affinity with Scorpio. If Pluto is dignified in Scorpio, the period 1983 - 1995 would show the effects of Pluto's dignity.
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
snufflebottoms said:
I use them but not as signifiers of any sign. I see them as being "beyond" the Earthly zodiac, invisible bodies that are behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

:uranus: is visible, if you know where to look. It's possible the Ancient-Egyptians were aware of it. I don't believe it or Neptune has a bad influence necessarily--more like Mercury as far as that goes. In my own version of Modern-astrology Pluto rules Scorpio, is extremely attractive to Gemini, and has strong influence on Aquarius. It's "otherworldly", which could be considered "Malefic" from a purely Materialistic view-point. Same with Neptune. Saturn "hates" all three, because they involve portals that bypass Saturnian barriers.
 
Last edited:
D

dr. farr

Well-known member
david starling said:
:uranus: is visible, if you know where to look. It's possible the Ancient-Egyptians were aware of it. .
Click to expand...


Robert Temple, in his well-documented study, "The Crystal Sun", has demonstrated that ancient civilizations had ground glass lenses; if so, then they (or at least the priest-scientists of those civilizations, behind the veil of the sanctuary) would have had telescopes, and if they had even low power telescopes they would have seen Uranus and Neptune, and could well have had astrological knowledge of those 2 outers.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
:uranus: is visible, if you know where to look.
It's possible the Ancient-Egyptians were aware of it.
Click to expand...

At magnitude 5.3, Uranus is just within the brightness scale
that a human eye can perceive :smile:

Unfortunately
the night sky MUST be extremely dark to perceive it
i.e.
no light pollution
and one would have to know exactly where to look.

because
it is barely discernable by a keen naked eye even on very dark, clear nights

so
for town and city-dwellers too much light pollution makes it invisible
also
is only visible at night
when there is no cloud

in contrast
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Moon are also visible during the day
david starling said:
I don't believe it or Neptune has a bad influence necessarily--more like Mercury as far as that goes. In my own version of Modern-astrology Pluto rules Scorpio, is extremely attractive to Gemini, and has strong influence on Aquarius. It's "otherworldly", which could be considered "Malefic" from a purely Materialistic view-point. Same with Neptune. Saturn "hates" all three, because they involve portals that bypass Saturnian barriers.
Click to expand...
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:

At magnitude 5.3, Uranus is just within the brightness scale
that a human eye can perceive :smile:

Unfortunately
the night sky MUST be extremely dark to perceive it
i.e.
no light pollution
and one would have to know exactly where to look.

because
it is barely discernable by a keen naked eye even on very dark, clear nights

so
for town and city-dwellers too much light pollution makes it invisible
also
is only visible at night
when there is no cloud

in contrast
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Moon are also visible during the day
Click to expand...

And yet, many Astrologers believe they exert invisible influence.
 
Luney

Luney

Well-known member
could be...the mystery of not seeing Pluto by sight.. is a significant attribute to the secretive , mysterious Scorpio... of secretive unknown artibutes..

Just Sayin!
 
Whoam1

Whoam1

Well-known member
From a sidereal standpoint Mars rules the scorpius constellation [this will never change] as the the tropical signs shift points of exaltion will change as will rulership.

For example using the ancient calculation of Mars's exaltation it is about 28 degrees in sidereal Capricorn [which makes sense as this us the approx. home for Deneb Algedi <a very intense place for Mars>]. If we go by tropical standards anyone with Mars with in an orb of that star [currently around 23-25 degrees Aquarius tropical] would in theory have Mars in the most Martial place in the zodiac.

This however doesn't mean of course Aquarius in a chart with Mars here would be any stronger but rather that it is unlikely Mars will take on any effects of other planets [it will stay pure in its energy]. I do however agree that Mars's sign is natural as expressive as a luminary sign [as Mars is in nature almost as expressive as a luminary]. This however has no relation to its exaltion.

I don't believe being pitcularly Pluto oriented myself that Pluto has a home sign. It is one of the most isolative [not to be mistaken for unemotional] planets. It rejects or enhances anything it touches. In one word it represents volatility in another few it is an extenisental search for authenticity through it's volatility. To pin it down to one sign or constellation seems silly.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Whoam1 said:
From a sidereal standpoint Mars rules the scorpius constellation [this will never change] as the the tropical signs shift points of exaltion will change as will rulership.

For example using the ancient calculation of Mars's exaltation it is about 28 degrees in sidereal Capricorn [which makes sense as this us the approx. home for Deneb Algedi <a very intense place for Mars>]. If we go by tropical standards anyone with Mars with in an orb of that star [currently around 23-25 degrees Aquarius tropical] would in theory have Mars in the most Martial place in the zodiac.

This however doesn't mean of course Aquarius in a chart with Mars here would be any stronger but rather that it is unlikely Mars will take on any effects of other planets [it will stay pure in its energy]. I do however agree that Mars's sign is natural as expressive as a luminary sign [as Mars is in nature almost as expressive as a luminary]. This however has no relation to its exaltion.

I don't believe being pitcularly Pluto oriented myself that Pluto has a home sign. It is one of the most isolative [not to be mistaken for unemotional] planets. It rejects or enhances anything it touches. In one word it represents volatility in another few it is an extenisental search for authenticity through it's volatility. To pin it down to one sign or constellation seems silly.
Click to expand...

Mars is Saturn's b*tch.
 
Top