The Sun vs the Moon

Re: The Shadow Side of Libra

freedomlover said:

I know what you mean, katydid. Let me give you my experience, which I think is alot of people's experience. The Sun represents your identity, sense of self, and the way you express your ego. I'm only recently beginning to act like my Sun Sign placement - Sagittarius Sun in the 11th. This is because my sense of self got lost in childhood due to an overbearing mother, and many other factors, including sexual abuse. I was never encouraged to follow the path that would lead to my developing what I needed to develop to let my sun "shine". I believe this is alot of what is wrong with the world today - people have lost who they really are and what they are here to do. To me, this would explain why so many people do not feel identified with their Sun sign.

I had posted on another thread somewhere that, as a child, I felt like the description of my Aquarius Moon. I was also very Merucury(r) in Sagittarius in the 12th - spent most of my time holed up in my room with piles of books. Most of my adult life, I've felt like my Ascendant, Mars, and Venus in Capricorn. Only in the past few years have I even begun to feel like my Sagittarius Sun in the 11th - and it has taken years of inner healing work to get even this far.

Freedomlover

Click to expand...

This resonates heavily with my experience. I LIVED my moon/chiron/mars conjunction in the 8th in capricorn as a young child. And I also experienced some sexual abuse and some difficult circumstances for a time- despite being raised in a good home, with a loving Pisces mom. She was not able to fully protect me when I was most vulnerable

I have the sun @ zero scorpio and I have always felt like a Scorpio however.
But I did not elevate to the higher energy of Scorpio until I was past my 20's at least. And the reason I first became interested in Astrology was because I was fascinated with being a Scorpio, and not a Libra as I had believed as a child.

I agree wholeheartedly that learning to fully 'become' ones sun sign is a long, sometimes difficult process. It may be that the sun is one's 'potential.'

Re: Sun vs Moon in chart importance

gaer said:

Very interesting, Katydid, and not just the part above.

I

There is another matter: the closet mystic in me believes that people mysteriously come to the same truths from very different directions. This defies logic, but I think there are deeper things in the universe than logic.


Sometimes I think the only way to discuss astrology is to either stick to very basic, simplistic ideas (because this is how we *all* start out and learn) or just jump to the full complexity—with the drawback that others who are not *very* experienced are likely to get lost.

That's another reason I think astrology is much like music. There are basic, solid fundamentals, and they have to be mastered. But you just can't sense those basics when great players express themselves, although those fundamentals are still there.

g

Click to expand...

I really enjoyed your whole post, but the things above jumped out at me for various reasons.

I am in complete agreement that the 'same truths' can come from wholly different directions. That is why astrology 'works' whether you use this house system or that house system, or sidereal or Vedic... The KEY is finding the one that resonates with you and sticking to it.

Also, a good mystic, or healer, or psychotherapist, or counselor, or astrologer COULD conceivably help one find out what is bugging them from under the surface- as long as they used what they knew. There are many ways to uncover the truth that needs telling.

I really loved your discussion about SIMPLE basic truths vs. highly nuanced
esoteric skills. Let me elucidate and you may understand better where I am coming from now.

When I first started looking at astology, it was the peace love 60's and I did mini readings for my high school friends using an ephemeris I got from a neighbor. I KNEW NOTHING but I have Mercury @ 18 Scorpio, trine Uranus
18 Cancer[3rd] opposed Jupiter 18 Taurus [12th] and square Pluto /south node @ 19 Leo. So I just winged it and got some stuff pretty right on.

Finally, when I was in college @ UC Berkely, I met some REAL astrologers. They invited me to these discussion groups and had geniuses like Michael Meyer, Dane Rudyhar, leading the discussions on their books. I HAD NO CLUE. I could not even REALLY do charts properly, and there were no computers to speak of yet. So I ABSORBED a lot of amazing info on the Sabian Symbols, and Humanistic meanings of the Lunar Phases...

So when I FINALLY went back and began my studies properly, learning basic meanings and basic terms I WAS BLOWN AWAY BY THE ACCURACY OF WHAT I WAS NOW LEARNING. lol And I have a fondness for the basics because I think there is MEANING in being born a Scorpio sun or a Gemini sun. It may not describe exactly what one is, but to me it describes what you are meant to become.

Re: The Shadow Side of Libra

katydid said:

I agree that it is more important than the other planets, as it os one of the luminaries. However it is still a satellite of the /mighty' Sun.

Your example of your friend with such little Arian influence, makes me think. But still, she IS an Aries, just a 12th house Aries. I do not think it changes the fact that we ARE our sun sign. The Sun in the 'Solar' system has way more power and energy than any of the other planets. It is THE STAR, the lead character, the MAIN EVENT. The other planets help us play out the major role we have, which is to integrate successfully, behind our SUN, which is the indicator of our BIRTHDAY. The Sun is the only one that does it's orderly jaunt around the zodiac, predictably, perfectly so to speak.

A Libra 'is a Libra', if the sun is there at birth. I don't think we should question that concept because there are many reasons for that distinction, and they are not arbitrary imo. Even if that sun is in the 12th, or afflicted, the native is still considered a Libran. :sunny:

Click to expand...

Maybe you are confusing astronomy with astrology a little. For example if a sun sign is conjunct Saturn, uranus, Neptune or Pluto they automatically become an honary Saturnian, Uranian, Neptunian or Plutonian. Their 'light' is overshaddowed by this influence.. Again if it's square their can be major hinderences...

To me the three most important are Sun, moon and Asc in equal importance being the basic make up

Freedomlover.
I like your interpretation of sun sign Sagg

Katyd you said,
So when I FINALLY went back and began my studies properly, learning basic meanings and basic terms I WAS BLOWN AWAY BY THE ACCURACY OF WHAT I WAS NOW LEARNING. lol And I have a fondness for the basics because I think there is MEANING in being born a Scorpio sun or a Gemini sun. It may not describe exactly what one is, but to me it describes what you are meant to become

I wholly agree with your final summation. The moon has the most infuence in childhood as mother is usually the main carer/parent and influence. Upto 5years old 'the formative years' most psychologists and pschotherapists would say that's when any damage was prob done to the child's psyche.

Whereas, sun sign is a luminary it greatly depends on how the sun is aspected and in which house as to 'how' that sun shines or not....

Re: Sun vs Moon in chart importance

Sorry, but I just do not care for the rigidity and inflexibility of what has always seemed to me to be 'astro-fundamentalism,' which is what I think sun-sign astrology is, and it is why I avoid getting too involved in the astrological world now. To say that all you are is your sun-sign is to say that no other major feature in my chart has any validity whatsoever.

I do not care for the 'this is what you are supposed to become' model either, because that is like saying that what you may be or seem to be now, is not valid. It is not just 'me,' I once had to deal with someone who came to me for a reading who had been really and truly damaged by this approach!

The whole thing probably would not have disturbed me to the point it did, had it not been for the fact that most astrological books I came across, and most astrologers, at the ned ofthe 70's and beginning of the '80's, were also of either a theosophical or esoteric bent, and they were saying that in order to become this wonder individuality on high - which was never expained to me in particularly positive terms, but rather, as something not at all 'nice' - was that you acutally had to kill off your moon sign.

I would not ever wish to put anyone else through that, now.

To be reduced to a set of crass stereotypes is similar to only seeing a waiter as a waiter and not a full, complex human being. I met someone once who said that they just categorised people according to their sun-sign 'because that saved too much trouble in getting to know them completely.

To me that is a bit like only relating to someone by their nationality, ethnic grouping, religion, sex, or even colour of their hair.

It is right not wanting to pay heed to "sun-sign astrology", which is KG- Astrology approach. However, the point that some of us are trying to make here is a quite a bit different to practising or advising anyone to practise "sun-sign astrology".

Firstly, talking about the Sun, or deeming it as one of the most important factors, or even the most important factor, is not automatically = the Sun-sign Astrology approach, as we know it from the Sunday papers (which do not/hardly consider the other factors). Also, calling the Sun as the most important factor does not automatically mean "that no other major feature in my chart has any validity whatsoever". What we are trying to understand and discuss openly is the validity of the one as compared to that of the other.

To share my practically studied opinion, the Sun is the 'heart' of the person, which, just like in the human body is the most crucial and cardinal organ (the heart, ie), marks the birth of the being, it is the 'source' of life, the illumination of the native's life, the very existence, The (conscious) Being as it is. The Sun give the native his basic identity (like his 'name'). In astrological language, I am first/basically called/identified as an Aquarian, but then I start to distinguish myself from other fellow Aquarians through my other planetary placements, esp the Moon. Things then start getting even more specific and fine-tuned through the TOB, which then starts the division of houses (in which the planets fall, showing my main areas) with the Asc being the 1st and having its own relevance through that. The Moon is next only in importance for me to the Sun, as then showing the inner world, the sub-conscious of the native, the emotional world. When we 'relate' to another 'human being', it is the emotional world that forms the link or the bridge to the other person, and helps us to understand that person beneath the surface. Then get added on the other personal factors of that human being, such as how he mentally approaches things (Mer), what he values/likes/dislikes (Ven), etc, etc. All these factors are like the other various organs of the human being that 'complete' him and he is then the sum-total of all these factors/aspects/placements. However, it all starts with the Sun = life/existence = basic/raw identity. The Sun does have its own 'central' place and 'focal' relevance. It proves/marks the very existence of the being, without which all the other astrological factors would have no relevance. If the heart did not pump the blood to carry the oxygen from the lungs, we would not need the lungs or the brain or the liver. However, to practise *proper Astrology*, I will say that we have to look at all the other factors, so we can really understand the native = study the native's chart. However, it all *starts* with Sun, BUT, does *not end there* for a proper Astrologer/ a 'non-quack'. I don't know, if I could really and appropriately get my message across.

Please, it is not as if the Moon is not important (or any other factor/planet), the Moon is very important and more important than any other personal planet perhaps, but, to me, it is next in its importance to the Sun.

AQ7

Aquarius7

Well I all I can say is that Robert Hand, for example, in Horoscope Symbols, also acknowledged that the Sun is the source of all energy in the solar system, but he did manage not to make it the ultimate definition of what somebody is. A yang is still incomplete without a yin and we human beings, lowly as we are, live on a planet, not a star. At least he thought the Sun and Moon shuld be treated as equal partners.

And really, that is what that thinking does, I still feel - it really does play into the commercialism of the newspaper columns. And I don't ever want an astrology that only defines people by their sun sign alone. Otherwise - I am not an astrologer.

I could have been happy with the idea that the Sun was the pro-active 'yang' part of me, but I will never be happy with this being used to globally define who I am. The times I most felt 'got' was when my Moon was brought into the equation and it does make me feel profoundly discounted in some ways when it is not. I remember once meeting a Big Noise in astrology at a conference I came across by chance at the campus where I was studying - both he and his wife completely dissed the importantance of my art to me, which they just dismissed as some kind of childish moon thing I would grow out of. 30 years on, that still leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth.

On thing that did interest me was the approach of some writers - Hillman, Willis and Curry, who look at astrology hrough the lens of our beliefs from a more anthropological viewpoint - he implications of taking a purely Neo-Platonic view of allhings, as does the heliocentric approach, for example, as opposed to more polytheisic perspectives of the Sun, Earth and the rest of the planetary pantheon.

Re: Sun vs Moon in chart importance

Nexus7 said:

Sorry, but I just do not care for the rigidity and inflexibility of what has always seemed to me to be 'astro-fundamentalism,' which is what I think sun-sign astrology is, and it is why I avoid getting too involved in the astrological world now. To say that all you are is your sun-sign is to say that no other major feature in my chart has any validity whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I would never, in a million years, say that the Sun is the ONLY major feature in one's chart. NEVER. I think the Moon is equally as important and the asc, nearly so.

I do not care for the 'this is what you are supposed to become' model either, because that is like saying that what you may be or seem to be now, is not valid. It is not just 'me,' I once had to deal with someone who came to me for a reading who had been really and truly damaged by this approach!

Click to expand...

I Don't think it is a matter of being 'valid' or not valid. I think people who come for readings are often looking for positive change, and searching for how to best grow and develop. Looking to one's Sun, and it's placement by house and sign, and it's natal aspects, and it's progression and current transits, can tell a lot about that growth and development. And imo, that is a lot more than 'sunsign' astrology.

Nexus7,

That was a good post, but if you read mine carefully, I said that the Sun was the "basic identity" and the "starting point". Further, and this is what you might like to note, or at least this is the quintessence of my previous post:

aquarius7000 said:

However, to practise *proper Astrology*, I will say that we have to look at all the other factors, so we can really understand the native = study the native's chart. However, it all *starts* with Sun, BUT, does *not end there* for a proper Astrologer. All these factors are like the other various organs of the human being that 'complete' him and he is then the sum-total of all these factors/aspects/placements.

Click to expand...

So, with that aforementioned approach and simply saying that the Sun is a focal point/ a very important factor, it is not in the least

Nexus7 said:

And I don't ever want an astrology that only defines people by their sun sign alone.

Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that you treat the Sun and Moon as equals, and I say that the Moon is only next to the Sun with all other planets following it; we both seem to be be saying that the *whole chart* needs to be studied by a proper astrologer to fully understand the native. Once again and this is a very important point: pointing out the relevance and the importance of the Sun (which is immense in the world of Astrology) ≠ practising Sun-sign Astrology, and should not be understood that way. The one does not automatically imply the other. There is vast difference, as people who go simply by Sun signs usually do not have the knowledge to study other planets/factors, or do not even know what all really makes up a natal chart. Hence they are not Astrologers. But some of us are only discussing the relevance of the Sun over that of the other factors (so other factors are being considered automatically), but also saying that the Sun + Moon + other planets = native. That said, we are all entitled to our own POV, so it is alright to treat the Moon as equal to the Sun, if you so will. With the Moon signifying the woman and I being one, I do not mind that approach.

AQ7

Well, people certainly do seem to be different insofar that they relate more stongly to different factors in their charts. But I can be ok about agreeing to differ on one or two things too.

I suppose in the end that what matters is whether or not the astrologer manages to relate and engage with whoever they are reading for in a meaningful way.