Mercury-Moon-Saturn aspects

S

Samoth

Member
JUPITERASC, thanks for this important information about the effect of many planets in the same house.

While listing all the aspects in my chart in order to try to assess their respective strength, I asked myself if I should also consider the aspects to the ascendant (or MC, DC, IC) in the interpretation.

Even if the ascendant point is very important because it changes quickly and defines the chart ruler, should I take into account the aspects it makes with planets?

I guess that if a planet was in conjunction to it, it would give it a greater influence, but in my case, there are no planet near it.

Does it make any sense to consider aspects to a mere point without planet even if it is a very important point? Wouldn't it be mixing up two different things?
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Samoth said:
JUPITERASC, thanks for this important information about the effect of many planets in the same house.

While listing all the aspects in my chart in order to try to assess their respective strength, I asked myself if I should also consider the aspects to the ascendant (or MC, DC, IC) in the interpretation.

Even if the ascendant point is very important because it changes quickly and defines the chart ruler, should I take into account the aspects it makes with planets?

I guess that if a planet was in conjunction to it, it would give it a greater influence, but in my case, there are no planet near it.

Does it make any sense to consider aspects to a mere point without planet even if it is a very important point? Wouldn't it be mixing up two different things?
Click to expand...
It's import that you keep in mind that I'm no expert - I'm simply a learner myself :smile:


Although no planet conjuncts your ascendant
Your ascendant ruler SUN trines your Ascendant from Aries
and is in Assembly with Venus

FURTHERMORE

You have Mars and Jupiter Assembled in Aquarius in direct opposition to your ascendant

Aquarius ruler SATURN
is in sextile aspect to Ascendant
and Trines Mars Assembled with Jupiter

so you need to assess these factors
keeping in mind the effect of more than one planet in a house
 
S

Samoth

Member
Duly noted!

Regarding the opposition to the ascendant, does it reinforce the meaning for a planet (in my case a conjunction of two) to be in the 6th or the 7th house, or has it another specific meaning?

According to what I have read recently, angles do not make aspects but only can receive them. This would imply that angles could not be part of
an aspect pattern. However I was wondering that if an angle is heavily aspected, even if it would not be part of an aspect pattern per se, a lot of energy would be focused on this point. Contrary to an aspect pattern involving planets, there would be not a flow but a concentration. Does it make any sense to see things this way? If so, what would that possibly mean?

I have also found another information about the strength of aspects. We know that - in general - the looser an aspect is, the weaker it is but, apparently, if it is part of a larger structure, it should be stronger than if it was isolated. But this seems to contradict another point of view according to which an aspect pattern has to include only tight aspects to fully harmonically resonate. Or does it mean that the aspect pattern is weak but nonetheless reinforce the loose aspect? Is anyone has thoughts about this?
 
Last edited:
J

junoisuppose

Well-known member
My replies are to many points, so sorry if this makes the conversation a bit disjointed & you have already moved on.

If a planet is conjunct a house cusp it influences the activities of that house even if technically it is in the previous house, because the house cusp is a key point influencing the matters of that house.

As Jupiterasc has already mentioned different house systems will cause the planets to be in different houses, & you should experiment to see which seem best for you (Placidus, Koch, Regiomontanus etc). It is also possible to consider that all house systems provide useful charts and useful information. If you're using whole signs then the moon and mercury are definitely in the 8th house. Personally I don't use whole sign houses.

Planets aspecting the angles (ASC, IC, DESC & MC) are making important aspects and influence those areas. On astro.com you can see the aspects to the ASC and MC in the aspect grid (bottom right hand corner of the picture), and you can work out the aspects to the DESC and IC as they are opposite the ASC and MC, so the aspects are the same or similar (semi-sextile vs quincunx, sextile vs trine). In your chart Jupiter and Mars are aspecting the DESC but also the ASC, so they affect both these areas of your life.

You can find lots of explanations on the internet for the meaning of specific planets aspecting the angles. On a lot of websites these aspects are listed along with others a planet makes to the other planets, often at the end of the list.

Unlike the other house cusps the angles are considered so important that we look at all the aspects to them (conjunction, square, trine etc) not only the conjunctions.

Any planets aspecting the ascendant will influence your basic personality strongly.

In my opinion, in one sense, the tighter the orb between the planets the more "important" they are in that you feel them very strongly, however it is misleading to say that they are more "important" than other aspects because different aspects will be important to you at different times depending on which area of your chart you are studying or thinking about. Certain aspects will also be more prominently felt at different times when one of the planets is hit by a transit and that planet/house becomes significant to you at that time, and it will be time for you to study (or learn through events) the lessons associated with that planet in your chart.

If a particular planet makes a lot of aspects to other planets it will be "strong" in the sense that it will often crop up in your life, as it will be brought into the picture from each of these other planets in lots of different areas of your life, so you will be encountering it often.
 
Last edited:
S

Samoth

Member
Junoisuppose, thank you so much for your input!

I have read all the interpretations for my chart regarding the different planets in signs, houses, their aspects to each other and to the angles, etc.

Now, my problem is to grasp what would be the hierarchy in all this.

I have seen different views about conjunctions or proximity to the cusps. Besides the Moon-Mercury conjunction - which can be seen in the 8th house or the 9th depending on the domification system-, the placement of Mars is not really certain either (6th or 7th). Apparently, there is this 5° rule (or 3° or 2° depending on the author and/or the planet) which complicates the matter. So, concerning the houses in which Mars, the Moon and Mercury are in my chart, I have indeed to try a few different scenarios.

I have adopted the general rule that the tighter the aspect, the more powerful it is, having in mind that the planet importance or strength is a key-factor to consider. I am not sure yet about the question of the tight minor aspects versus the wide major ones, but is it a secondary subject for the time being.

Currently, the problem I am trying to solve is to determine the respective strength of each planet in my chart since this is paramount to understand the importance of the aspects they make.

I have come to the conclusion that the Almuten Figuris of my Chart is the Sun, and I think that the Sun is also the Lord of Geniture, as well as the Chart ruler or Ascendant ruler. But if the Moon and Mercury are in the 9th house, there is a stellium there: so the house ruler would be Jupiter (9th house in Pisces). Since Jupiter is angular, conjunct to Mars, and makes aspects to the ascendant, the Sun, etc., maybe it is important too.

But I don't know if I should use the classical or the modern system of rulers. If I choose the latter, Jupiter loses a bit in importance since Neptune will rule the 9th house in Pisces...

If I use the classical dispositor system, Jupiter is at the top of the sign hierarchy along with Mercury and Saturn. Saturn gains also importance in this case, because all planets (except Mercury and Jupiter) lead to it. However, Saturn is at the bottom in the modern dispositor system...

In this modern system, for the sign hierarchy, there are three planets at the top in a loop: Uranus, Venus and Mars. For the house hierarchy, there are two: Venus and Jupiter, Jupiter being at the top of all planets (except Venus).

So I guess, that, in every case, Jupiter is important. Saturn would be too in the classical system. Venus seems also important, but in the modern one.

However, since Venus (yet angular) is in detriment in Aries and combust, should I lower its importance? I have seen two contradictory views: some say that the dignity of the Sun in exaltation would "re-dignify" (!) Venus, and some say the contrary.

To summarize, I am almost sure that the Sun is the most powerful planet in my chart, but I am quite confused for the others: Venus, Jupiter, Mars and Saturn maybe, or even Mercury (in fall in Pisces though) which is tightly conjunct to a luminary (the Moon) on a house cusp?
 
Last edited:
J

junoisuppose

Well-known member
There is a thing called Pullen astrolog which ranks the planets in importance in your birth chart.

I have no idea how they come to that conclusion nor the usefulness of knowing that information but you can get it at www.astro.com - extended chart selection - under "Methods" choose "Pullen/Astrolog" - from the drop down menu "Please select the type of chart you want" choose "Simple chart delineation by Walter Pullen" and click to show chart. Among all the information they give you, about 2/3 down the page, after the section on midpoints and 3 lists of planetary positions there is a grid in which they rank the planets in your chart in order of importance, based on this system.
 
S

Samoth

Member
This seems to confirm that the Sun is dominant in the Chart. I have tried this Pullen algorithm with different domification systems and it apparently validates that Jupiter is important too in every case. For the other candidates (Mars, Venus, etc.), it depends on the chosen system, but they always come after the Sun and Jupiter. However, Pullen uses the modern dispositor system: I think that with the classical one, Saturn would be emphasized, but the Sun and Jupiter would remain the main planets in the Chart.

So, you are right, I guess that I will have to use the experimental approach and learn through events and transits.

But at least, I will be able to focus on these two planets and consider that the aspects they make to other planets and angles (particularly if they are tight) constitute the chart "backbone".

Regarding the specific matter of the planet in houses when they are close to cusps, I am leaning to the option of adopting the view according to which those planets are concerned with both houses affairs. I am not sure of what it means exactly but it's a start. In fact, I always wondered how to understand the limit between signs, houses, aspects etc. in astrology. Is the change continuous or are there sudden leaps in meaning?
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Samoth said:
This seems to confirm that the Sun is dominant in the Chart.
I have tried this Pullen algorithm with different domification systems and it apparently validates that Jupiter is important too in every case.
For the other candidates (Mars, Venus, etc.), it depends on the chosen system,
but they always come after the Sun and Jupiter.
However, Pullen uses the modern dispositor system:
I think that with the classical one, Saturn would be emphasized,
but the Sun and Jupiter would remain the main planets in the Chart.

So, you are right, I guess that I will have to use the experimental approach and learn through events and transits.

But at least, I will be able to focus on these two planets and consider that the aspects they make to other planets and angles
(particularly if they are tight) constitute the chart "backbone".

Regarding the specific matter of the planet in houses when they are close to cusps,
I am leaning to the option of adopting the view according to which those planets are concerned with both houses affairs.
I am not sure of what it means exactly but it's a start.
In fact, I always wondered how to understand the limit between signs, houses, aspects etc. in astrology.
Is the change continuous or are there sudden leaps in meaning?
Click to expand...
Check out profections :smile:

ProfectionWheel.jpg
BobZemco said:
The key is organization.
I used to go from House-to-House, but that got to be tedious,
so I started focusing only on activated Planets, and that works a lot better (for me).

Okay.

The ruler of the Sign in which the Profectional Ascendant falls is activated and becomes the Year Ruler.
Any Planets in that Sign are also activated, because they are disposited (ruled) by the Year Ruler.

I know most profect in 30° increments, and that's fine, but I profect by Oblique Ascension using Diurnal Hours. For example, if the Ascendant is 15° Sagittarius 45' then using 30° it will fall at 15° Capricorn 45' but profecting by Oblique Ascension using Diurnal Hours, it falls at 7° Capricorn 56'.

Continuing, 4° Aquarius 01' then 6° Pisces 35' all the way until you get to 15° Gemini 45' (7th House).

As you can see, there isn't a whole lot of difference, but occasionally you'll find charts where the Profected Ascendant will fall exactly on a Natal Planet or a Lot...and that's really intense, just as a Solar Return Planet falling exactly on the Profected Ascendant.

Anyway, one other thing to clarify is that it is the Sign that is activated, not the House.

Any Planets falling in the Sign will play a key role.

Planets transiting the Sign of the Profected Ascendant are important

I would consider the Exalted Sign for the Year Ruler.

If a Planet is not in its own Sign, then is important to be connected by sextile, square, trine or opposition.
That allows the Sign Ruler to manage the affairs in that House, even though he isn't physically there.
It's like you can leave home, but still be connected: you can call or e-mail, and a family member there,
or another you put in charge (the house-sitter, baby-sitter, dog-sitter) can take your instructions and carry them out.

If you have no connection to your home, then you really aren't in control.

Over time, Signs and Houses kind of got to be used interchangeably, even though they aren't necessarily the same thing. For Solar Returns, it's actually the Sign that comes to the Ascendant, not the House.

So, the Profected Asendant activates that Sign in your Natal Chart,
plus your Solar Return Chart,
and then the Sign that comes to your Solar Return Ascendant becomes activated in your both your Natal and Profectional Charts.
And of course the Ascendant Sign in your Natal Chart is always activated in the Solar Return Chart.

Uh, if I understand the question correctly, you're asking: "Now that I've identified the Rulers and Signs involved for the year, what the hell do I do now?"

Before you do that, you have figure out exactly what's going on.

You probably already evaluated the condition of the Planets in the SR Chart,
or at least the key players, and compared them to your Natal Chart.

I'll comment some more later, but right now I have to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently and die gallantly (because, you know, "specialization is for insects"...that's what Heinlein says).
Click to expand...
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=65448

55ac0b04-f621-4cc2-9cd0-2282b794522f
 
S

Samoth

Member
JUPITERASC, thank you for having pointed this out. It is indeed of much interest.

Unfortunately, the variety of scenarios I have to explore considering the ambiguous placement of planets (according to the different domification systems) near houses cusps puts is confusing.

The option of "experimenting" those possible placements does eventually not make much sense to me. Not having a unambiguous placement for those planets and having no way to clear things up because of the contradicting views I found online on these subjects is frustrating.

I am surprised to see that fundamental questions in astrology could receive such different answers: strength of aspects, what constitute a "real" aspect pattern, limit of houses, interpretation of conjunctions (is a conjunction with a "malefic" is always malefic or not?), etc.

Furthermore, this "experimental" approach through transits, besides being unclear to me (feeling if a transit is active or not in order to decide what is the "true" placement" of those planets given each scenario), raises the question of a possible confirmation bias.

I have hence no way to figure out clearly what houses, planets and aspects are more important than others in my chart so that I could understand its dynamics, and begin to figure out a workable delineation. I am in a position where I have to "choose" subjectively between a number of possible radix with different meanings (and even different meanings for the same placement!) I don't think astrology is supposed to work this way - at least to that extent. There is probably a solution to this conundrum, but I cannot find it. Puzzling, indeed.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Samoth said:
JUPITERASC, thank you for having pointed this out. It is indeed of much interest.

Unfortunately, the variety of scenarios I have to explore considering the ambiguous placement of planets (according to the different domification systems) near houses cusps puts is confusing.

The option of "experimenting" those possible placements does eventually not make much sense to me. Not having a unambiguous placement for those planets and having no way to clear things up because of the contradicting views I found online on these subjects is frustrating.

I am surprised to see that fundamental questions in astrology could receive such different answers: strength of aspects, what constitute a "real" aspect pattern, limit of houses, interpretation of conjunctions (is a conjunction with a "malefic" is always malefic or not?), etc.

Furthermore, this "experimental" approach through transits, besides being unclear to me (feeling if a transit is active or not in order to decide what is the "true" placement" of those planets given each scenario), raises the question of a possible confirmation bias.

I have hence no way to figure out clearly what houses, planets and aspects are more important than others in my chart so that I could understand its dynamics, and begin to figure out a workable delineation. I am in a position where I have to "choose" subjectively between a number of possible radix with different meanings (and even different meanings for the same placement!) I don't think astrology is supposed to work this way - at least to that extent. There is probably a solution to this conundrum, but I cannot find it. Puzzling, indeed.
Click to expand...
Quite :smile:
Perfect for students. Although it is not a course, ITA is an invaluable reference
and resource guide http://www.bendykes.com/ita.php
for students of all levels
whether working solo or taking a course
whether fully traditional or a curious student of modern astrology.
It is suitable for Hellenistic, Medieval, Renaissance and 17th Century astrology alike. Preview the Table of Contents
 
S

Samoth

Member
This book seems fascinating. However, when I looked into this sort of books searching for specific answers to the questions I raised in this thread, I always encountered the same problem.

The prose is generally descriptive (even prescriptive sometimes) but not argumentative. Maybe this is not the case for this particular book, but even if the statements it contained were supported by some sort of reasoning, the problem would remain.

I would hence need other books supporting different views and containing arguments. This is the only way to make up my mind on those non-consensual (but fundamental) matters.

Otherwise, it would be following an author blindly, and as clever, knowledgeable and wise he/she might be, this would not be intellectually satisfying. Neither would it be useful for my practical purpose.

So I am afraid that without some theoretical grounds and/or empirical ones from seasoned astrologers on the topics I raised supporting their conflicting opinions, it will be difficult for me to elect a particular view while remaining intellectually honest.

The contrast between the scarcity of arguments (not references though!) and the variety of contradicting views about the astrology basics among astrologers is truly amazing.

Thanks again for taking the time to forward me those links, JUPITERASC.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Samoth said:
This book seems fascinating. However, when I looked into this sort of books searching for specific answers to the questions I raised in this thread, I always encountered the same problem.

The prose is generally descriptive (even prescriptive sometimes) but not argumentative. Maybe this is not the case for this particular book, but even if the statements it contained were supported by some sort of reasoning, the problem would remain.

I would hence need other books supporting different views and containing arguments. This is the only way to make up my mind on those non-consensual (but fundamental) matters.

Otherwise, it would be following an author blindly, and as clever, knowledgeable and wise he/she might be, this would not be intellectually satisfying. Neither would it be useful for my practical purpose.

So I am afraid that without some theoretical grounds and/or empirical ones from seasoned astrologers on the topics I raised supporting their conflicting opinions, it will be difficult for me to elect a particular view while remaining intellectually honest.

The contrast between the scarcity of arguments (not references though!) and the variety of contradicting views about the astrology basics among astrologers is truly amazing.

Thanks again for taking the time to forward me those links, JUPITERASC.
Click to expand...
The book I linked to is a guide that includes commentary on several different ancient authorities :smile:

Meanwhile here's a link to FREE ancient author DOROTHEUS - CARMEN ASTROLOGICUM http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dorotheus1.pdf

DOROTHEUS - CARMEN ASTROLOGICUM Book II http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dorotheus2.pdf

DOROTHEUS - CARMEN ASTROLOGICUM Book III http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dorotheus3.pdf
 
S

Samoth

Member
JUPITERASC, I really appreciate your links.

However, as I explained before, reading different authorities on the subjects I raised on this thread, while being of a great interest regarding erudition, cannot be a solution to my practical purpose if some conditions are not met.

Since different authorities have different answers to specific questions related to astrology basics, I have to understand how and why they choose to support this particular view and not another.

Unfortunately, even when commenting other authors, they generally do not provide arguments or examples from their practice to support their choices. It is hence impossible for me to choose to follow an author over another on these fundamental matters while remaining intellectually honest.

Bunraku, thank you for letting me know about Cosmodynes. This seems very sound and sophisticated. I will give it a try and see if I can study their methods. However, I would need to know why they use specific assumptions in their calculations and not other ones. I am afraid that, once again, the same problem will come up: why did they choose these assumptions over other possibilities? Arguments establishing their views while confronting to other ones, seem to be missing...

I guess that the problem lies in the sociological realm. Since astrology is not taught at the University, astrology is de facto a trade and trade secrets have to be protected. But the lack of discussion and confrontation of arguments between the astrological authorities is one of the very things that prevent astrology to become a widely recognized subject and eventually (why not!) to be taught in universities.

This is a shame because my personal experience with chart analysis by professional astrologers for persons I know is often on the spot. They can combine their empirical experience and more theoretical views, and as a result, they come up most of the time with accurate delineations.

But in the case of ambiguous placements, conflicting views arise and there is unfortunately very little incentive to use this opportunity to come up collectively to a better understanding of the astrological basic assumptions - which hence remain non-consensual and, as a result, this is detrimental to astrology reputation in the general public.
 
Last edited:
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Samoth said:
JUPITERASC, I really appreciate your links.
Click to expand...
Great :smile:
Samoth said:
However, as I explained before, reading different authorities on the subjects I raised on this thread,
while being of a great interest regarding erudition,
cannot be a solution to my practical purpose if some conditions are not met.

Since different authorities have different answers to specific questions related to astrology basics,
I have to understand how and why they choose to support this particular view and not another.

Unfortunately, even when commenting other authors,
they generally do not provide arguments or examples from their practice to support their choices.
It is hence impossible for me to choose to follow an author over another
on these fundamental matters while remaining intellectually honest.
Click to expand...
Then reading the original authors is a good plan

STUDY LIBRARY OF FREE TEXTS ON THE WEB http://www.skyscript.co.uk/texts.html


There are five collections in this library.
  • The main collection contains links to books and magazines written in English that are directly related to 'traditional astrology' (from classical to modern times).
  • The extended collection refers to texts that are partly astrological or useful for historical research or philosophical principles.
  • The ancient collection contains links to ancient texts, fragments, or secondary sources that cover the ancient period.
  • The scholar's collection contains links to published theses, dissertations, and peer-reviewed papers.
  • The Latin & Greek collection contains links to important works in older languages
Another good list of links to astrological works is available at http://cura.free.fr/DIAL.html

Samoth said:
Bunraku, thank you for letting me know about Cosmodynes.
This seems very sound and sophisticated. I will give it a try and see if I can study their methods.
However, I would need to know why they use specific assumptions in their calculations and not other ones.
I am afraid that, once again, the same problem will come up:
why did they choose these assumptions over other possibilities?
Arguments establishing their views while confronting to other ones, seem to be missing...

I guess that the problem lies in the sociological realm.
Since astrology is not taught at the University, astrology is de facto a trade and trade secrets have to be protected.
But the lack of discussion and confrontation of arguments between the astrological authorities
is one of the very things that prevent astrology to become a widely recognized subject
and eventually (why not!) to be taught in universities.

This is a shame because my personal experience with chart analysis by professional astrologers for persons I know is often on the spot.
They can combine their empirical experience and more theoretical views, and as a result, they come up most of the time with accurate delineations.

But in the case of ambiguous placements,
conflicting views arise and there is unfortunately very little incentive to use this opportunity to come up collectively to a better understanding of the astrological basic assumptions
- which hence remain non-consensual and, as a result, this is detrimental to astrology reputation in the general public.
Click to expand...
Astrology IS taught at university http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/ma-cultural-astronomy-astrology/
http://www.astrology.org.uk/summer-school/
http://www.astrology.org.uk/
 
S

Samoth

Member
JUPITERASC, you do not seem to get my point which is quite straightforward: history of astrology, erudition, etc. are one thing; justified methods, shared principles, experimentation, argumentation are another.

And you will agree that the presence of astrology in universities is at best anecdotal and is in no way an academic discipline in today's academic standards - to be clear: I am not talking here about history of astrology but of astrology per se.

I exposed one the main reasons of this situation in my previous post. I regret it, but I am just stating the obvious.
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Samoth said:
JUPITERASC, you do not seem to get my point which is quite straightforward: history of astrology, erudition, etc. are one thing; justified methods, shared principles, experimentation, argumentation are another.

And you will agree that the presence of astrology in universities is at best anecdotal and is in no way an academic discipline in today's academic standards - to be clear: I am not talking here about history of astrology but of astrology per se.

I exposed one the main reasons of this situation in my previous post. I regret it, but I am just stating the obvious.
Click to expand...
Astrology is not exclusively Western :smile:
so
Vedic, Chinese and the myriad other forms of astrology
are available for testing as well

also
it is important to keep in mind
that ours is an online astrological learning forum
with members who are practicing in order to improve their skills
and
any member is welcome to post their theories
regardless of knowledge or experience
 
S

Samoth

Member
There are indeed many astrologies, JUPITERASC. And this observation contributes to prove my point: there is no specific chinese physics or indian mathematics. Everyone on the planet is doing the same physics or the same mathematics (enriched by every nation) because those disciplines have reached a unity by sticking to certain standards.

Unfortunately, it is not the case for astrology which is still in its infancy, and it is ironic because it is one of the most ancient corpus of knowledge.

It is of course okay to be a learner in astrology, and the rewards of erudition are numerous. No one is forced to seek the truth, and everybody is free to prefer to use astrology in its own personal way for self-help reasons or as a psychological relief.

I just wanted to point out the fact that there are major contradictions in the very core of astrology. But this situation does not necessarily have to stay the same forever, even if the sociological context is not helpful. I do not think that serious seasoned astrologers could honestly deny what I have said on this matter.
 
Last edited:
Top