The signs of the zodiac are the least important factor in a natal chart

[obsidianmineral]

In my experience, I've seen that zodiac signs tend to matter not so much when it comes to reading a chart. They are useful as ways to confirm or describe things in detail. To think that say, people all around the globe during a period of an entire month are better off because they were born when the Sun was in Leo or Aries, is ridiculous. There are serial killers and sociopaths of every zodiac sign.

The nitty gritty is in the aspects, planets and houses. And most astrologers will attest to that. A "benefic" Jupiter in a natal chart has more to do with benefic aspects, being in an angular house or some kind of association with good houses and or planets.

I also think that this thing of rulership is overrated. I think planets express themselves in the most "obvious" and archetypal way in the sign they rule, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

In his book, Understanding the Birth Chart, a Comprehensive Guide to Classical Interpretation, Kevin Burk says:

When we talk about a planet in a sign that it rules, it is an evaluation of that planet's strength in that sign. How well can that planet play the role that it's been given? Well, a planet in a sign that it rules is playing the role for which it is most famous-the signature part that turned it into a $20 millionplus, A-list star. This is a planet that can do whatever it wants, and doesn't have to answer to anyone or anything. It is the master of its own destiny. This is wonderful for the planet, but it's not always the best thing for the individual! Just like an A- list Hollywood star, no one is going to say "no" to a planet in rulership-no matter how stupid, self-centered, dangerous, or potentially destructive its ideas happen to be.

To keep the strict-minded happy, yes, a planet in rulership represents power, but the power to express itself in its own way, not that that leads to positive outcomes or is what's "optimal" for the planet itself, and not even power in terms of the individual's actual life and circumstances (which are the houses, the Ascendant in particular, and the aspects). Because, as a whole, planets in signs aren't that great of indicator to begin with. Perhaps the most important thing about rulerships is that planets do end up ruling certain houses and affecting them. The houses are the greater themes of the life as a whole that you would write about in an essay; the planets and aspects, the message, coherence and meaning being transmitted or conveyed when these themes are being described; the signs, just the particular choice in expressions and the typography.

Planets in rulership are also known to outdo themselves and be "too much" of their own thing. Mars in Aries might be too aggressive and impulsive, Moon in Cancer is too emotional, Sun in Leo too egotistical, and so on.

A psychological example of this would be the Sun in Leo, Aries or even Sagittarius, as I said in the beginning. The Sun is the individuality and ego, and a person with narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by

1. Social potency, marked by exhibitionistic, authoritative, charismatic and self-promoting interpersonal behaviours
2. Exploitative, self-serving relational dynamics; short-term relationship transactions defined by manipulation and privileging of personal gain over other benefits of socialization
3. Low and contingent self-esteem, unstable and unclear sense of self, and resentment of others' success
4. Social withdrawal, resulting from shame, distrust of others' intentions, and concerns over being accepted

The Sun or the ego, in the case of a narcissist, gets to do what it wants. It isn't acting for the good of others unless it's a tactic that ultimately makes them look better. The ego of a narcissist is displayed in the most obvious way: they're the first to announce themselves to the world, their mind always unconsciously associates everything around them with their own ego, their success, their appearance, and so on. The ego is "placed and expressed in its own natural way", so-to-speak. Narcissism is literally a developmental disorder. It's an adult that still has the ego of an infant, and therefore, it's marked by a deep-reaching insecurity. In the story of Narcissus, he's obsessed with his own image, because he lacks the perception of seeing himself as something other than a reflection of something else. There is no actual core, integrity or moral value to the narcissist, because ironically their own self-obsession is spurred on by the fact that they don't have a true identity or self-esteem. They're the child that is envious because their friend has a bigger toy truck than them. And a planet in rulership could very well describe the narcissist. Is it a good thing if the ego does what it wants? No. Is it a good thing if their ego is so important to them that they manipulate and hurt others? No.

The degree to which, let's say the Sun, can be read as "ego" or as "true self-esteem" and integrity, depends entirely on the aspects and the rest of the chart. It is ironically through the sign that the Sun is in detriment, Aquarius, that there is an act of balance and complementation that actually develops and strengthens the planet. An integral natal chart connects all of its dots, it balances all energies and synthesizes them.

I think the planets in the signs are an interesting part of astrology as a historical appreciation of the complexity and tradition in cultures given to the constellations, but I'd refrain from saying a planet is objectively beneficial to the person in one sign or the other. The only classical dignity that would be closer to giving a planet what it "needs", per se, is exaltation. It depends a bit on the author. William Lilly says:

If the Significator be in his exaltation, and no wayes impedited, but Angular; it presents a person of haughty condition arrogant, affirming more unto him then his due (...)

But going back to Kevin Burk, he says:

Planets in the sign of their exaltation are treated like honored guests: things are done on their behalf by others, and with the best of intentions; but no matter how comfortable and pampered these planets may be, they ultimately do not get to choose their own agenda. They are bound by certain standards of acceptable behavior, and kept in check. Planets in exaltation are very strong-and in many ways much easier to deal with than planets in the signs they rule. As honored guests, planets in exaltation tend to be on their best behavior; they strive to be gracious and to express their higher nature. On an esoteric level, planets in exaltation are operating on what we would call the spirit or soul level (what the Greeks called Nous), which is where we connect with our higher selves and our guides.

I believe that whether the planet is exaltation is the "person of a haughty condition and arrogant" or the "spirit guide", depends, again, on the spiritual development of the native, which is described more accurately by the rest of the chart, not the zodiac signs.

All in all, I'd give more weight to planets in their essential dignities in things like horary astrology, where matters span only a relatively short amount of time. The zodiac seems to describe more a psychological nuance in a natal chart, while on horary astrology, it is framed more on an objective viewpoint.

 

[waybread]

If I could choose just one chart factor for my focus, it would be aspects. Planets-in-signs can change depending on whether one uses the tropical or sidereal zodiac. Planets in houses can change, depending on the house system. Aspects pretty much stay the same. The closer the aspect, the more likely it is to be important in the person's life.

 

[DC80]

In my experience, I've seen that zodiac signs tend to matter not so much when it comes to reading a chart.

The nitty gritty is in the aspects,...

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]

Aspects can only be correctly interpreted through the signs involved.

 

[obsidianmineral]

Aspects can only be correctly interpreted through the signs involved.

Not necessarily. Out of sign aspects exists. And even if they didn’t, you don’t read, say, Pluto in Leo trine Venus in Sagittarius as a trine because there’s an inherent quality to Pluto in Leo due to the sign. I think most people take into account the planet, not the sign, and the signs only give additional information. You don’t read Pluto in Leo as “you’re obsessed about ego and power” and because of that, there’s a trine to Venus.

There’s also aspects to points, cusps and nodes. And also declinations. Minor aspects too, which for traditionals seem to break the “harmony” and balance inherent to the classical aspects between signs.

And besides, when I typed all that, I did keep in mind that. I just don’t think that aspects between planets are inherently the signs. Maybe that’s more relevant when you consider aspects between the planets to other signs as a whole (some astrologers do so), which does give some degree of interpretation and underlying reasoning to interpretations.

 

[waybread]

Not necessarily. Out of sign aspects exists. And even if they didn’t, you don’t read, say, Pluto in Leo trine Venus in Sagittarius as a trine because there’s an inherent quality to Pluto in Leo due to the sign. I think most people take into account the planet, not the sign, and the signs only give additional information. You don’t read Pluto in Leo as “you’re obsessed about ego and power” and because of that, there’s a trine to Venus.

There’s also aspects to points, cusps and nodes. And also declinations. Minor aspects too, which for traditionals seem to break the “harmony” and balance inherent to the classical aspects between signs.

And besides, when I typed all that, I did keep in mind that. I just don’t think that aspects between planets are inherently the signs. Maybe that’s more relevant when you consider aspects between the planets to other signs as a whole (some astrologers do so), which does give some degree of interpretation and underlying reasoning to interpretations.

Also, the problem with relying heavily on planets-in-signs is that they can vary significantly depending upon whether one uses a western tropical, Hindu sidereal, other sidereal, zodiac. Nobody truly knows when the western and eastern zodiacs began to diverge, but it was probably in late Antiquity, such that they are now about 24 degrees apart, due to precession of the equinoxes. Planetary aspects will be the same independently of their signs.

 

[obsidianmineral]

To sum this up better,

I'm not saying that I just read an astrology horoscope column and found out that a single Sun sign doesn't match with an individual in its entirety -- I'm arguing that signs matter far less than what most people think, even among astrologers. At least in natal charts.

Why? Because, besides what I've said about a planet in rulership being potentially good or bad (a planet in rulership is good for the planet but not necessarily for the native), it doesn't make sense for people to astrologers believe that people that are born within days, weeks or even months apart from each other, which may share many similar planet configurations (such as the Sun, Moon, Mars, etc.), being in their own sign (for example), that means they're better off inherently than people that weren't born in that time span. It just doesn't make sense to me that millions of people born in different countries, economic contexts and with different personalities somehow are "better off" to ANY degree whatsoever in the natal chart. What actually makes sense for me, is to think of the rest of the chart (houses, aspects, etc.) as the actual way in which these energies are manifested, work and function in the scheme of a natal chart. Even if I'm basically going against the holy grails of traditional astrology which is rulerships and its marked reductionistic and dualistic thinking. A planet in rulership could be bad, a planet in detriment could be good. Same way Saturn and Jupiter aren't just "bad" and "good", without nuance or profundity.

As a personal side note, I don't have anything to gain from this view. I have several planets in rulership and one in exaltation, I'm bringing up all this because I don't see it as fair or abstract enough. Maybe it's my Uranus aspects. But I think we're all equal.

Might be a little off-topic, but are we seriously still in an age where people are making posts about Leo being the best and strongest sign of the zodiac? https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/index.php?threads/leo-is-the-strongest-zodiac-sign.140673/

And some of the subsequent comments are agreeing. Are we still at this stage of thinking? Where one says "well I have Sun, Mercury and Venus in Leo, I have a big ego" and somehow that's a positive thing to say? Having an ego, displaying the classically narcissistic traits of Leo and the fire signs is NOT good. Anyway, sorry for the rambling.

 

[Ecliptique]

Hello everyone,

I simply observe that nowadays, taking into account the consequent shift of the zodiacs (sidereal and tropical), with regard to the astral masteries relating to the zodiacal signs (even if they are considered in the background of the interpretation), on the houses, astrology should, by examining the nature of the facts inherent in the life of any native, distinguish a single zodiac and even a single house system to be retained for all astrological study.

Ecliptique.

 

[JUPITERASC]

Might be a little off-topic, but are we seriously still in an age where people are making posts about Leo being the best and strongest sign of the zodiac? https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/index.php?threads/leo-is-the-strongest-zodiac-sign.140673/

That's Modernistic Western Astrology

And some of the subsequent comments are agreeing. Are we still at this stage of thinking? Where one says "well I have Sun, Mercury and Venus in Leo, I have a big ego" and somehow that's a positive thing to say? Having an ego, displaying the classically narcissistic traits of Leo and the fire signs is NOT good. Anyway, sorry for the rambling.

.

.

 

[waybread]

To sum this up better,

I'm not saying that I just read an astrology horoscope column and found out that a single Sun sign doesn't match with an individual in its entirety -- I'm arguing that signs matter far less than what most people think, even among astrologers. At least in natal charts.

Why? Because, besides what I've said about a planet in rulership being potentially good or bad (a planet in rulership is good for the planet but not necessarily for the native), it doesn't make sense for people to astrologers believe that people that are born within days, weeks or even months apart from each other, which may share many similar planet configurations (such as the Sun, Moon, Mars, etc.), being in their own sign (for example), that means they're better off inherently than people that weren't born in that time span. It just doesn't make sense to me that millions of people born in different countries, economic contexts and with different personalities somehow are "better off" to ANY degree whatsoever in the natal chart. What actually makes sense for me, is to think of the rest of the chart (houses, aspects, etc.) as the actual way in which these energies are manifested, work and function in the scheme of a natal chart. Even if I'm basically going against the holy grails of traditional astrology which is rulerships and its marked reductionistic and dualistic thinking. A planet in rulership could be bad, a planet in detriment could be good. Same way Saturn and Jupiter aren't just "bad" and "good", without nuance or profundity.

As a personal side note, I don't have anything to gain from this view. I have several planets in rulership and one in exaltation, I'm bringing up all this because I don't see it as fair or abstract enough. Maybe it's my Uranus aspects. But I think we're all equal.

Might be a little off-topic, but are we seriously still in an age where people are making posts about Leo being the best and strongest sign of the zodiac? https://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/index.php?threads/leo-is-the-strongest-zodiac-sign.140673/

And some of the subsequent comments are agreeing. Are we still at this stage of thinking? Where one says "well I have Sun, Mercury and Venus in Leo, I have a big ego" and somehow that's a positive thing to say? Having an ego, displaying the classically narcissistic traits of Leo and the fire signs is NOT good. Anyway, sorry for the rambling.

I really appreciate your thinking.

We cannot ignore that the horoscope doesn't tell us everything. A "naked" horoscope doesn't even say if the native is male or female. A clever astrologer can determine the birth location from the MC, but that doesn't say where the person has spent most of their life. It doesn't say whether they were a member of an impoverished majority or from the upper crust. We can infer things about the parents' wealth, sure; but it is relative compared to the society in which the person lives. We can't tell if they were born into a particular ethnic or religious groups.

I've read a lot of charts for people, and I recall only 2-3 that were without hard aspects. In the first one, the native was experiencing her first tough transit and had no life experience or personal tools to deal with it. Someone with natal hard aspects generally has to toughen up a bit and develop internal resources throughout childhood.

I am very thankful that when I was first learning astrology (self-taught) I found copies of Robert Hand's early books at the New Age book store. He focused strongly on aspects.

My tropical western chart has very little essential dignity. But if I change to sidereal, suddenly my Jupiter-in-fall in Capricorn moves to a big happy domicile in Sagittarius. My Leo moon moves to a domicile in Cancer. I have a late degree rising, so my planets-in-houses look very deifferent depending upon whether I use a quadrant house system or whole signs.

Aspects stay the same throughout.

Yeah, well. Let's tell that sun Leo that unless their sun is at a very late degree of Leo, that sun just moved into Cancer in a sidereal zodiac. Meanwhile, unassuming, helpful tropical Virgo just got a whole new personality in sidereal Leo.

We see the problem.

 

[Frisiangal]

We cannot ignore that the horoscope doesn't tell us everything.

I cannot help but disagree with this mindset. I truly believe that a horoscope does provide such information, but it depends upon the skill of the astrologer in picking up on specific aspects, and being able to apply an objective meaning to them other than one 'learnt' from one source or another.

A "naked" horoscope doesn't even say if the native is male or female. A clever astrologer can determine the birth location from the MC, but that doesn't say where the person has spent most of their life. It doesn't say whether they were a member of an impoverished majority or from the upper crust. We can infer things about the parents' wealth, sure; but it is relative compared to the society in which the person lives. We can't tell if they were born into a particular ethnic or religious groups.

Aspects stay the same throughout

In terms of Virgo, it does seem to say much about 'money management'. The number of impoverished charts seem to verify this.

Wealth? Often applied to Jupiter? A practical example.
I have 7 grandchildren, of which two sisters whose mother was born into an exceptionally wealthy family.
One has a 3rd house Moon trine Jupiter in Cancer. Like her mother she is very co-dependent upon 'the soft cushion', as I call it, of the family wealth. Even with a harshly aspected Virgo Sun in 2nd house, she doesn't worry about anything of a financial nature. She lives 50 yards from mum's house and a few miles from grandparents.
Her elder sister has an exact Moon-Pluto in Sagittarius inconjunct Jupiter in 3rd house in Cancer. As an Aquarius Sun+stellium millenium child she is very independent, chose to study, live, and work in the furthest province in the country from her family, but where she has made many friends. She takes advantage of the maternal family wealth (holiday home(s)) but doesn't rely on 'the soft cushion' and makes her own way in life.

Obviously a check was necessary for the other 5 grandchildren from two families. Not a single one has a Sun or Moon linked to Jupiter. They are part of 'normal financially situated' families.

Further e.g.
My Sag Sun in 4th house in Sagittarius husband with Jupiter in 12th house still has regrets (conjunct MEAN BML) that the paternal fortune in houses compensation was lost in favour of a state pension following W.W.2.

Coincidence? Or do signs, planets, and aspects each play a part and tell their own individual story in a horoscope chart?
I know what I believe.

 

[waybread]

Happy New Year, Frisiangal!

I appreciate your personal examples. Because they are anecdotal, it is unclear how far we can take their interpretations.

I don't know about Virgo. I have Virgo rising and Saturn in Virgo. My two children are sun Virgos. None of us is wealthy, but I would describe the three of us as professional middle class. Sophia Loren is one sun Virgo. I clicked on her birth date and found some other notables like Jeremy Irons and Jimmy Fallon, including a sprinkling of European nobility. One of the richest men on the planet, Warren Buffet, is a sun Virgo.

I find Jupiter to be a bit tricky. Donald Trump has Jupiter retrograde in the second, but he is known for major swings in his fortunes, with several of his business empires declaring bankruptcy over the years. Jupiter squares his Venus-Saturn conjunction. More to the point, Trump was born into a very wealthy family, and he made his money as a TV personality and by trading in on his name as a franchised brand. His real estate ventures lost a lot of money. In whole signs, Buffet's Jupiter is in the 8th house of investment. It squares a domiciled Venus-MC. His Jupiter is in mutual reception with his moon.

I personally view people's money management as related to one of three categories.

1. People who are hopeless and tend to get into debt. Often a Saturn-Pluto square involving the 2nd house, or square from the 2nd house ruler involving Saturn or Pluto are involved.

2. People who have sufficient funds and tend to be very conservative about their money management. They may miss obvious financial opportunities, but they don't waste money or needlessly speculate, either.

3. People who understand money and know how to make it grow. Here I would look for Jupiter in the 8th house of investments.

An interesting case here is Gloria Vanderbilt. She was born an heiress, but her inheritance was contested bitterly by an aunt.

"Gloria Vanderbilt, horoscope for birth date 20 February 1924, born in New York, with Astrodatabank biography"

Horoscope and astrology data of Gloria Vanderbilt born on 20 February 1924 New York, New York, with biography

www.astro.com

Vanderbilt had Mars and a domiciled Jupiter in Sagittarius in the 8th, square Uranus, suggesting conflict (Mars-Uranus) over her good fortune (Jupiter in the 8th.)

I think the Trump and Vanderbilt lessons are that a well-positioned Jupiter isn't necessarily trouble-free. Buffet, interestingly, has Saturn in his second house. Despite Buffet's wealth, he is known for his frugal lifestyle and philanthropy; unlike Trump.

I wouldn't say that planets in signs or planets in houses are irrelevant. It's more like, if I somehow had to choose only one astrological method to use, it would be looking at aspects.

 

[JUPITERASC]

I cannot help but disagree with this mindset. I truly believe that a horoscope does provide such information, but it depends upon the skill of the astrologer in picking up on specific aspects, and being able to apply an objective meaning to them other than one 'learnt' from one source or another

opinions on importance or otherwise of ZODIAC SIGNS/PLANETS varies
because
astrologers have different opinions based on knowledge/experience

& western astrology is unregulated
- no requirements for qualifications

however there are Colleges
for example

https://www.youtube.com/user/keplercollege

In terms of Virgo, it does seem to say much about 'money management'. The number of impoverished charts seem to verify this.

Wealth? Often applied to Jupiter? A practical example.
I have 7 grandchildren, of which two sisters whose mother was born into an exceptionally wealthy family.
One has a 3rd house Moon trine Jupiter in Cancer. Like her mother she is very co-dependent upon 'the soft cushion', as I call it, of the family wealth. Even with a harshly aspected Virgo Sun in 2nd house, she doesn't worry about anything of a financial nature. She lives 50 yards from mum's house and a few miles from grandparents.
Her elder sister has an exact Moon-Pluto in Sagittarius inconjunct Jupiter in 3rd house in Cancer. As an Aquarius Sun+stellium millenium child she is very independent, chose to study, live, and work in the furthest province in the country from her family, but where she has made many friends. She takes advantage of the maternal family wealth (holiday home(s)) but doesn't rely on 'the soft cushion' and makes her own way in life.

Obviously a check was necessary for the other 5 grandchildren from two families. Not a single one has a Sun or Moon linked to Jupiter. They are part of 'normal financially situated' families.

Further e.g.
My Sag Sun in 4th house in Sagittarius husband with Jupiter in 12th house still has regrets (conjunct MEAN BML) that the paternal fortune in houses compensation was lost in favour of a state pension following W.W.2.

Coincidence? Or do signs, planets, and aspects each play a part and tell their own individual story in a horoscope chart?
I know what I believe.

 

[obsidianmineral]

I cannot help but disagree with this mindset. I truly believe that a horoscope does provide such information, but it depends upon the skill of the astrologer in picking up on specific aspects, and being able to apply an objective meaning to them other than one 'learnt' from one source or another.


In terms of Virgo, it does seem to say much about 'money management'. The number of impoverished charts seem to verify this.

Wealth? Often applied to Jupiter? A practical example.
I have 7 grandchildren, of which two sisters whose mother was born into an exceptionally wealthy family.
One has a 3rd house Moon trine Jupiter in Cancer. Like her mother she is very co-dependent upon 'the soft cushion', as I call it, of the family wealth. Even with a harshly aspected Virgo Sun in 2nd house, she doesn't worry about anything of a financial nature. She lives 50 yards from mum's house and a few miles from grandparents.
Her elder sister has an exact Moon-Pluto in Sagittarius inconjunct Jupiter in 3rd house in Cancer. As an Aquarius Sun+stellium millenium child she is very independent, chose to study, live, and work in the furthest province in the country from her family, but where she has made many friends. She takes advantage of the maternal family wealth (holiday home(s)) but doesn't rely on 'the soft cushion' and makes her own way in life.

Obviously a check was necessary for the other 5 grandchildren from two families. Not a single one has a Sun or Moon linked to Jupiter. They are part of 'normal financially situated' families.

Further e.g.
My Sag Sun in 4th house in Sagittarius husband with Jupiter in 12th house still has regrets (conjunct MEAN BML) that the paternal fortune in houses compensation was lost in favour of a state pension following W.W.2.

Coincidence? Or do signs, planets, and aspects each play a part and tell their own individual story in a horoscope chart?
I know what I believe.

I agree with waybread honestly. You could just be cherry-picking examples here. Natal charts don't tell you everything. Any amount of decent experience in analyzing and interpreting natal charts and comparing them to the individual will show you that there are simply charts that look good but the natives don't seem that successful, and other, somewhat bad charts can be found in successful individuals. The sad truth is that no matter what your natal chart is, your economic context, genetics, sheer luck and other outside factors play an important role. And free will also plays a part here. We are responsible for our own lives. A person could be born with 3-4 planets in rulership in the USA or in Africa and I think it's obvious that both of these individuals aren't gonna get the same outcomes.


I also think the astrologer needs the context of the native to give a more accurate meaning. Heck, you're asking for objectivity in basically the biggest and most subjective kinds of study there is. No one agrees on anything. Astrologers reach different conclusions on identical charts. Astrologers can't even agree on house systems and the zodiac. It's ridiculous.

Astrology just isn't scientific nor accurate enough for a detailed analysis and prediction. I think I even read somewhere here a few years ago that there were some attempts at trying to get astrologers to identify random charts of people with natives based on their interpretation. To see if they could accurately guess what their lives would be without knowing them. And it was a complete failure. Only once they got to know people personally and had some personal data to go off of, could they start accurately identifying their charts.

 

[waybread]

obsidianmineral, I was also thinking about the square aspect in charts like Warren Buffet's (Jupiter square Venus-MC) and with people I know who have done fairly well in life. Especially with older people, we get to see how their lives actually worked out.

I think the square can involve a lot of aggravation and feeling thwarted at every turn, or it can show someone who works extremely hard. I once read that squares are common in the charts of people who are successful in their careers. I imagine it is because they keep pushing themselves.

Then some squares are worse than others, depending upon the planets involved, and whether the squares are involved in a T-square, grand cross, or Thor's hammer, which would up the aggravation factor.

Generally, I think the square is more difficult than the opposition. An opposition can have a third planet ("point of Thales") that sextiles one and trines the other planet in an opposition. I have numerous natal oppositions, and I think they call for balance. On the other hand, a planet that trines or sextiles one planet in a square leaves the other one as an "odd man out."

 

[Oddity]

I think you'll find that Venus in Virgo sextile moon in Scorpio is a very different combination than Venus in Pisces sextile moon in Taurus. Familiar with both of those in charts and they've played out very differently in the natives' lives.

The other stuff matters, too, of course, but I do believe that signs count for quite a bit.

I also think that pop astrology has made signs pretty trivial with their one size fits all in personal traits, but that isn't the same as chart work.

 

[obsidianmineral]

obsidianmineral, I was also thinking about the square aspect in charts like Warren Buffet's (Jupiter square Venus-MC) and with people I know who have done fairly well in life. Especially with older people, we get to see how their lives actually worked out.

I think the square can involve a lot of aggravation and feeling thwarted at every turn, or it can show someone who works extremely hard. I once read that squares are common in the charts of people who are successful in their careers. I imagine it is because they keep pushing themselves.

Then some squares are worse than others, depending upon the planets involved, and whether the squares are involved in a T-square, grand cross, or Thor's hammer, which would up the aggravation factor.

Generally, I think the square is more difficult than the opposition. An opposition can have a third planet ("point of Thales") that sextiles one and trines the other planet in an opposition. I have numerous natal oppositions, and I think they call for balance. On the other hand, a planet that trines or sextiles one planet in a square leaves the other one as an "odd man out."

That is true. I don't know if I'd say squares are more difficult than oppositions. I'd say they are more dynamic and force you more to take action. They push you through conflict but also some of the tools to overcome their difficulties.

 

[Frisiangal]

I agree with waybread honestly. You could just be cherry-picking examples here

Cherry-picking, obmin? Isn't that exactly what Waybread was doing with those charts of only known wealthy individuals?
What astrologer learns and knows every single bough and branch of his/her art to provide the ultimate truth?

I appreciate your personal examples. Because they are anecdotal, it is unclear how far we can take their interpretations.

What beats 'anecdotes', Waybread, if not experienced as examples based on personal chart factors from which one can/is able to learn? Isn't that what astro. symbolism is based upon?? Otherwise, why bother to study it?

Jupiter is the planet of luck, fortune, success, and generosity—a kind and abundant force for good in the universe. Jupiter is expansive, big-thinking, healthy, wealthy, and powerful, an engine of achievement and success.

I copied the above text from the first site shown when googling 'Jupiter meaning'. Should it be taken as only anecdotal when seen in a chart regarding factors of wealth, depending upon where one draws the Saturnal line as to what defines what is and isn't 'being wealthy'?

I think the Trump and Vanderbilt lessons are that a well-positioned Jupiter isn't necessarily trouble-free.

Who or what says it will/won't be?
Yet it does show where 'wealth' is a factor with which the individual is or is not conerned, just as any other planet has its specific meaning in a chart. Your examples of the wealthy all showed major links to Jupiter. What did its position mean to each of them?
That's providing a chart doesn't provide information that Jupiter's position refers to an association with religion, philosophy, culture, philanthropy, benefits, knowledge, health, etc,. that is more pronounced.

My 12th house Jupiter in Leo, ruler Sagittarius on I.C. and square Sun in 9th could be biased. Left home, married a Jupiterian, settled abroad, never to return to home roots, lived without the Jupiter-ruled gall bladder since late 20's. 'Wealth' didn't play any role.
Yet I have often wondered if I would have ventured into the philosophical realm of astrology that has had such a profound effect upon how I view life, had I not answered the call of 'foreign travel' and remained in U.K. Still never wanted to visit Sagittarius-ruled Spain.
But all 'anecdotal'.
Who knows? Jupiter????

Happy New Year to you, too. May age be to our advantage.

 

[waybread]

H,i Frisiangal.

Whoa, are you saying that your anecdotal evidence is OK, but mine isn't? I'm just saying that I don't see Virgo as strongly associated with poverty, although no doubt, a lot of poor people have Virgo strongly placed in their charts. Saturn would be the traditional ruler of poverty.

Jupiter can be the benevolent Santa Claus of the zodiac. But with a difficult aspect like a square, Jupiter can simply lead to excess or over-optimism. Jupiter can be the faith that "something will turn up" even if one puts too many debts on the credit card. I did a small study once of people known for multiple sex partners, ranging from benign polyamory to Jeffrey Epstein. No astrological signature works 100%, but the combination of Mars and Venus (the sexy planets) with Jupiter was common. Jupiter can be the energy of, "if a little is good, a lot is better." Which it isn't always.

Jupiter in the 12th house square sun in the 9th might just be the religious mystic. The 12th house rules hospitals, and I note your expertise in medical astrology. Is there a 6th house aspect, as well?

 

[Frisiangal]

H,i Frisiangal.

Whoa, are you saying that your anecdotal evidence is OK, but mine isn't?

You are applying your personal thoughts into words that have absolutely no bearing on, or convey what I wrote.

I'm just saying that I don't see Virgo as strongly associated with poverty, although no doubt, a lot of poor people have Virgo strongly placed in their charts. Saturn would be the traditional ruler of poverty.

Personal observation of Virgo in many charts (including 'money issues' on this forum alone) led to my comment re: its association in cases where 'INsufficiency' of money is problematic. Yet, let's not forget that Virgo is also the accountant whose life or career is centred around dealing with financial situations. As a mutable sign Virgo has multiple outlets in that direction.
I've never heard of, or applied Saturn as being ruler of poverty. How did you make that association? Hard up, hard times, yes; but poverty ?
Saturn as ruler of Capricorn would see the sign on the Earth temperament along with Taurus AND Virgo, working with them where finances were involved, wouldn't it?

Jupiter in the 12th house square sun in the 9th might just be the religious mystic. The 12th house rules hospitals, and I note your expertise in medical astrology. Is there a 6th house aspect, as well?

A religious mystic???? I've spent my whole life (even as a child) trying to find proof of any celestial existence. Nada; unless it is in some mystical guidance found in astrological symbolism, yet for which I also have no logical explanation. The logic in symbolism is also Virgo, isn't it?
[ I have to admit that 'the angel on the shoulder when needed' makes its presence felt].

No planet in 6th house in Aquarius. Rulerships? For me that depends upon one's views in their individual strengths from Sun or Moon.
I think of the medical astrology as being a result of the combination influence of the exact Chiron-BML in 12th -Virgo Asc. trine Mercury in 9th house and square Uranus-M.C. Uranus trine Neptune generation. No 'hands on' work; just therapeutic through a change in one's (Virgo?) mental application and mindset.

As JUPITERASC wrote:

opinions on importance or otherwise of ZODIAC SIGNS/PLANETS varies
because
astrologers have different opinions based on knowledge/experience

& western astrology is unregulated
- no requirements for qualifications

Even with them, how much do they count for accuracy?

I still believe in a whole chart symbolism reference.

 

[waybread]

Frisiangal, I could also state that you have misrepresented my posts, but where would that get us?

On Saturn as the planetary ruler of poverty, Rex E. Billis, The Rulership Book, American Federation of Astrologers.

Re: Jupiter in the 12th. Why even bother spending your "whole life trying to find proof of any celestial existence"? Most people wouldn't.