Can the Sun be unimportant?

1
Hi everybody.

I used to practise astrology in a psychological way but was never quiet satisfied with the results (often too wishy washy). Two years ago I started with horary astrology and a couple of month ago I started with the DMA-Course of Robert Zoller. In addition I read literature of traditional astrology e.g. Ptolemy, Al-Biruni, Ibn-Ezra, Morin.

Now, R. Zoller teaches that only planets that have one of the five dignities in the AC degree, aspect the AC or can be found in the first house belong to the person and his character/wit/predisposition. If for example the Sun does not fulfill one of these conditions he cannot be a part of the personality ? and this idea nearly brings me to the verge of despair. As a psychological astrologer I took for granted that the Sun was a important part of the personality/character (if not the most important).
The same applies to the Moon ? where are my emotional and security needs, what is about my imagination/phantasies, my feelings. Where have all this gone when the Moon isn`t part of myself but represents e.g. my friends, my tenants, my partner or my pets because she is positioned in one of the houses which belong to these topics?

And here is my question: how do you handle the interpretation of the Sun, of the Moon and the other planets? Did you have or still have the same problems as me ? and how did you solve them?

I deeply would appreciate your help. Thank you.

Jogi

Leo's Sun Signs

2
Hi, Jogi

I know exactly what you mean about psychological astrology. I felt the same way. I would come up with so many contradictory statements about my own personality. I always felt like saying, "Sure, I'm like that, but can't you help me figure out 'When?' Because I can't be all those things at once. . . "

I think you are going in the right direction with Zoller. I was graduated from his CMA class. Traditionally, yes, you will have to let go of your Sun-centricity unless the Sun has some importance to your Ascendant.

The Sun likes to be the center. The appropriately named Leo was the modern astrologer who taught the importance of the Sun sign to the near exclusion of all other planets. But when I looked into my ascendant more closely, I found it fit my personality in many ways more than my Sun sign ever has.

My Sun (on my nativity, not horary, which is case-by-case) now represents either my father to me, or the ruler of my third and fourth houses. My Moon represents my mother, or my second house, which she rules.

If you keep struggling with this over time, you may want to give some thought to looking at horary astrology just to loosen up your associations of Sun and personality. In each horary question, you will find your ascendant tends to fall on a new sign, which indicates not only your person, but your mind at the time you ask the question, and the question itself. This constantly-changing concept of ascendant is in some ways more realistic than modern astrology, which presents us as a monolith of some sort. (Remember, natal astrology reflects the moment of your birth, not your entire life. There are other techniques we can extend using the radical natal chart to learn about your later life.) Horary also helps us identify factors outside of personality--outside forces that act in ways that astrology can help us predict.

You will find that Zoller's natal techniques allow for a Lord of the Year, which, using the technique of profection, changes from one year to the next. So although I was born with Gemini Rising, I am currently in a year ruled by Venus and I can see how she bears a special importance in this year of my life. This technique helps me answer the question, "When?", and brings some order to the chaos of modern "psychological" interpretation of my natal chart.

With Zoller, you also need to examine your attitudes toward fate and prediction. Modern astrology shudders at these archaic concepts, but traditional astrology embraces them and, in fact, holds no promise without them.

I wish you all the best in your new understanding of astrology!

Best regards,

Pam
"Id rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance"

3
Hi spirlhelix,

thank you for your detailed response! But there are still some questions left.
But when I looked into my ascendant more closely, I found it fit my personality in many ways more than my Sun sign ever has.
Fortunately in the beginning of my astrology experience I had a good teacher who stressed the overall importance of the AC (I studied with Wolfgang D?bereiner ? maybe you`ve heard of him). But he also stressed the importance of the Sun and the MC.
On the one hand I understand the traditional delineating technique of the AC and I can deal with it but on the other hand the statements of other ancient astrologers in this issue confuse me:

- to interpret the quality of the soul or the character, Ptolemy uses Mercury and the Moon, their signs, aspects and their dispositors. So far so good ? I agree with that (also from a psychological point of view). But if one of them dos not belong to the AC in the above mentioned way, it is not part of the persons character and personality (after Zoller) ? how can I use this planet to describe the persons quality of soul/character like Ptolemy (or Lilly) suggests?

- to stay with the Sun: assuming that he is not part of the AC ? why, at the same time, the Sun is used to describe the Rank of Fame or the Almuten Figuris.
Even Zoller mentions the importance of transits over the Sun. But would this affect the nativity in a personal way then?
And to make it even worse (at least for me): when the same Sun is positioned in the tenth house ? he is used to describe the same persons actions (which in my opinion is a very personal characteristic) even though he is not part of the persons character (because he is not part of the AC)?

- and when the moon (or Mercury or Venus or Mars) is not part of the AC: how do you interpret the natives feelings, his soul and his irrational mind? The same with Mercury: how do you make testimonies about the rational mind, the reasoning and communication ? and how can you tell something about the profession; because Venus, Mercury and Mars are the main professional significators?

- finally by the ancients the Sun is called the ?creater of live?, ?the light of the mind, the organ of perception of the soul? (Valens). Is it really appropriate to omit this planet in a chart delineation because he is not connected with the AC?

I don`t want to try your patience ? but I think to solve these problems is really essential for me and my further studies of traditional astrology.

And to all the other terrific astrologers out there (and I know that you are because I`ve read your posts): how do you personally handle the interpretation of the Sun in particular ? do you treat him always as a characteristic part of the native?

I?m looking forward to your responses.

Jogi

4
Hi, Jogi

Thanks for clarifying all of your questions! I am not primarily a natal astrologer, so I understand you are dealing with character issues with greater depth than I ordinarily go into as a horary astrologer. I am finding this a very interesting discussion.

Traditionally, the components of the personality are no doubt delineated differently than they are in modern psychology. Debates about soul, spirit, mind, and how they are to be distinguished have marked and shifted philosophical boundaries for thousands of years. In order to make use of traditional material, you may have to find your own definitions for these components, or be prepared to look at human existence through the eyes of very ancient philosophies.

As a horary astrologer, one thing I have learned about the Sun is that it indicates, as you noted, life--I don't mean the lifespan or life experience, specifically, but life as opposed to death. Calculations of death on a decumbiture chart are significantly affected by aspects to the Sun. Sun represents vitality, the beating heart, the core of the thing that makes us bodily alive and not dead. In that sense, I look at the Sun with a view to understanding its power--measuring quantity, say, more than its specific quality.

In the modern chart, we expect every planet on the chart to take part in representing some internal personality trait of the native. Traditional astrology challenges this egocentric assertion of the bounds of "personality." One enormous difference between the modern natal chart and the traditional one taught by Zoller is the sheer amount of information on the traditional chart that shows the native's community and the forces outside the native acting upon the native. Of course, the individual has an inherent personal response to these forces that is laid out in the traditional chart as well. In my opinion, traditional natal astrology leaves modern natal astrology in the dust if just for this reason alone.

Do you think by Rank of Fame we mean an inner trait, or an outer one? I may be mistaken, but it seems to indicate recognition by others, which tells me it would be more a life experience than a character trait--particuarly in view of the "fatalism" we predictive astrologers embrace.
In your question about the tenth house and the Sun, perhaps we are talking about those actions of the individual which "come to light of day"--which are recognized and lead to the individual's standing in his own community, either because or in spite of his character. Although "actions speak louder than words," the actions which make us famous and our personality are not necessarily one and the same.

On a spiritual level, as an astrologer you will also need to think about what to make of the "genius" of the native. I would think this would be a fascinating study for a psychologist. In fact, I would think it would be almost more effective for a psychological astrologer to understand the native's genuis than it would be to understand his planets. By "genius" I mean the guiding star that corresponds to the guardian angel who has been assigned to lead the native to his destiny.

Thank you for giving me some food for thought! I wish you well in your further studies. This is a fascinating question.

Best,

Pam
"Id rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance"

5
Is there anybody else who would like to share his/her experience with the delineation of the Sun and the Moon in traditional astrology?
Do you treat Sun and Moon always similar to the psychological approach e.g. as will power, vitality and as feelings and the search for emotional security?

I really would appreciate to hear some more viewpoints that could maybe help me to remove my doubts :? .

Best wishes
Jogi

6
Morinus discusses to a certain extent elements of this teaching in his own practice where he admonishes that a planets testimony is determined by the house it rules (although he pays lip service to natural rulers). And to a certain extent I agree...but not 100% because he ignores totally another element of a planets testimony, that of its strength of testimony which involves several different factors.
Now Steven, that's a bit harsh - not necessarily inaccurate, but harsh. :brows He pays more than lip service to natural rulers, but does not view them in the same way, i.e. they mean the same thing no matter where they are in the chart, as did many of his contemporaries and predecessors. The Moon represents the feminine and he would note that the Moon's natural influence is sent to the Earth to everyone and everything indifferently. The "feminine" includes (but is not limited to) our mothers, our sisters, our wives, etc. But he argues, if a direction, or transit or aspect affects the Moon it is contrary to experience that every female in our lives is affected equally and in the same way by that direction, transit, etc. If for example, the Moon receives a nasty Saturn direction and the mother dies, well why didn't the sister die? Why didn't the wife die? After all the Moon represents them all. To look at the chart and say, "Some woman in your life will die," is not good enough for Morin. He believes the astrology can do more. Whether it can or not is a subject to be explored in depth.

He claims the natural influence is there but that it manifests differently in different houses. If the Moon is in the 7th and experiences the nasty direction cited above, he would expect something to happen to the wife, not the mother or the sister. If the Moon occupied the 10th he would predict something about the mother and not the sister or wife. He's not paying lip service to natural rulerships; he's saying they manifest differently in different houses. The Moon has an analogy with the wife, therefore the Moon in the 7th is going to represent the wife more than anything else.

Let's look briefly at Mars. While Mars may well represent the wife, if it is placed in the 7th and we would expect the wife to have Mars characteristics with such placement in a man's chart. Mars does not have a natural analogy with a wife. Mars has an analogy with the 7th house, however, because Mars represents conflicts - a 7th house issue. So he would predict from a direction to Mars something to do with conflicts, a lawsuit perhaps, a divorce, an attack from an enemy. If he needed to look after his client's wife, he might, in this case, look first to the ruler on the 7th cusp before he looked at Mars.

By the standards of his contemporaries, he does seem to ignore planetary strength in the way that his contemporaries understood that concept (a combination of essential and accidental dignity), but he didn't ignore it outright - at least I don't think he did. But I concede he looked at it differently. That goes elsewhere and he wrote extensively on this topic in Book 13 and Book 18 of Astrologia Gallica.

Thanks for your usual insightful contribution.

Tom

7
The man is insufferable
True, but he's been dead for 350 years. We don't have to suffer his personality as his contemporaries did. On a slightly more serious note, all the older astrologers are subjective, and many are just as arrogant. Read Worsdale lately? I think that's part of the of the fun in reading older texts. Their attitude wouldn't be acceptable today. I find it refreshing. :wink:

Tom

8
Hi Steven,

thank you for your interesting contribution. Before starting with traditional astrology I knew that there will be rather big differences to modern astrology - but I did not expect that it can give me such a hard time understanding particular issues.
I`ll try to cope with this approach and will test it. On the other hand I see the planets as multi-dimensional. I still have the idea that the Sun has something to say about the native in every chart. According to Zoller the Primary Motivation is not negotiable, other desires are - and here I feel that there is mere a shift of emphasis. When the Sun is with the ASC e.g. the desire for recognition is not negotiable, it is a must for the native (with the Sun in H 10 there maybe the desire to be recognised for the profession or ones actions, in H 9 for his/her spiritual endevours or his/her education etc.). When the Sun is not part of the PM the desire for recognition is still there but it is not essential or vital for the native - if he gets it it`s OK but he can still gain happiness without it, he can live a satisfied life without being successful. Also I think that in this case the Sun is more likely to represent other people and outer circumstances in the life of the native. The same for the Moon and the other planets.

Again thanks to Pam and Steven for your support.

J?rgen

9
Hello Jogi,

An interesting question and important one!

Can any planets be unimportant? Can any be important enough to be considered in analysing certain areas in life? Or should we consider using all planets albeit at varying strength and weightings? These are the questions that the ancients might be wondering as well and they came up with many techniques...

Many medieval astrologers say (or at least imply) that the ascendant degree is the point that is only you i.e. a point to be considered as internally the native - other points being external to the native. Hence, to study more of the native (internally), we look into the domicile, exaltation, trip, term and face rulers of the ascendant. If they aspect the ascendant, they tell something and if they don't, they tell a different story (or no story at all!). Any planets not having any dignities in the ascendant but aspecting the ascendant also tell something about the ascendant (the native).

Observe that the above only discusses the ascendant point (and not the lord of ascendant itself). In addition, aspects to the domicile lord of the ascendant (if the lord itself happens to aspect the ascendant) tells us more about the native. [Other astrologers might say that it the domicile lord of the ascendant not just tell us more about the native but something else. For example, Zoller uses the elements of the ascendant to describe the native's prime motivation but the location of the domicile lord of the ascendant to be the area where motivation is manifested and the aspect of the domicile lord to the ascendant as fulfillment of the prime motivation]. If the domicile lord does not aspect the ascendant, then prime motivation could still be fulfilled via other lord(s) of ascendant...

However,...

Observe that Zoller (following Bonatti) jumps straight to the ascendant for the place of the native. The ascendant is the de facto point of the native, so much so that Bonatti uses the three triplicity rulers of the ascendant to describe the three phases of the native's life. But we can clearly read from many arabic astrologers (following probably Dorotheus), that the three phases of life is contemplated from the three triplicity rulers of the main luminary (light in sect - sun by day and moon by night). So, in order to determine the three phases of life, do we refer to the three triplicity rulers of the main luminary (following the Arabs, Dorotheus) or to the three triplicity rulers of the ascendant (following Zoller and Bonatti)? Some modern medieval astrologers decide to use both (like Bernadette Brady) who says (some time ago - maybe she has changed her mind?) that the triplicity rulers of the main luminary governs life itself and the triplicity rulers of the ascendant govern the external environment of the native...

I think we must ask ourselves whether the ascendant is the ascendant? I mean whether the ascendant is really the point of the nativity. Ascendant is horoskopos (in Greek). In Hellenistic as well as Medieval astrology, there are 5 places of life (aka Hylegiacal places) and 4 of these places have the power of horoscopi (i.e. they can also be an ascendant i.e. your personal point of nativity!). Hence, the astrologers who advocated this concept will not automatically assume the ascendant being the only personal point of the native! The 5 hylegiacal places are the big three
1) ascendant
2) the sun and the
3) the moon
plus two other derived points from
4) the sun and moon i.e. the prenatal lunation
5) the sun, moon and ascendant i.e. the part of fortune

The 4 points that have the power of the horoscopi are the big three (ascendant, sun and moon) and also the combination of all 3 of the big three (part of fortune).

Under this scheme, any of the 4 i.e. ascendant/sun/moon/part of fortune might be your "ascendant" - your personal point.

The sun is more outgoing as he gives out light (more energetic), more in control, more voluntary i.e. decision maker, the causes of motion (Valens), the center of the solar system (hence the one who initiates) - all in all more voluntary. Hence, if your "ascendant" is sun or ascendant itself your life is more "solar" - you make your own path in life and the birth chart tells more of what you do with your life.

The moon is more receiving as he receives light from the sun (more receptive), she collects and gathers and then transfers, (hence probably the association of emotions to the moon in modern astrology) - all in all more receptive. Hence, if your "ascendant" is moon or part of fortune your life is more "lunar" - you have a path (or destiny or whatever you like to call it) set for you in life and the birth chart tells more of what with happens to your life.

The ascendant is more "solar" because it is the point where the sun rises.

The part of fortune is more "lunar" because the ancients believe that part of fortune is the "lunar ascendant"...

So, what is your "ascendant" (point of life/nativity)? Is it your ascendant? Or your sun/moon/part of fortune?

There are various methods in determining the "ascendant" (point of life/nativity). Medieval astrologers might look into the Almuten of the 4 points or some other ways... The Hellenistic astrologers might use a series of filtering techniques of find the predominator of the 4 points...

10
Hi astrojin,

You give the impression that it's all pretty much a free-for-all. Since there is already so much variation and variety concerning the crucial ascendant and personal points ? the important deciding factor simply being one's preferences ?we really can't be faulted for changing things around even more to suit our tastes. The ?tradition? apparently doesn't provide the firm grip it is credited with. It does provide us with a lot of circles for repetitive ramblings to nowhere. Ending your post with ? ... ? is revealing. It does all go inconclusively on and on and on ... :(

Jogi,

Were you perhaps just as well off practicing modern psychological astrology? :sg

11
Hi Kirk,

Of course there is a method (quite exact) to deterrmine whether you should use ascendant/sun/moon/Part of Fortune as "ascendant". I simply restrain myself from doing so because people like you will rush in and say, "this is too limiting - astrology should be more open!". And if I leave it open they come in and say "this is so wishy-washy!".

Let me say that the traditional methods/techniques are quite precise. It's just that I don't want to release that technique to ungrateful eyes/ears/...

To Jogi,

If you are interested on how to do this, send me a personal e-mail. I will walk the methods through with you and I assure you that your readings will be much more precise than any modern astrologers can even hope to do!

:sg don't listen to Kirk. You should learn all methods and judge on your own which to use and which to reject but learn all, you must! This is the only way to study a vast subject like astrology.

12
Of course there is a method (quite exact) to deterrmine whether you should use ascendant/sun/moon/Part of Fortune as "ascendant". I simply restrain myself from doing so because people like you will rush in and say, "this is too limiting - astrology should be more open!".
A method? As in one method?:-? When is that ever the case in traditional astrology? Your lengthy post was all about the plethora of methods.

You should learn all methods and judge on your own which to use and which to reject but learn all, you must!
Now wait a minute! First you say people like me will say "this is too limiting - astrology should be more open!", but then you let Jogi pick and choose methods. Talk about double standards! :evil:

:wink: