2
4 planets in zero degrees today:
Chiron (I Know not really a planet)
mars
jupiter and uranus
What does it mean when so many planets are at the same degrees? Also, zero degrees?
Would love to hear your comments.


Hi Debbie,

A lot to discuss there. I will just pick up one theme if I may.

Many astrologers have a particular focus on planets in the first degree ie 0 degree of a cardinal sign as Jupiter and Uranus are now. This idea is generally called the 'Aries point'. It was first developed in Germany amongst Uranian astrologers in the early twentieth century and is very popular today amongst many modern astrologers such as Noel Tyl and Celeste Teal.

In the Uranian system, the Aries Point, or AP, links to zero degrees of all the cardinal signs (as seen on a 90 degree dial). Every chart?natal, progressed or horary?has the AP at exactly the same zero degrees, yet each chart will be unique as far as the house placement of this degree and the planets and other points that relate to it. Think of the AP as a 0 degree cardinal cross involving Aries, Cancer, Libra and Capricorn.

The point is seen as a particularly powerful degree for a planet to express its energy. A planet in the first or last degree of a sign is undergoing transition. Either the crisis at the end of a process (death) or the 'birth' in a new sign. The first degree could be seen as a very extrovert, yang place for a planet where its energies are more likely to manifest openly. Thus Celeste Teal states the AP can represent a "spectacular out rush of energies... and involvement with the world at large".

The basis of the Aries Point relates back to the Sun and its ingresses into the cardinal signs. The spring and Autumn equinoxes for example represent the times when the Sun crosses the equatorial plain going north or south. At these times the Sun is in 0 degrees Aries or Libra in terms of its declination. Equally, the Winter and Sumer solstices represent the Suns points of maximum or minimum declination when the Sun is at 0 Cancer or Capricorn.

In traditional astrology these Ingresses of the Sun into the cardinal signs: Aries, Cancer, Libra, or Capricorn were seen as especially important times and charts were cast for cities and countries at these points. Indeed if you pop over to the mundane forum you will see we still do it today!

Some modern astrologers suggest the Aries point should be seen as a kind of Sun/earth node, as opposed to the Lunar nodes which involve the Sun/earth/Moon.

More, practically, we need to always keep in mind the influence of any planet is altered by its sign, house or aspectual relationships.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

7
My understanding is that they aren't destructive but weakened, and that applies specifically to the last degree (29?). Maybe we could even say they're kind of distracted ? such a planet is in transition and has its mind on the sign coming up. If the idea of a planet with a distracted mind doesn't appeal to you just think of the planet as being in a neither-here-nor-there transition zone.

It seems to me there's something about a planet having influence in the degree it occupies, the degree ahead and the degree behind. If the planet is at 29? of a sign its influence is spread over two signs.

8
My understanding is that they aren't destructive but weakened, and that applies specifically to the last degree (29?). Maybe we could even say they're kind of distracted ? such a planet is in transition and has its mind on the sign coming up. If the idea of a planet with a distracted mind doesn't appeal to you just think of the planet as being in a neither-here-nor-there transition zone.

It seems to me there's something about a planet having influence in the degree it occupies, the degree ahead and the degree behind. If the planet is at 29? of a sign its influence is spread over two signs.
Hi Kirk,

Weakened and destructive are not necessarily different. In regards the malefics Saturn and Mars their weakening through lacking essential dignity or planetary phase increases their naturally destructive potential. That combined with strong accidental dignity (such as being angular) makes them real nasties. However, even natural benefics can operate destructively if they are debilitated or weakened in terms of essential dignity and planetary phase.

There is certainly a traditional medieval idea that planets late in sign are weakened. I suspect there are two reasons for this. Firstly, as Margherita mentioned they are within the terms/bounds of either Saturn or Mars. I think a second reason was that from a whole sign perspective planets in late degrees were often void of course. Hence Bonatti in his considerations before judgement highlights a chart where the Moon is in late degrees of a sign. I personally use Lilly's method of considering moeity orbs across the sign boundary so for me the crucial question is whether a planet in late degrees is applying by orb to another planet. Like everything it depends on context. An applying trine to Jupiter is very different to an opposition to Saturn.

Your idea of the 29th degree being especially a transition zone is interesting. In horary an angle late is sign ( last 3 degrees) is usually assessed as meaning the matter is too late to delineate. However, a fast moving planet late in sign can indicate a positive imminent change. For example if the Moon is moving from Scorpio to Sagittarius or Gemini to Cancer.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

9
Last degrees of a sign are always Saturn or Mars terms.
True, but then we may also argue that Mars or Saturn would be essentially dignified when in one of their terms at the end of a particular sign, which offers a certain amount of restraint to their maleficence.

Goran

10
True, but then we may also argue that Mars or Saturn would be essentially dignified when in one of their terms at the end of a particular sign, which offers a certain amount of restraint to their maleficence
.

I agree. We are discussing planets in late degrees in generalities. Once you get down to specifics there are lots of caveats.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

11
I think a lot of the discussion of 0 and 29 degrees in modern astrology relates to the idea of 'critical degress'. You also see the 29th degree described as the 'anaretic degree' by some modern astrologers.

Here is an old thread on critical degrees where I put in quite of bit of effort to identify the modern origin of the idea. The greatest modern influence was probably Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson in her book on horary but as I suggest we can trace roots of her idea in the tropical lunar mansions. Going further back Manilius seems to suggest both the 0 and 29th degree of signs are unfortunate degrees in most instances. Contrary to the modern view I cited at the beginning of thread that planets entering signs are strong the older sources imply a vulnerability. Rather like new born babies I suppose. :D

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=15
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

12
Weakened and destructive are not necessarily different. In regards the malefics Saturn and Mars their weakening through lacking essential dignity or planetary phase increases their naturally destructive potential.
But you are working with a weakened planet. You are going beyond a simple statement about the condition of the planet. Weakened can lead to destructive concerning the malefics, but I think it's misleading to imply that they will become destructive, that the last degree, in this case, makes for a destructive malefic. The mistaken question in this thread ?are they so destructive as traditional astrologers says?? shows the importance of starting with the categorical 'weakened' and pausing there while looking around for other indications of destructiveness. The planet is weakened; it may become destructive.

I first came across the 3 degree idea here. I'm asking myself if it was possibly Steven who mentioned it a few months ago. I later came across an old source that gave it. Was it Ibn Ezra or Bonatti? Oh darn, I have too much precariously stacked on my mind shelves.

However, I don't think we should include being in the last degree with lacking essential dignity. Essential dignity is more a matter of a planet being able to be itself and express its nature. If there indeed is something to this last degree thing, then it would most likely seem to be a matter of simple weakness, ineffectiveness and lack of focus in whatever it happens to be doing.