Now that pluto is no longer considered...

a planet, is it still considered ruler of scorpio?

 

Pluto is in fact still considered a planet... as well as many others that were previously not considered to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_redefinition_of_planet

http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html

 

its now classified as a dwarf planet.....so yeah its still a planet ......a lesser subclass tho...

i hear they are considering classifing it a just a orbiting ice cube....so that may affect .....

 

ofcourse

 

I follow classical astrology, so I ignore Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, so it's not an issue for me.

Classically Scorpio is ruled by Mars.

 

do you consider the influence these have in your chart??



yes they are generational blah blah blah
but do you consider their house placements, or aspects like a conjunction
example moon conjunct neptune, you could not ignore this!!

just curious.

peace

 

God Bless Pluto, out Home Sweet Home....atriot:


The Greatest Planet in the Solar System....:saucer:

 

No I don't and here's why:

1. In classical astrology, the logic of using planets is based on what you could see and what you couldn't. Planets held essential dignities and debilities based on several factors, but one was whether the planet appeared dark or bright. Thus since you can't see the outer planets without a telescope, it is difficult to tell whether they are dark or bright. Yes I know we don't usually even actually look at the sky when doing a chart, but I don't believe that anyone has actually gone that far as to what makes an outer planet dignified or not. Which brings me to...

2. The ancient system of essential dignities and accidental dignities doesn't work with the outer planets quite simply because no one has figured it out. In other words, modern astrologers gave atributes of the outer planets, but in the original system, there was a complicated array of dignities which many astrologers ignore now anyway.

3. Just who gave the attributes to the outer planets anyway? I know the original set is based on many many generations of observation and record keeping, and frankly we just aren't there yet. Besides the atributes that are given to the outer planets can still be applied to the original 7 without much imagination. I feel better trusting thousands of years of observation rather than just trust a book some astrologer wrote 70 years ago saying Pluto represents "xyz". What most astrologers practice today is much different than what astrologers practiced prior to the 18th century. Since astrology was pretty much stable for at least 2500 yeasrs before that with very few changes (the Greeks added a lot), I would rather trust the ancient sources than modern. So again, who says Pluto, Neptune, and Uranus represent anything at all?

4. That said, some modern practitioners of classical astrology still use the outer planets but don't give them any essential dignity whatsoever, so they do the charts in the old way, and then add the new planets on top of it. Most are kind of wary about the outer planets, so they are mostly noting the postitions and looking for patters. I don't think the outer planets, if ever, will be that useful for a long time.

 

Hey DQ Veg

How can i put an image like attahced image down there like the Pluto picture
you attached

 

you copy the image address from a page by rightclicking your mouse. on a mac control click. you paste this address in the picture option in advanced post. this adds the necessary [img/] to be able view it on this page

if you just copy and paste the address directly only the address will show up in your post and not the image itself

 

We certainly reject the idea of having Scorpios back to Mars, no way.



Well, only scorpio women are allowed. (on propation of course).

 

See the thing is that in modern astrology, most astrologers tend to think that a planet's ruling sign and the planet itself have the same symbology, but in classical (pre 18th century) astrology it was quite different.

Classical astrology used the essential dignities system. This represented how powerful a planet was in a particular sign. So, in the case of Scorpio, you had the following scenario according to Ptolemy:

The Ruler is Mars
In Scorpio's case there was no exaltation
The day and night triplicity ruler is Mars (some signs had different day and night rulers)
The rulers for the terms were in this order - Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, and Saturn
The decans or faces were in this order: Mars, Sun, Venus
The detriment was Venus
The fall was the Moon

So the way they would figure this out was, for instance, if you asked if you needed to worry about enemies and the 12th house was ruled by Scorpio (the 12th house represented secret enemies) you looked at what Mars was doing.

Scorpio would tell you that yes there were going to be issues and like a Scorpion they will strike when you don't expect them. Since Scorpio's ruler is Mars, you then look at what Mars is doing.

Let's say Mars in 22 degrees Cancer.

Well 22 degrees Cancer is Venus in Terms, but Mars is dignified by face, and Mars is also the planet that is in fall.

A planet dignified by face isn't very dignified, so I would say that the enemies will be able to strike a blow, but it won't come of anything. Since Mars in fall by nature in that sign, the enemy will be persistent but not terribly effective. I'm simplifying this, but you get the idea.

Plus, you would have to check if Mars is moving fast, slow, direct, or retrograde. Is it in an angular, cadent, or succedent house? Is it occidental or oriental?

Pluto, Uranus, and Neptune have never been part of this system. So frankly by traditional standars, a sign being ruled by Pluto is essentially meaningless.

This is how things have changed in modern astrology. Astrolgers looked at the signs and figured out which planet reminded them most of that sign.

When the newer planets were discovered, it ruined the neat system the ancients set up. First of all each planet ruled two signs except the Sun and Moon.

There was also an order the planets fell in, and this order was used to determine natural house ruler. Saturn ruled 1&8, Jupiter 2&9, Mars 3&10, Sun 4&11, Venus 5&12, Mercury 6, Moon 7. That was the planet order by the way.

Some modern classical astrologers use the new planets to add another layer of interpretation over the classical system. So in other words they do the chart in the classical way but then see what Pluto for instance is doing. I don't have a problem with that, but since I reverted back to the original seven I don't miss the 3 new planets at all. In fact the charts work out just fine.

 

Thank you mr. Enlil6 for that precious reply.

But as Bush said: are you with me or with the scorpios, i mean shall we allow them back to our planet Mars or not ?

I suggest: the femals only can return, and they should live with us in the light side of Mars, what do you say ?

Respect to you fellow Aries. see you.

 

I'm not one to disagree with Bush!

Ok you can hit me now...

Anyhoo,

When people say things like "My sign CAN'T be such and such a planet because that does't FEEL right."

All I can really say to that is that astrology was relatively set, as far as essential dignities and rulerships were concerened, from at least the Classical period to the 18th century.

And now when people say that things are different now, I just can't buy it. For me astrology isn't about opinion and feelings, but about a coherent system that was pretty much the same for at least 2000 years.

So today essential and accidental dignities is almost gone, planetary sect, Lunar mansions, horory astrology (which depends on dignities very heavily), and quite a large chuck of the old predicitve techniques.

Now astrology is considered a psychological tool, which is fine if you like that, but there used to be more to it that today.

This is why I ignore Uranus, Pluto, and Neptune.

Who came up with the rulerships?
How were the rulerships determined?
Who determined certain attributes would be removed from the original 7 planets and given to the new ones?

I had a 2 or 3 hour conversation with an astrologer who has been doing it for about 20 years. She told me that modern astrology has ADDED things to astrology not removed.

When I started talking about what I said above, she had no answer.

So, from where I stand, if you want to learn astrology, do you listen to opinions and writing of modern astrologers, or do you listen to older ones who based their writings on established systems that lasted for millenia?

Oh and understand Subgoin, this isn't directed at you personally. Obviously this has been on my mind a lot lately.

 

okay but you are refering to soley western astrology, you have not accounted for the thousands of years it has been followed by countless civilizations and cultures...western astrology is but one.

astrology has undergone much change, ofcourse, how can you be so sure that this classical atrology youre following from the 18th century is set in stone....

how can you account for the myths..posieden, hades, uranus was the god of the sky or something, the world we live in today gauges things by what they can see. the material, the tangible.... this has not always been so, even cultures today are based and intellectualized around the unseen, the spirit world etc etc. ..... they did not have to see a planet in the sky to apply an archetype.

i would not advise that you eliminate these planets astroids etc from your chart..or interpretation...you will be depriving yourself. ofcourse this is my humble opinion....i would like to consider everything in my chart, and how it might abstractly correlate to things in my life. there are thousands of astroids designating one thing, while the "planets" cover a much more wide range.....a planet making a trine to arachne or something should not be ignored. pluto in the 4th house should not be ignored.

So, from where I stand, if you want to learn astrology, do you listen to opinions and writing of modern astrologers, or do you listen to older ones who based their writings on established systems that lasted for millenia?

- listen to yourself. if you still feel this way then so be it. im just ranting over here.

 

Ranting if fine! I do it all the time!

Actually what I am following is not from the 18th century. Here are some major sources I am using:

Ptolemy from 2nd Century
Dortheus 1st Century
Al-Biruni 11th Century
Julius Maternicus 4th Century
William Lilly mid 17th Century

So yes the myths are part of it!

The Greeks are really the ones that developed astrology into the form we know today. Of course the Mesopotamians developed it, but it seems like they didn't use houses or elements. Their system was based on which planet was in which sign and was it strong or weak, direct or retrograde, slow or fast.

The Greeks fleshed it out, with essential dignities, accidental dignities, the elements, houses, and aspects. The Arabs took control of astrology in the Christian period and added the Arabian parts and Lunar mansions. The Lunar mansions seem to be borrowed from the Vedic.

Things stayed this way until the late 18th century. By this time there were very few astrologers left and the art seemed to be almost dead. A few astrologers resurrected it, but they did not understand the dignity system, so it was mostly dropped except for the ruling planet and detrimental planet.

Alan Leo believed that the only way astrology can survive is by making it a psychologial tool and remove all "superstitious" elements - i.e. predictive arts. This is the astrology we have today.

In ancient texts, the virtues of the planets are based on light. It is based on what light is hitting the Earth at that time. So, they used the planets they could see and the stars they could see. So in the end it's all light.

If you want to take this further, what about stars that we can only see by telescope? Why stop in our solar system? What about all of the moons in our system?

So in the end I am staying with the system that worked for thousands of years - not the one people have been using for 200 years.

Oh and yes I am speaking of Western astrology. That is my specialty - not Vedic or Chinese, so I really have no opinion on those. Actually from what I have seen though, Vedic isn't terribly different than classical astrology in the west. I'm sure there is a correlation.

 

Nice to see a Loyal & very understanding person. Also very knoweldgable.

But i did not say i do not like any of my chart ! just joking.

see you

 

thanks for replying, i enjoyed the post

 

That's right your OUT home sweet home - ha ha ha ha ha

See very first line. "Truth will always prevail" <---- some naked man over some mountain said that wisdom.