Planetary ruler of Astrology

[AquariusT]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

I use three degrees for most first magnitude/famous stars as well.



Hi Aqua, I don't think Regulus has anything to to do with astrology, and I'm not sure why someone would say it does. It's of the natures of Mars and Jupiter, not linked to Mercury (astrology or study) at all, and mostly has to do with military honors and whatnot.

Probably due to Isabel Hickey. And Uranus is Astrology, not mercury.


[Moderator edit: just to add that this thread is an off-shoot of the thread: Regulus, the Regal]

 

[RayAustin]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

Probably due to Isabel Hickey. And Uranus is Astrology, not mercury.

AquariusT .. Mercury has been used in reference to astrologers for hundreds if not thousands of years. It makes sense, since Astrology was once done by hand and mental calculation which requires enormous intelligence that Mercury supplies.

Remember, Uranus has only been known in more modern times; of course they used a different planet to represent it. Mercury foremost, then Jupiter for the more esosteric and studious quality.

 

[aquarius7000]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

Remember, Uranus has only been known in more modern times; of course they used a different planet to represent it.

It's just as you say: "Uranus has only been known in more modern times", however, the planet was not born in more modern times, it has always existed up above, and perhaps also always ruled Astrology for all we know. Only, we did not know about this, as we did not know about the existence of Uranus until about in modern times. So we assigned Astrology to what was known back then. I'm not debating that Mercury does not rule Astrology, but am trying to show why Uranus could equally and logically be the ruler of Astrology. Uranus is the higher intelligence, the higher octave of Mercury, and also known for its connection to intuition, which forms the basis of esoterics.

AQ7

PS: Though the generational planets have only been discovered in more recent times, yet they have always existed up there. Nothing stops to evolve and progress, not even Astrology. Apologies for going off-topic this once, and if posts on this subject continue to come in here, then I'll simply create a new thread.

 

[RayAustin]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

It's just as you say: "Uranus has only been known in more modern times", however, the planet was not born in more modern times, it has always existed up above, and perhaps also always ruled Astrology for all we know.

Aquarius, I'm well aware a planet wasn't born in the last hundreds of years.

I wasn't discounting the fact that Uranus rules it or not. I am a firm believer that Uranus can rule/or co-rule astrology at best, along with Mercury and Jupiter. No where did I say, it doesn't. My point is that Mercury was acknowledged first, and has been far longer.

Ray

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

It's just as you say: "Uranus has only been known in more modern times", however, the planet was not born in more modern times, it has always existed up above, and perhaps also always ruled Astrology for all we know. Only, we did not know about this, as we did not know about the existence of Uranus until about in modern times. So we assigned Astrology to what was known back then. I'm not debating that Mercury does not rule Astrology, but am trying to show why Uranus could equally and logically be the ruler of Astrology. Uranus is the higher intelligence, the higher octave of Mercury, and also known for its connection to intuition, which forms the basis of esoterics.

In my opinion that's a very poor argument especially coming from someone who aligns themselves mostly with the modern camp. Modern astrology which is heavy in the idea of synchronity. By that, I mean, that the fact that Uranus wasn't around or known about until way after the fact, after a lot of astrological signification was assigned and Mercury had fully taken hold of astrology is significant. The Outers not being there to get Signs of rulership with everyone else should also be significant following the theory of signification, but that's different.

Uranus's connection to intuition? Wow, thought that was Neptune and I'm not sure what intuition has to do with the study of astrology either.

Also, I see no good similarities of Uranus to rule astrology or anything linked to it. The studies of Mercury and the philosophy of Jupiter do it great justice.

Anyway, to segey this back on topic, Regulus isn't attributed to Mercury or Uranus, and fails as a studious star, so couldn't be traced back to astrology, so that angelfire site is mistaken and I wonder who their source is, if they have one. However, if you wanted to look for a possibly astrological star, Spica is a good one. Mercury and Venus nature, is beneficial to the scholarly and artistic alike.

 

[RayAustin]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

The star Acrux is an astrological fixed star, and is of the nature of Jupiter. I have Mercury conjunct it in my natal, which is most likely a very good thing for any astrological pursuits.

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

The star Acrux is an astrological fixed star, and is of the nature of Jupiter. I have Mercury conjunct it in my natal, which is most likely a very good thing for any astrological pursuits.

Now, now Ray. Were you born below 29° latitude?

 

[aquarius7000]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

My point is that Mercury was acknowledged first, and has been far longer.

It's like you say, it was acknowledged first, and again, it's like I said that was because it was known to our human eye and mind back then, and not Uranus. Had Uranus been known back then also, it could have perhaps been the sole and not co-ruler of Astrology for all you know.


AQ7

PS: What we all must really avoid doing is (and this is not directed at you, Ray) is to stop thrusting traditional or modern Astrology methods down someone's throat and to stop using unplesant adjectives to comment on somebody's understanding/belief when it comes to Astrology, just because someone is not giving into blindly following traditional Astrology. Tolerance is the key word to this science and to progress at all.

 

[RayAustin]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

I think, (and what happens often on this forum) is we shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions about what a person is saying, unless they're flat out wrong. And lesser so at making what they know a label... I don't call myself a traditional astrologer, nor what I study/practice as the opinions of only traditional astrology, or a traditional astrologer.

But I'm not going to just flush what has worked longer exponentially than what is working now down the toilet, which is why I give more credence to the Mercury/Jupiter rulership, if not for also respect for the authorities.

Ray

 

[AquariusT]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

AquariusT .. Mercury has been used in reference to astrologers for hundreds if not thousands of years. It makes sense, since Astrology was once done by hand and mental calculation which requires enormous intelligence that Mercury supplies.

Remember, Uranus has only been known in more modern times; of course they used a different planet to represent it. Mercury foremost, then Jupiter for the more esosteric and studious quality.

The study of Astrology may be Mercury, but Uranus rules Astrology.

 

[RayAustin]

Re: REGULUS, the Regal

The study of Astrology may be Mercury, but Uranus rules Astrology.

Aquarius T, saying something over and over again without backing up proves nothing. If you backed it up such as Aquarius did, you might actually have an argument.

 

[AquariusT]

Aquarius T, saying something over and over again without backing up proves nothing. If you backed it up such as Aquarius did, you might actually have an argument.

Actually any professionally taught Astrologer, student of Modern Astrology, knows this already. I have no need to prove/argue my point, this is not a just a learning forum, is it? But I will mention that I was told/taught this by my mentor Expert Astrologer Barbara Lopez of NY, who was taught this in person by many Famous Astrolgers, first hand well 40 years ago. She attended lectures, seminars and traveled the world to hear astrologers speak, and to learn. I am grateful for her knowledge and for her teaching it all to me.

Modern Astrology was assigned Uranus as it's ruler since the discovery of Uranus.

A google search of Uranus Rules Astrolgy would bring up many websites that agree.

 

[waybread]

As has been noted above, Mercury is the traditional ruler of astrology, and Uranus is the modern ruler of astrology.

The reason for Uranus has to do the mythological status of the god Uranus (Ouranos in Greek). He was the god of the starry heavens and mate of Gaia, the earth: his name basically means "heavens"/heavenly.

Seems appropriate for astrology!

 

[natasa812]

If the study of astrology is ruled by Mercury it means that Mercury rules the study of astrology. Mercury is M and rules the S of A.
Astrology is ruled by Uranus, so Uranus rules astrology. Uranus is U and anstrology is A.
So, M rules the S of A.
U rules A. A is under rulership of U.
So, we have M that rules the S of U.


Or, Mercury rules the study of astrology and astrology is ruled by Uranus, so Uranus is ruled by Mercury - and this is logical.
Logicaly, Uranus rules the subject, but Mercury the whole issue - and the study and the astrology...
Because, I don`t think that Uranus has the ability to expres any briliant idea. It is clearly Mercury who does it... You can not keep the idea or knowledge for yourself...Astrology is based on interpretation, mathematics, communication and words... Uranus could bring the idea...only.

 

[astro.teacher]

I do love Astrological debate with regards to this subject. Astrology, the field and study of which has always been related to Mercury (with its philosophical, religious and poetical works ascribed to Jupiter) as stated by the other members of this forum. The classical and traditional authors all agree that Astrology is ruled by Mercury, these people were not only practicing Astrologers but also "scientists" in their time. There works have come through years of studies and observations. While it is true some authors choose to quote verbatim with little or no study, it certainly true that in order to achieve accurate results, you need accurate tests. These tests have been performed and have shown positive results (if not Astrology would have been ascribed to another Planet).

Now with the case of Uranus, these centuries of study and observations have not been performed. Sure we can read in books that Astrology is ruled by Uranus but not because an Astrology has tested it, looked in every chart and made years upon years of study. No what we see is people quoting the significations of Uranus being this and that, but failing to show any reasoning behind why Uranus rules Astrology.

Alright I admit i hear often of the significations of Uranus, but what are these? Are they taken from Mythology (as some have stated here)? If they are, why was Uranus named Uranus? It certainly was not named that name by an Astro-Philosopher (as the Ancient Planets were). So why is the mythological status of Uranus ascribed to the Planet Uranus? Be careful not to fall into this (very easy) trap. When I see the data, case studies and all the other information (as should be provided by the first person who claimed Uranus ruled Astrology (or anything else for that matter)), I have to go with the wisdom of the ages as precedent. If you believe Uranus rules Astrology, we will need some unquestionable scientific (style) data showing a correlation between them, which I admit, is not an easy thing to do.

 

[RayAustin]

"Because your teacher said so"... really isn't an argument. In general (and not only talking to you), still there is no philosophical, real substance to the method of using Uranus other than "because my teacher told me". What surprises me is the apparent disregard for the tried-and-true methods of the ancients who were, undoubtedly, smarter than the "famous" (and famous doesn't mean knowledgable) astrologers today. It's either that excuse or the "higher octave" excuse. Says who?

I like the outers, they give more flavors, but I don't think they were ever meant to replace rulerships, since they were never needed before and astrology worked quite fine without them, if not better.

R

 

[lillyjgc]

Hi,
I think its important to understand that until the 1930's the only kind of astrology that was practised was based on the Traditional methods.An astrologer named Alan Leo is largely responsible for the popularising of astrology, by according sun signs more important meanings than had previously been the case.This theme was picked up on by Linda Goodman in the 60's-70's when astrology experienced a *new age *resurgence.
You could say that Alan Leo single-handedly introduced the concept of modern astrology and many since him have added to it.

Personally I don't see how one person should automatically be allowed to *rewrite the books* on astrology.
Traditional astrology requires a far more in-depth approach-a lot more actual knowledge is required to interpret a chart using traditional methods.
The modern trend seems to be *forget everything before 1930*.
Reassigning planetary rulerships has no foundation in any research or practice.There's no foundation for so called *modern astrology* as there has been for Traditional.
Changing house rulerships and sign rulerships has no sound basis.
Of course I *include* the outers-they are there (!) and had they been known of in William Lilly's day, he may well have used them too. (we will never know), but when modern astrologers pooh pooh the ancient methods whilst having no knowledge or real understanding of them, traditional astrologers have a sound basis for disagreement. We see it here all the time.
I don't think *less* of modern astrologers, but I do feel everyone would benefit more by first studying the basic foundations, traditional, and then making a fully informed choice, based on facts not on popular *opinions*, which the internet is largely responsible for promoting.
If Traditional astrologers on AW seem to be critical of modern methods, it could be because the modern house rulerships and ruling outer planets don't really make sense in terms of understanding *temperament* of signs, the reason for the assignation of rulerships etc.
It is important to tolerate different opinions but when for example, people try to read horary charts using modern rulers, it doesnt actually work.
Students of astrology really do need to have a comprehension of *why* the trads did things as they did.
Cheers,
Lillyjgc

 

[freedomlover]

I can a see point to be argued for all three: Mercury and Jupiter - Traditionally, and Uranus - Modern. However, this is how I would discern the difference:

I see Uranus as representing the Astrologer, and the study of Astrology - as Uranus refers to intuition and the "higher mind". Uranus/Aquarius also rules "genius" - and, regardless of what other may think, Astrology brings out the "genius" in oneself.

However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter. This is because Jupiter rules Sagittarius, and I see Sagittarius as ruling these kinds of energies. Jupiter/Sagittarius also rules faith. When you truly have faith, you are aligned with Divine Will, and thus, with the natural realm- attracting what you desire.

Does this make sense to anyone but me?

Also: liillyjgc wrote:

The modern trend seems to be *forget everything before 1930*.

I wonder if that has anything to do with Pluto. Wasn't Pluto discovered in 1930? Also, if I'm not mistaken, that is when the "I AM" type of teachings came out.

FL

 

[waybread]

Aaron, I have a lot of respect for astrologers who practice traditional astrology. But seldom for the reasons they state, i. e., that the ancients were better scholars or somehow performed accurate tests. Reading Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos today, to cite but one example, does not give me a lot of confidence in his methods or his view of humanity.

Part of the reason is because society has changed so substantially since the major works of traditional astrology were written. We don't live in the world of the classical, medieval, or renaissance astrologers: they would find modernity and post-modernity as we inhabit them bewildering.

As you probably know, there was a debate about the naming of Uranus after it was discovered to be a planet in 1781. The name Uranus did not become the accepted usage among astronomers until the mid-19th century; and some astrologers think it should have been called Prometheus.

If you think about it, it is kind of ironic for either a traditional or modern astrologer to insist upon scientific evidence as supporting their truth-claims. A good recent book on this problem of the lack of solid evidence in astrology is Garry Phillipson, Astrology in the Year Zero. The Gauquelins' "Mars effect" may still hold, but little else from either "camp".

The ancient astrologers were by no means scientists as that term is understood today in any university or government research lab. Some literally believed that the planets were gods. Others believed that the namesake gods controlled their planets. Hard to see those views in effect today.

Books on Uranus by modern astrologers include Joy Michaud, The Uranus-Neptune Influence, Joan Negus, The Book of Uranus, Richard Tarnas, Prometheus the Awakener, and Jeff Green, Uranus: The Freedom from the known. A classic by someone who did a lot of research is Reinhold Ebertin, The Combination of Stellar Influences.

BTW, any "moderns" out there might be interested in locating asteroid Urania in your charts. Mythological Urania was the muse of astrology.

 

[Kaiousei no Senshi]

I see Uranus as representing the Astrologer, and the study of Astrology - as Uranus refers to intuition and the "higher mind". Uranus/Aquarius also rules "genius" - and, regardless of what other may think, Astrology brings out the "genius" in oneself.

However, for the way Astrology works - for Astrology itself - the magnetism of energies that cause it to work ----- that, I would assign to Jupiter. This is because Jupiter rules Sagittarius, and I see Sagittarius as ruling these kinds of energies. Jupiter/Sagittarius also rules faith. When you truly have faith, you are aligned with Divine Will, and thus, with the natural realm- attracting what you desire.

Does this make sense to anyone but me?

Yes and no. I don't see it written anywhere else where the study and the student are separated by two separate significators. The art and artist are Venus, the war and warrior are Mars, the religion and priest are Jupiter, etc, etc, etc.

I wonder if that has anything to do with Pluto. Wasn't Pluto discovered in 1930? Also, if I'm not mistaken, that is when the "I AM" type of teachings came out.

I doubt it, Lilly's date was sort of generalized. Leo started writing in his The Astrologer's Magazine in 1889.

The ancient astrologers were by no means scientists as that term is understood today in any university or government research lab. Some literally believed that the planets were gods. Others believed that the namesake gods controlled their planets. Hard to see those views in effect today.

Now that's not very fair. That's just how they rationalized how astrology worked, through the idea that the gods controlled them and they controlled us, I don't see modern astrology offering any better ideas as to why it works, either. Today's scientists have better tools available to them, the ancients only had their eyes and minds and saying that they "weren't scientists" is sort of an insult considering all they did and set up. You know, modern medicine, astronomy, mathematics...everything.