posted September 15, 2006 04:40 AM            

I've been wanting to ensure some theories I had read over a decade ago are still valid or already out-dated-

First, the "ascending and descending planets" theory:

Sun ascends in Aries, descends in Libra;
Moon ascends in Taurus, descends in Scorpio;
Mercury ascends in Aquarius, descends in Leo;
Venus ascends in Pisces, descends in Virgo;
Mars ascends in Capricorn, descends in Cancer;
Jupiter ascends in Cancer, descends in Capricorn (not sure if recalled incorrectly);
Saturn ascends in Libra, descends in Aries;
Uranus ascends in Scorpio, descends in Taurus (not sure about this one either);
Neptune ascends in Sagittarius, descends in Gemini (not sure about this one either);
Pluto ascends in Leo, descends in Aquarius

Second, I've noticed that ever since I got back here at LL over three months ago, no one has ever talked about the 1st house planet(s) being one's "ruling planet"- exactly what is regarded as the "ruling planet"? I read about the aforementioned ascending and descending planets ideology as well as the one I'm discussing and questioning here- is one's 1st house planet(s) still perceived by contemporary astrologers as one's "ruling planet(s)"? If not, then how would you elaborate the significance of one's 1st house planet(s)? What are the main differences between individuals who have 1st house planets and those who don't have any in their 1st house?
What do people mean when they speak of "ruling planets" these days?

I'd greatly appreciate your input. Thanks in advance.

posted September 15, 2006 11:20 AM              

"Ascending and descending" planets are more commonly called "exaltation" (ascending) and "fall" (descending). Mercury traditionally is exalted in Virgo and in fall in Pisces. However, since Mercury also rules Virgo, some people have decided that Mercury can not be also an exaltation, so they created another sign for Mercury's exaltation. The outer planets (Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto) don't have any traditional exaltation and fall, but some people have decided that they shouldn't be "left out" just because they were not part of the original system...and so created exaltation and fall for them. Since these are not traditional exaltation and fall, there is some disagreement about what sign, if any, is the exaltation and fall for these three planets.

I think you are thinking about "chart ruler", which traditionally is the planet which rules the sign on the cusp (edge) of the first house. For example, if you have Aries on the cusp of the first house, Mars is your chart ruler (since Mars rules Aries). If you have Taurus on the cusp of your first house, Venus is your chart ruler (since Venus rules Taurus). And so on. Personally, I think a person's chart is too complex to depend on one house cusp to determine a "chart ruler"...so I don't use chart rulers in doing astrology.

Explaining,

posted September 16, 2006 12:05 PM            

Thanks for your reply. This is getting me more curious- I'm interested in the theories you mentioned, and where the information you had came from; such as, Mercury rules Virgo and hence is/used to be exalted in Virgo...

However, I thought Mercury was the true ruler of Gemini, and only serves as a temporary one of Virgo's, until its true ruler, Vulcan, to be discovered? So I'd like to know why Virgo was considered "ruled by Mercury" and hence Mercury is exalted in Virgo in the first place. Why Virgo, not Gemini instead?

And I understand that you explained that you personally do not use the chart ruler system because you believe that a person's chart is far more complex than that, with which I agree- but if the chart ruler's definition is what you described...But I do understand that you don't use the chart ruler system, so I'm just asking.

posted September 16, 2006 12:19 PM              

The information about Mercury's exaltation in Virgo are in many different places. Here is a Wikkipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaltation_(astrology)
This is basic ancient astrology. However, as mentioned, some people decided that they didn't like Mercury being both ruler AND exaltation and so they invented a new exaltation for Mercury.

I don't believe in throwing out old rulers just because new ones have come along...or in trying to change the astrological system simply because it seems confusing. Mercury rules two signs: Gemini and Virgo. Even if a new ruler of Gemini or Virgo is discovered, the old ruler, Mercury, will still work. And, instead of waiting for a new ruler for Gemini or Virgo, I am going to use the one that is here right now!

If you are using chart rulers, and Libra modifies your Ascendant, Venus (ruler of Libra) is your chart ruler. Some astrologers would say that this indicates Venus energy is very significant in your chart.

Answering,

posted September 16, 2006 12:23 PM            

I just got your second reply to me right after I had edited my reply to you.

I'm going to log onto the link you provided later on, thanks.

Your theories make sense to me, but I wonder does that mean that, when I think about Aquarius, I should think of both Uranus and Saturn- the latter being its former ruler? And the same with Scorpio and Pisces, which were formerly ruled by Mars and by Jupiter respectively?

I'd appreciate any guidance.

posted September 17, 2006 02:18 AM              

I use the ancient rulers as a way for looking for "reinforcement" in the chart. For example, if a chart has a strong Pluto (rules Scorpio) influence in it AND a strong Mars (used to rule Scorpio) influence...Mars will tend to act in a "Scorpionic" way in the chart.

I suggest as thinking of Aquarius as "Aquarius" not as either Saturn or Uranus...think of the signs as signs not planets. However, if you find a chart with a strong Uranus and a strong Saturn...Saturn will tend to act in an "Aquarian" way in the chart.

To keep from being confused, I would FIRST become VERY familiar with and comfortable with modern sign rulers before attempting to use ancient sign rulers.

Modernly,

posted September 21, 2006 08:05 AM            

I'll log onto the web link you provided about Mercury and Virgo when time allows. Thanks.

posted December 15, 2006 06:37 AM            

However, I'm just posting to add that, in my opinion, I don't see anything so bad in Libra sun- despite the conventional theory saying the sun falls in Libra. I personally think there are a whole lot about this sign for myself to learn, and there are plenty of successful sun sign Librans, who have made outstanding contribution to humankind- so I don't see why it should be viewed as the opposite of "full of life" (in spite of my previous preconceptions on Libra, I hadn't thought about it that way).

posted December 15, 2006 06:46 AM            

In relation to the sun the reason why it is considered to be in fall in libra is because of this simple pattern:

Leo - Me
Aries - I
Aqu - We
Libra - You

The sun is about self and ego and libra considers the other person or side (eg for example in arguing points) and this contradicts the basic nature of the sun which is to look after oneself and not to consider others.

posted January 06, 2007 02:46 AM            

Many thanks- your insight was indeed helpful.