ESSENTIAL DIGNITY PART 2
Another point that is often argued, in the disrupting of the principles of essential dignity and debility, concerns the planets discovered beyond the orbit of Saturn.
The events of their discovery have been believed by many modern (and ironically dated) astrologers, to throw the ancient tradition of dual rulership, therefore the process of essential dignity and debility, into complete disarray (not to mention also capturing the naivety of sceptics).
As a transpersonal planet becomes declared the modern ‘lord’ of one sign, note the loss of the important dual awareness. Therefore it is suggested that it is a mistake to fulfil the compulsion to ‘have to’ fit the new planets into the model of dignity that was already existent. This appears to dishonour the astrological heritage of the Art, in addition to not honouring these ‘new’ planets for what they may be in their own astrological right.
These three contemporary astrological archetypes, which do offer a progression of symbolic skill and such like, are seen to be ‘stuffed’ back into a model that requires no such addition, rather than applied as the obvious enhancements that they are.
It seems that these outer celestial
bodies may have a further philosophical and figurative understanding that is
calling for reconsideration. For
instance, even an ‘outer’ astrological archetype may have its own essentially
‘yin’ or ‘yang’ form of basic expression, as the principle of duality may
attest. It is not that the transpersonal planets
are ineffective, or ‘wrong’, in their functions as astrological chart
It is just that they are apparently displaced in their use, when said to ‘rule’ any sign, as it is a different relationship to the signs that is inferred. If anything, it comes down to semantic points, which seems to belie the point of a deeper philosophic regard that truly requires the consideration.
Perhaps it is that the trans-Saturnian bodies have what may be called an ‘affinity, or ‘resonance’ with a sign, or classes of signs, however this is not necessarily via the model concerning the traditional planets and the same philosophic mechanisms of essential dignity.
To date in natal astrology, Uranus has
been declared to ‘rule’ Aquarius and its original lord, Saturn, becomes
‘co-ruler’, or even moot and therefore the Aquarian symbolism (sign) becomes
eventually considered as ‘Uranian’(planet). Popular astrological press, of the early times of modern history
appears to have assigned Uranus to the sign of Aquarius, simply as this is the
‘second’ of the Saturn-ruled signs and Uranus is the first body beyond the orbit
Although superficially logical line of reasoning, this was done prior to any consensus of understanding as to this planets astrological nature and as noted, the sign becomes as the ‘new’ planet. The same logic then unfolds, backward in order of orbit, into
The same outer planets have also been
‘assigned’ a variety of other domiciles, exaltations, falls, detriments, for a
plethora of creative reasoning. It
appears that, in the over-eagerness and focus of the esoteric zeitgeist of the
times that unfolded, some degree of historical ignorance
and loss of metaphysical nous has become a form of mystical creative bliss. Thus it is
astrology in itself that suffers, in the timbre of its elegance and integrity,
appearing to become more glamorized, stereotyped, or ‘brassy’ in its tone of
It cannot be stressed enough---these ‘rulerships’ were assigned after the concept of rulership had been largely lost. Thus again, the suggestion is made for a philosophical/symbolic re-visioning, in terms of this rulership debate, in the astrological approach.
The traditional system of dual
astrological rulership honours the basic esoteric awareness of complementary and
dual principles, as the faces of the One.
Thus the energies of the masculine and the feminine, within the zodiacal
and the planetary models, may get evenly addressed and symbolically
expressed. The ancient
astrologers, alchemists and magical philosophers were always aware of the
principle of the masculine and feminine, plus the symbolic creativity of their
Here the lights, as the most important and primary of the celestial components, are each assigned, to only one very masculine (hot/dry Leo) and one very feminine (cold/moist Cancer) of the zodiacal archetypes.
So directly, the Sun and Moon reflect the symbolism of the masculine and feminine principles, in brief, the essentially creative and receptive. Thus, in the essence of this symbolism, represented are the principles of the ‘father’/god and ‘mother’/goddess, in the fullness of their authority. This is said to be as, in the seasons of the northern hemisphere, the full power of natural light is seen to peak, when the Sun is transiting the signs of Cancer and Leo.
Accordingly, in the traditional ‘order’
of their rate of orbit, dual dignity/rulership is assigned to the remainder of
the traditional planets (those that could be viewed in the range of the naked
eye). Clearly and respectively, as
emulating the principles of the Sun and the Moon, each planet reflects a dual
familiarity to the masculine/’yang’ and feminine/’yin’ faces of expression. Note, in the preceding list of domicile rulership, all the ‘yin’
(earth/water) signs are listed on one side and the ‘yang’ (fire/air) are upon
As seen, these familiarities (or relationship of ‘service’, between a sign and a planet) have been essentially developed according to the nature of a holistic symbolic structure of an entire tangible ancient solar system. When esoteric philosophy is plumbed, the deeper nature of the correspondence is not simply developed upon that of every sense of apparent similarity. However, it is feasible that any appearances of similarity, when valid, are essentially stemming from that of an actual deeper familiarity. One of the hallmarks of a universal principle is that of paradox.
GO TO PART 3 of ESSENTIAL DIGNITIES
Organic Divination for the Urban Jungle
Thank you for visiting Earth Elephant Astrology
Copyright:Earth Elephant Astrology 2006-2008