DeFouw/Svoboda's Light on Life

[Guest guest]

At 01:13 AM 1/8/07 -0000, Francois wrote:

>Hello,

>

>Reading DeFouw/Svoboda introduction to lagna, I have the impression

>that the core meaning of each lagna sign has to do with the overall

>rulership, exaltation and detriment of the planet for each house of a

>lagna sign. Is this the way one must understand correctly each sidereal

>sign? I think Acker/Sakoian had the same approach in tropical?...

>

>On the other hand, labouré, a fluent French astrologer, in his System's

>Approach book rather give the importance to the lord of the ascending

>rashi only.

 

Hi Francois,

 

For the ascending sign, I place the most emphasis on the lord, its

placement and aspects. A sign without a planet isn't important in my

opinion except as a reference to its lord and nakshatra lord.

 

However...There seems to definitely be something to exact degrees. A while

ago on this forum we had a conversation with a woman who shared an

asecendant degree with my daughter, and there were very interesting life

parallels between the two. But in general I'd look to the lord since we

don't have a book describing degree meanings (life patterns, not the

mish-mash of symbolism in tropical books).

 

If a planet is in a sign, then that planet might relate to characteristics

that have to do with the lord and exalted planet. This is the approach to

signs I've taken on my web site. I'm convinced that the mythology of the

planets relate to the zodiac signs. Planetary principles by themselves are

more universal and cross cultures.

 

I just read through Sagittarius, my ascendant sign, in Light on Life. What

he says about the Sun ruling the 9th seems to apply, but some of the other

information doesn't fit. Sun happens to be the strongest planet in my

chart, however, by Hellenistic standards. (Not by Jyotish.)

 

I really like the DeFouw/Svoboda book, but no book is perfect. Parts of the

book I don't agree with. It's very interesting when you attend DeFouw's

seminars. He's very eclectic, and often doesn't sound sure of many

astrological factors. He shifts the meanings around and changes them

depending on the horoscope. But when a book is printed, it's concrete. So

we have to remember that with any book.

 

Therese

[Guest guest]

At 10:41 AM 1/8/07 -0500, Francois wrote:

 

>So if I understand the mechanics correctly, if, for instance, a planet,

>Moon, is in the second house (Pisces), the result of the Moon in this house

>will be a blend of: Moon - Jupiter - Venus, plus any aspect to it (and

>houses eventually involved). I may even add Mercury (in detriment, which add

>a " lack " of discernment about money). Is this a good way to begin a

>delineation in sidereal (this gives me a real hard time, anyway!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Let's look at real charts, such as Donald Trump's chart, whose entire adult

life has involved big amounts of money. Planetary dispositors are also very

important in sidereal astrology. I'll look up Trump's chart later today.

With the Moon the lunar mansion is always important. Discernment in any

matter comes under Mercury.

 

It may be that the blend of planetary symbolism in a sign relates only to

personality. Take sidereal Libra, for example. It tends to be

'not-cheerful' and can be depressive. This is due to Saturn's exaltation in

that sign. Libra also doubts itself and tends to have no identity without

that other person being there--the partner--Sun in its fall.

 

Then take Aries where the Sun is exalted. Aries has no doubts about itself

generally, and the sign tends to deal with physical or practical matters

(Mars). People naturally trust Aries. Libra can disappear in a crowd. In

the ADB collection of actors, looking at 10th house Suns, the Sun in Aries

had more actors than any other sign. This surprised me until I realized

that the exalted Sun 'shines' in Aries.

 

Therese