Many astrologers believe that if a planet is exalted in a horoscope, it will always give benefic results to the native, which means that an exalted planet is always a benefic planet in a horoscope. The same astrologers believe that if a planet is debilitated in a horoscope, it will always give bad results to the native, which means that a debilitated planet always behaves as a malefic planet in a horoscope.
Over a period of many years, so many good things have been said about exalted planets and so many bad things have been said about debilitated planets, that a majority of people interested in astrology have fixed their opinions about these planets. These people consider an exalted planet as a blessing in a horoscope and they consider a debilitated planet a curse in a horoscope. However, this is not true and the exaltation status as well as the debilitation status of a planet has nothing much to do with the working nature of such exalted or debilitated planet in a horoscope.
Subscribe To Us
Sun : Sun is exalted in the sign of Aries and Sun is debilitated in the sign of Libra. Moon : Moon is exalted in the sign Taurus and Moon is debilitated in the sign Scorpio. Jupiter : Jupiter is exalted in the sign of Cancer and Jupiter is debilitated in the sign of Capricorn. Venus : Venus is exalted in the sign of Pisces and Venus is debilitated in the sign of Virgo.
Mercury : Mercury is exalted in the sign of Virgo and Mercury is debilitated in the sign of Pisces. Saturn : Saturn is exalted in the sign of Libra and Saturn is debilitated in the sign of Aries. Rahu : Rahu is exalted in the sign of Gemini and Rahu is debilitated in the sign of Sagittarius according to one belief of astrology. Rahu is exalted in the sign of Taurus and it is debilitated in the sign of Scorpio according to another belief of astrology. Ketu : Ketu is exalted in the sign of Sagittarius and Ketu is debilitated in the sign of Gemini according to one belief of astrology.
Ketu is exalted in the sign of Scorpio and it is debilitated in the sign of Taurus according to another belief of astrology. Moving ahead, the placement of a planet in its sign of exaltation only indicates that the planet is very strong and the results produced by this planet are going to be significant ones. But those results may be significantly positive or significantly negative depending on the nature of such exalted planet in a horoscope.
For example, exalted and positive Saturn is capable of producing strong positive results regarding the significances ruled by it, regarding the house it is placed in and regarding the planets and houses it aspects. On the other hand, there is almost no planet in a horoscope which may be as destructive as negative and exalted Saturn. Malefic Saturn placed in Libra can be destructive, very destructive or extremely destructive and it can completely destroy the significances of the houses and planets under the effect of its placement or aspects.
I have personally witnessed many cases where Saturn is exalted and negative in the horoscope and the natives are suffering from great pains and difficulties in different fields of their lives depending on the placement of such malefic exalted Saturn in their horoscopes, as well as depending on the overall tone of their horoscopes. The most surprising as well as the most upsetting thing is that most people suffering due to such negative exalted planets are finding the cause of their miseries and sufferings in some other planet. This is because these people believe that an exalted planet simply means a strongly positive planet and it is never supposed to cause any harm.
Due to this misconception, they are not able to find the planet responsible for their sufferings till late in their lives, and sometimes throughout their lives. These people just keep guessing about which planet can be the cause of their sufferings and misfortunes. In some cases, their misconception about an exalted planet in their horoscope is so strong that they are not willing to believe even an astrologer who tells them that an exalted planet in their horoscope is working negatively and it is the root cause of most of their problems. Such people refuse to believe this astrologer and they look for some other astrologer who can find the cause of their problems with some other planet which is not exalted.
When it comes to find such planets, the easiest planets in a horoscope to blame for all the sufferings, misfortunes and problems are debilitated planets. Talking of debilitated planets draws attention to one more misconception that prevails strongly among the people interested in astrology. It is generally believed by most people and many astrologers that a debilitated planet simply means a negative planet and it can only cause problems and sufferings to the native having such debilitated planet in his horoscope.
This is again a misconception and a debilitated planet simply means that it lacks strength. Accordingly it may not be able to protect the significances ruled by it in a proper way and so the results produced by such debilitated planet may not be significant ones. But whether those results will be positive or negative has nothing to do with the placement of this planet in its sign of debilitation. The positive or negative results produced by a debilitated planet usually lack the strength which is needed to produce significant results and that is why it is called debilitated or weak.
However, a debilitated planet can be malefic as well as benefic and it can even be the most benefic planet in a horoscope in spite of being in its sign of debilitation. It is the time to know that just like us humans, planets also possess three essential qualities and to be precise, we copy these three essential qualities from these planets, since they influence us. I'm glad I found your blog because you're one of the few who is trying to set up a more balanced system!
Venus in Your Birth Chart: How the Planet of Love Affects You | Allure
So thanks so much for being one of the few that I've encountered anyway to restore my faith in astrology!!! I disagree that Neptune is exalted in Aquarius. Neptune is the planet of universal love, spirituality, connection, sanctuary, illusion, transcendence, idealism, and compassion. Aquarius is the sign disconnection, humanitarianism, aloofness, originality, rebellion, and logic. While Aquarius is very ideal, they are highly emotionally and spiritually disconnected.
They see the world through logical lens; obviously a quality that could hinder emotional and spiritual understanding. This also hinders Aquarius' compassionate qualities. Neptune seeks to dissolve all boundaries It should be no surprise why Neptune is exalted in Leo. Last time Neptune was in Leo it was a time of strong idealism and imagination was creatively expressed through artistic performance. What must be considered is the sign of exaltation is not exactly like the planet unlike it would be if it was in domicile. The exaltation means the planet best expresses itself in this sign.
In Leo, Neptune has a lot of room to be creative and find sanctuary through children and amusements. Neptune expresses itself more generously and warmly in this sign, and yet without being taken advantage of. And even better, unlike most signs, it does not become confused as to who it is, what it wants, or where its going, contrary to how it fares in other signs.
Cancer is also a good match for Neptune's exaltation. In this sign, Neptune finds the greatest sanctuary of all; a sense of home, family, and belonging. Cancer also has a compassion that matches the waters of Neptune. In this sign, the universe is family; the family is the universe. Last time Neptune was in Cancer, stories like Peter Pan and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz encouraged ideals of home, but also glamorized a high sense of imagination beyond our reality. Also, around this time, moving pictures were developed as a means of creative expression giving us an even greater escape from the world outside of the movie screen.
Naturally, as Neptune could be exalted in Cancer, it could also be falling in Capricorn. Capricorn is filled with rigid limitations and reality As far as Pluto goes, I think Pluto fits with Leo. Pluto is the planet of power, empowerment, transformation, the hidden, and destruction. While Pluto is a dark and hidden planet, its objective? To bring things hidden into the light.
Healing is one way that Pluto accomplishes this. But when we compare the powers of Virgo to the powers of Leo, Leo has the energy, the will power, and the light that can and does shine light on issues. It gains a sense of self empowerment through creative means. And it respects power. Aquarius is opposite. With Pluto in Aquarius it could get caught up in rebelling just for the sake of rebelling, doing more damage than good.
While it is definitely capable of great change on the outside, its fails to do deep changes within. Aquarius avoids the underlying feelings inside of itself, and thus fails to heal psychological wounds in itself and others. Pluto wants to work within. Aquarius does the complete opposite. Aquarius also has disrespect for power and authority. Last time Pluto was in Aquarius, The french revolution took place over the original Monarch under King Louis; half of France was destroyed and a ruthless dictator took control known as Emperor Napoleon.
Aquarius often seeks to rebel all the time because it lacks power within. Its not focused nor steady enough to make inner changes, making it lack the will power to sustain Pluto's need for power and deep transformation. This is just my opinion according to the knowledge I have. Another thing about Aquarius is that while it wants power, it also seeks to free itself from power.
So again, it lacks staying power. The need for freedom interferes with the need for power and psychological healing.
- december 16 2019 virgo astrology.
- Virgo in Astrology?
- Navigation menu!
- january 4 horoscope capricorn?
I understand and respect your opinion, but I still disagree. I think the "Symmetrical Exaltation Scheme" works best and is the fairest of all the system while taking into account the more newly discovered planets and asteroids. Anythig else than this would just threaten and disrupt the balance of power for the zodiac by giving some signs more exalations when other signs have none.
Then, both would also be in fall for Aquarius. Yes, Neptune is the planet of universal love, idealism, emotions, etc. But even then these still sound more like attributes for Aquarius than for Leo. But rather than hold in his water emotions , he pours it out for others. Some classical Greco-Roman astrologers even noted how one of Pisces' fish seemed to be drinking from or swimming in the water that Aquarius poured out!
This means that even they noted how Aquarius fed his knowledge to and nurtured Pisces thus establishing a bond between the two and they are also neighbors on the zodiac wheel. Both Aquarius and Pisces have this "escapist" tendency but whereas Pisces escapes TO his emotions, Aqaurius escapes AWAY from them but the way he does this is not to ignore them completely but rather to use them for the benefit of others.
On the other hand, Leo definitely has capabilties towards compassion for others and is noted to be the most generous sign, he is still highly influenced by his ego. Leo might be a generous and kind king when in a good mood, but is still a KING and everyone else are his subjects. As you've noted, Cancer is the sign of family but Aquarius is the sign of friendship.
He sees all humanity as his friends. And while Leo might be easily flattered or swayed by money and power due to his emotions, Aquarius is not. By responding to the needs of mankind in a more detached way, he can serve them better. He uses Neptune's water for the benefit of others and so to others it seems as though he is incapable of feeling emotions. Aquarius' tendency to rebel also works in his favor for a more idealist world order where everyone has equal value and equal opinions. His personality and vlaues might seem vastly different from Pisces', but they still seem to be two sides of the same coin.
Aquarius does work towards the betterment of mankind. He is deep down an idealist, an escapist, and humanitarian. But his methods and approaches are different to Pisces' but they work toward the same end. Like I mentioned before, modern astrologers have greatly changed Leo's original characteristics and meaning from ancient and classical times.
Leo might have great capacity for compassion, but he is still mostly concerned with the ego and he would still prefer to reign as king rather than among equals. Leo rules over the hottest and stormiest part of summer and as such most classical astrologers warned against sea and water travel Neptune is a water planet during that time. Ancient astrologers also saw Leo as one of the most potentially violent and tempermental of all the signs.
He was given the characteristics of "bestial" aggressive and impulsive and the only one to have been fully characterized as "feral" only half of Sagittarius also had this label meaning that he was prone to savage and highly volatile behavior. His most common origin as the near-indestructible but highly destructive Nemean Lion also is at odds with everything that Neptune represnts. A king with a temper is not really the best fit for a planet of universal love, idealism, compassion, and emotions.
Whenever Leo unleashes his emotions, it's sadly usually the most negative types beccause he lacks the ability to control them. The times that Aquarius unleashes his emotions, however, it's almost always in the best interests of humanity. Unlike Leo who was bestial and feral, the ancients characterized Aqaurius as "human" in not only was he represented by a human, but it also meant that he had the ability to fully communicate and was tactful and graceful with others. Thus, although on the surface, Aquarius might seem detached and aloof, it's only because he uses his emotions in the service of others rather than for himself and it's the best quality in a leader or humanitarian to not let one's emotions consume them.
It will prevent making Aquarius suceptible to flattery or the sway of power like Leo often is.
- horoscope sagittarius february 15 2020.
- horoscope february 24 2020 scorpio.
- zodiac signs gemini horoscope.
- Astrology Dictionary;
- tuvy chinese astrology?
- What the Position of Venus in Your Birth Chart Means for You?
- pisces weekly astrology forecast december 7 2019 michele knight.
- leo february 3 astrology.
Thus, according to the "Symmetrical Exaltation Scheme" or maybe even another sheme that gives equal exaltations and domicile planets to each sign, every sign should have its own exaltation. And if Leo can't have both Neptune and Pluto, it seems that if we consider his older, more accurate characterizations; Pluto fits Leo best and Neptune does fit Aquarius in many ways. Also, like Leo, Aquarius is a fixed sign and thus does have a lot of staying power but unlike Leo is not on a constant search for power and actually doesn't really need to have it.
Whereas Leo must be in a position of power or leadership role most times, Aquarius is fine working behind the scenes and often does, especially in humanitarian causes. The sign of Leo is representative of the animal of Lion itself and what the sign of Leo often represented in Ancient Greece and Rome.
Leo has always been a sign even in ancient Greece that represented royalty. In those days a kingly quality was generosity. And this is why Leo has been affiliated with such generosity. Aside from this, sol one of the ones who was the original representation of the sun in roman mythology was considered very generous and a force for healing.
This is the complete opposite of what Aquarius' ruler Saturn was like and even Uranus, its new ruler. While, Aquarius is a water bearer, this is a term to define the clouds which the ancients called the Great Water Bearers. Aquarius is in fact an air sign, more representative of storms, thunder, and lightning rather than actual water. The fact that Aquarius contains its feelings rather than actually feel them is exactly why Neptune cannot function freely in this detached sign.
I don't know if you have a particular bias toward Aquarius, however it would not be the first sign to have a planetary debility behind it. While Mars is in detriment in the sign of Taurus, because Pluto is also the ruler of Scorpio, Pluto is also in detriment in Taurus. You see, it comes down to the natures of the planets and whether they will express themselves more openly or with more limitations; even if its not fair to us If Aquarius makes Neptune more "logical" than compassionate by holding its emotions back, then it really isn't benefiting Neptune.
Instead, its holding Neptune's dreams and emotional connections in a box rather than channeling it to be more positive and uplifting. The cold sign of Aquarius and Capricorn are too logical and realistic for Neptune to feel even remotely comfortable. It escapes by limiting its emotions and setting boundaries, which is the opposite of Neptune's objectives. Leo and Cancer can channel the dream world and the emotions without being cold towards them, making Neptune feel more comfortable and the expression more positive.
Neptune is in detriment in the logical and critical sign of Virgo, which also has very "humane" characteristics, just like Aquarius. As you can see Neptune is not comfortable at all in the realm of human logic. And while Neptune in Aquarius does help humanity and has ideals, they are missing the deeper spiritual and emotional connections that Neptune has to teach generations. Does this even seem like a planet that would easily work well with a planet that seeks to dissolve those limitations in order to teach us to let go and connect with the spiritual universe?
Saturn is far too rigid and realistic for this spiritual connection to be recognized. And both Aquarius and Capricorn embody these qualities. I just think Neptune is in a debilitating situation where as it has good intentions, but because of the sign's inherit lack of similar qualities, Neptune struggles to achieve what it really wants: inner peace, sanctuary, and spiritual, emotional, and universal love. While they want to share their feelings with the world, they must learn to connect with those closest to them first in order to spread their feelings further. This is why the watery planets such as the moon and Pluto do not enjoy the comforts of Saturn based signs like Aquarius and Capricorn.
Neptune is also a watery planet, so if those planets struggle with this coldness, Neptune will as well. While Leo has an ego, it benefits Neptune because Neptune often forgets who it is in the midst of its dreams usually. But Leo gives it balance; it has a sense of itself without blocking Neptune from dreaming and connecting to its spiritual and emotional self. To add, it gains confidence, warmth, and the ability to shine. And Capricorn feels way more debilitating than Aquarius does.
To each its own I guess. I guess we would just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Yes, Leo is the sign of royalty and more recently of generosity which originally came about not so much because of its characteristic of good royalty but because of the abundance of summer and the fertility of the earth. Aquarius is definitely a logical air sign but as the WATER-bearer gives the product of his emotions towards others and uses it for the benefit of others. And it's not so much the myth that Aquarius does not feel emotion everyone feels emotions!
He is still the sign of friendships, humanitarianism, and idealism. All things that Neptune cultivates. I don't have a bias toward Aquarius. I'm actually a Western Leo who wants the zodiac system to be fair for ALL signs and not just the ones we like. And it's exactly that very flawed and uneven system of domiciles and exaltations that causes disturbances in what was supposed to be the epitome of balance. Either we keep the traditional rulerships the way they were or tweak it so that every sign has the same amount of domiciles and exaltations.
Traditionally, Mars was Scoripio's ruler and Pluto wasn't discovered yet so traditionally, Pluto had no domicile. Or to tweak now, Scorpio should only have either Mars or Pluto as its domicile but not both since it throws off the entire system off balance. With as unbalanced as modern astrologers try to make it, no wonder people outside the field don't take this seriously. Like I said before, Aquarius isn't so much unemotional as it is seemed to be by others. Completely detached people don't work for the benefit of humankind. Rather it uses them more objectively, but still towards the common folk and for idealist purposes.
If anything, Capricorn was the far more materialistic and practical whereas Aquarius used Saturn's logical and stern influences to exert self-control over his emotions and not let them consume him. Perhaps it seems at odds with the emotionally charged and watery Neptune, but Saturn's need for control, structure and authority also seems at odds with Aquarius' need for freedom and rebellion So the exaltation planets can be interpreted differently.
And just like Mercury's approximation to the Sun influences it, Neptune and Saturns proximity to each other also allow them to both, however slightly, influence the other. Aquarius might be logical, but it is also idealist and humanitarian. Neptune is also the " planet of abstract thought" which also fits Aquarius. Plus, it allows him to show his creativity in an inventive way whereas the Sun bestows enough creativity on Leo to benefit for any creativity that Neptune could give.
Neptune is too watery, emotional, universal, abstract and idealist a planet for Leo who's much more ferocious, egotistical, fiery, and totalitarian for Neptune. I also disagree that Leo can channel energy spiritually like Cancer or Pisces can. Those are water signs and the signs of emotion. Water signs seem to be more at odds with fire signs than air signs. I'm really not sure why modern astrologers keep seeing Leo as "spiritual" when there was really no indication of those characteristics in ancient times. Neptune might be in detriment in Virgo but Virgo is not Aquarius.
Virgo is an earth sign and while it too is logical as an earth sign, it goes about it more in the earth-like practical, materialistic, neat and orderly way. Aqaurius is more free-spirited, creative, humanitarian and almost idealist. Yes, Saturn was his traditional ruler, but you forget to mention his modern ruler, Uranus who's the planet of rebellion but also inventiveness, creativity, freedom and humanitariansm And those three Neptune, Saturn, and Uruanus follow each other and thus, however subtly influence each other on a constant basis.
And remember Jupiter might not be the type of cut-and-dry logic that Saturn is, but it is still a thrist and search for knowledge that today is compatible with Neptune's influence and similar to Saturn in the sense that both deal with thought. Leo doesn't seem to be a good fit at all for Neptune since it is too watery, idealist, humanitarian and universal a planet. Leo is fiery, realistic, self-absorbed and must usually be in a position of power to understand Neptune's humanitarian ways.
And while Neptune does make escapists out of all signs, some signs are naturally more escapist than others. Pisces and Aquarius are two such signs. Sagittarius would probably be another one. However, as a force for ego, Leo would be hurt to be forced to be humanitarian or to escape into a realm of thoughts and emotions. True, Cancer would be the best fit and I definitely see your point there, but to make that work, Cancer would have to give up exalting Jupiter.
How funny that in esoteric astrology, Cancer and Aquarius already made the switch and the esoterics say that Neptune rules Cancer and Jupiter rules Aqaurius which is how is should be in the exaltation sense of exoteric astrology. I think that wuld make the best sense Sorry if I didn't make it clear. But I do agree that in the wheel each sign takes a little from the sign before and gives a little to the sign after. But yeah I was speaking in astronomical terms. You're right by saying that the planets greatly affect the sign they're in and thus it isn't a pure sign anymore, but since the ego is so much a part of what Leo is, it would seem that Leo is hurt more by Neptune than is benefited from it.
And since Leo and Aquarius are opposites, when a planet seems more beneficial for one Aquarius this of course means that it's less beneficial to the other Leo. Yes lions can be compassionate Not to all lions in general, not to prey, not to potential predators or rivals. I watched a couple episodes on Animal Planet and although I was warmed by how much they can show compassion towards those they love, I was also amazed by how devious and ruthless they can be to rival predators such as hyneas. In one episode, the Alpha Lion intentionally sought out and killed the hyena matriarch because he knew it would chaos for the entire hyena society!
Now while I understand we're talking in purely animal terms, that's not really something a creature of universal love does. Lions are compassionate to a rare few While Cancer is the sign of family, Aqauraius is the sign of friendships. Although less intimate than family, friendships are more casual and still rewarding. Aquarius is also much more humanitarian which translates to compassion for all mankind, not just the rare few. But I do definitely agree that Neptune would benefit best in Cancer. Not quite as well in Aquarius and certainly not in Leo who still has the ego for most of his identity.
Leo is definitely much more than JUST his pride and ego, but those are still part of who he is. And as the potentially most tempermental, egotistical and fiery, Neptune seems to idealist, watery and dreamy for him. How about this? We could agree on that, right? I learn a lot from you and I don't mind finding someone who disagrees with me as long as we're both respectful. I really enjoy hearing other people's POVs. You might be on to something about Jupiter exalting Aquarius.
Jupiter also would be able to express its need to understand the world more openly as well. The only issue would be the Saturn part of Aquarius that would limit the abundance of 'benefits' that Jupiter wants to experience. Saturn and Jupiter are planets that are astrologically different. Saturn is very limiting and rigid. Jupiter is the opposite of limiting. It is about broadening those limits. Saturn causes Aquarius to always have delays in success, and in traditional astrology this was what caused success to come at odd and spontaneous times.
And Jupiter still struggles with logic hence why Jupiter is in detriment in both Gemini and Virgo ; it would rather be philosophical. There are some modern astrologers who believe that Mercury exalts Aquarius. There are still astrologers who believe it makes no sense that mercury is exalted and in domicile in Virgo. Aquarius' water does not necessarily represent emotion in astrology. It represents knowledge. Aquarius pours out its knowledge for the world, not its emotions. Not to say they do not have emotions.
I never said they don't have emotions. They just block their emotions in order to maintain control, and this could make it a debilitating experience for Neptune. If Neptune was in Leo, there wouldn't be much limitation there. Neptune would be free to roam in this sign. Leo's ego does not limit Neptune's experience; in fact it encourages it.
Its necessarily LIKE Neptune which would be more like Neptune in Pisces, the domicile , but its not debilitating or in other words its not holding Neptune back, like a falling position would. That is what an exaltation means in astrology; that the planet has the ability to express itself to its maximum potential. I'm not necessarily talking about how different Neptune is to Aquarius, but rather how comfortable and how free Neptune feels being 'itself' in this sign.
Will there be limits to what the planet is or what it represents or what it can do? Does this sign give people the best idea of what Neptune is trying to achieve? For example, when Mars enters Capricorn, while they are not necessarily alike, Mars can be as focused, as ruthless, as ambitious, and as passionate as it wants without nothing holding it back from its goal, to be successful and useful in the world.
When sun is in Aries, the sun can express itself to its maximum potential in Aries, being as youthful and shiny as it wants. The planet does more in its exalted state than it does in its own dominion domicile is where it is most comfortable, but not at its peak. In Aquarius, Neptune cannot express itself as freely because of Aquarius' mind-over-emotion attitude.
It can be ideal and compassionate in Aquarius sometimes, but not without holding in its emotions and not without logic. This makes Neptune feel more disconnected than it would in its OWN sign of Pisces which is its standard placement. So its not of benefit to Neptune. In Leo, Neptune can express its ideal qualities, its creativity, its compassion, its dreams, and its emotions as freely as it wants to its maximum potential. What is Leo holding back from Neptune? I don't think we should have to supplement one exaltation for another.
I believe it is possible for a planet to be exalted in two signs. Just like there are planets in domicle in two signs. If we see that the planet has much room to express itself in a particular sign, then, no matter how many exaltations or domiciles it has in signs, that is the best expression for that planet. If a person is good at both math and reading, than you're good at both.
If the planet does well in more than one placement, than it does. Thank you too for conversation! I love to debate. I agree that astrological classifications do need a change, especially because the discoveries of the new planets has widened our view of the galaxy. There needs to be like a new century book or something. That was very nicely described about Jupiter in relation to Aquarius. I guess it just depends on our interpretations of the zodiac's symbols and their characteristics. Aquarius' water can represent both emotions and knowledge. It is usually said to represent knowledge but since the water element is symbolic for emotions as well, it can also be said that it represents its own emotions that it uses on behalf of others.
But I see your point. Saturn's own influences on Aquarius didn't necessarily limit Aquarius both rather allowed Aquarius the self-restraint needed to deal with others. Remember, Saturn might be Aqaurius' old ruler but Aquarius was still a rebel, a free-spirit, inventive and revolutionary. Things that also seemed at odds with Saturn but better fit Uranus and somewhat fits Neptune. Leo can be a kind, noble and compassionate sign, but as Aquarius' opposite, universal humanitariansm and love and idealism aren't his thing.
I disagree there too. I think in the end, domiciles are still greater than exaltations and represent both the planets and signs relationship to each other best. One astrologer tried to explain it best in this way, "Domicile is the home and exaltation represents the signs at work.
A sign in domicile is like someone at home whereas a sign in exaltation is like the guest of honor. As every time Leo does unleash its emotions, it's usually more negative than positive. Leo is too fiery, pragmatic, egotistical, and authorative for Neptune. Leo and Pisces aren't much alike. Neptune seems to have more in common with Aquarius. But it's totally cool if you disagree! I kind of do. The whole purpose of the zodiac is to maintain the best amount of balance possible. We can't do that if some signs have two domiciles and two exaltations and other signs have no exaltations.
It was somewhat understandable in the past because many heavenly bodies weren't discovered yet, but even then they tried to make the system as fair and balanced as possible with only Leo as the Sun's domicile , his opposite Aqaurius and the usually negative Scorpio at the time not having exaltations.
But now that we know of more planets and more heavenly bodies such as asteroids, we should do our best to make sure the system stays fair and balanced for all signs. It's not so much the fact that a planet does better in a certain sign, but rather people's interpretation of that. Many people think Pluto in Leo caused too much havoc to be exalted in it, but others think that because the atomic bomb was discovered at the time and Pluto rules atomic power, that it proved that Pluto should exalt Leo.
In the end, balance and fairness should prevail over people's desire to make their sign "look good" or be "more powerful" than other signs by giving them multipile domiciles and exltations. If the universe is indeed naturally balanced and fair, then it already gave the signs the same amount of gifts as it did to the rest of the other signs and it's simply our purpose to find which ones.
Having some signs seem "better" than others would defeat the entire purpose of the zodiac. It's not quite the same as having some people be good at both reading and math, since all the signs of the zodiac have various skills and gifts too and no one sign has more gifts than any other except for the interpretations of people.
That doesn't mean that's how they are inherently. We should always try to maintain the balance for the signs. Me too! I definitely agree on that. Thanks so much! You've been so thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful and I really appreciate that! Out of curiosity, what's your sign? This has been great! Which sign? There's more but I think I should clarify what I said about when I see the planet expresses freely in its exalted state. In Domicile its more natural or standard, but not as exaggerated nor as prominent as it would be in exalted state.
Before there were rulership planets in astrology, there was only exaltations. In more modern astrology, the exaltations were considered the "next best thing" to Domiciles. The only difference between them is a planet in domicile is dignified by similarities. The Sun is very much like the sign of Leo and so is very comfortable with its need to shine.
In the exaltated form, the planet's qualities are even more expressed not necessarily as comfortable, more-so exaggerated. For example, Venus in Pisces makes the native even more romantic and loving than it would be in its own domain, Taurus and Libra. Venus in Pisces is even more soft and feminine than if Venus were in its own domain.
And so that's what I mean by the qualities expressed are more highlighted than in its domicile. The planet in exaltation is like a planet on vacation or a planet on a playground: they aren't necessarily at home, but still they have more freedom than in all the other signs.https://dialisetewi.ml
What is “Exaltation”? Why is Jupiter Exalted in Cancer?
Again, planets in exaltation do not and really aren't exactly LIKE the signs. Leo may not be exactly like Neptune In fact, the ego gives Neptune a boost. Neptune is more generous and more glamorous in this sign than its own domain. It is also more imaginative and creative in this sign than it is in its own domain. It has a bigger heart in Leo than it does in its own domain. In Aquarius, it is compassionate, but on an intellectual level. Aquarius limits Neptune's emotional qualities by withholding its emotional connections from people, and instead connecting with people with like minds rather than emotions.
Aquarius also holds back the spiritual aspect of Neptune with its logic. When Neptune last entered Aquarius, it was the time when people were becoming less spiritually inclined and more worldly oriented. A large number of atheists were on the rise, promoting science over a spiritual creator. Aquarius creates a science vs spirit atmosphere that does the opposite of what Neptune rewards.
While believing in science is not a bad thing, science does hinder our belief in something other than the logical and physical world. Aquarius' ideals are rooted in logic, and this is what Neptune has shown to struggle with in the past. Aquarius intends to help others, but it fails to provide that deeper emotional sense of hope that comes from 'just believing without needing the facts". Leo may not have high ideals in life, but it is capable of seeing that anything is possible even outside of the logical field and that's really what Neptune's objectives are.
As far as not having two exaltations, I understand. Me personally, I look at the planets as each their own entity with their own representations. As far as Aquarius being a rebel, Jupiter is not as concerned about being a rebel. Jupiter is a planet that represents moral laws and ethics, after all. Its a planet that represents benefits, luck, philosophy, travel, faith, etc. Even though Jupiter can give us freedom, it wants to give us benefits without delay.
Aquarius does not get benefits right away simply because it comes unexpectedly, thanks to Uranus and saturn. I have Uranus and Saturn in my 2nd house. They always causes delay for me monetarily which is hardly to my benefit. That's what I meant by Jupiter does not work well with the Saturn and Uranian qualities that Aquarius emobody. I was just going with Sun sign for simplicity's sake, but I guess everyone explains the whole domicile vs exaltations thing differently. And yeah I heard exaltations were older too though I think it was more in Persian than Hindu astrology since apparently they didn't agree on the position of the Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.
Plus, there are a few problems on how to interpret them since originally, the exaltations depended greatly on the degrees which is barely talked about or explained in modern astrology and the fact that some constellations of the zodiac weren't their own constellation yet like Scorpio and his Claws [ie Libra] and such would cause a problem with the Sidereal vs Western thing. So I don't know if I agree that view. I think I'll still stick with the domicile is like a sign at home and exaltation is like a guest of honor.
I tend to see domicile like the home where one can themself the most. And exaltation seems more like work than a playground to me precisely because many of the signs and exalted planets are not quite alike. Pisces doesn't really seem to be as romantic as Venus would be in Libra or Taurus so I can't really see what you mean. But then again And many astrologers think that the degree numbers themeselves have their own significance regardless of planet or sign so there's also that to consider.
I still tend to see an exaltation as like "the star pupil" or "employee of the month" kind of thing. Playground for me is a place that feels too comfortable for signs and planets that don't have all that much in common. Leo is again too fiery, tempermental, realistic, and egotisical to be exalted in Neptune. Not only would Neptune hurt Leo, but I think that Neptune itself would be inhibited by Leo's ego, fiery temper, aristocratic mannerisms, and realism.
Neptune and Leo don't really understand each other. I think it again all depends on how people interpret the planets in signs. I'm not so sure that helps Neptune's case for Leo. Aquarius might not be that in touch with his emotions, but at least he tries to use them for humanity's benefit rather than unleash fury on the entire world like Leo. Whenever Leo truly allows his emotions to get the better of him, it's sadly but usually negative. He's unhinged and aptly named feral in this state.
This isn't really a sign that is benefitted from or benefits Neptune. Perhaps then we are right in thinking that Cancer is a much better fit since neither Leo nor Aquarius seem to fit the bill! I guess it just depends I can understand what you're saying, but I still think having equal domiciles and equal exaltations would best maintain the balance of the zodiac and almost any sign can "fit" any planet and vice versa with the right interpretation.
Moon in Taurus
If not, then everyone will be clamoring to have the "best" sign and the once serious field of astrology will become nothing more than excuses for "pissing contests" in the "my sign is better than your sign" context which is sadly already happening to a great extent. The whole purpose of the system was to maintain balance and equality. I'm sure that there's a way in which every sign can be assigned one domicile and exaltation and still have it fit them. But Jupiter IS a planet of knowledge and Aquarius is one of the best signs for knowledge.
It is also a planet of good fortune, luck and geneoristy which also sympathize with Aquarius' qualities. Well, if Uranus and Saturn were Aquarius' only influences, its rebellious streak would be unexplainable. Like I said, Uranus and Saturn influence Aquarius in different ways and Saturn's influence differs from its influences on Capricorn.
Saturn makes Capricorn more thrifty, materialistic, orderly and authoritative whereas with Aquarius, it makes him more self-controlled and orderly in an inventive and detailed way. The philosophical and travel parts of Jupiter are also important to Aquarius as they both help him become a better humanitarian and the travel part also works well with Aquarius' "escapist" ways. So I definitely think that Jupiter is best exalted in Aquarius while Cancer who doesn't really travel due to its hominess or philosophize due to its preference for emotions over logic is more suited to Neptune.
To be honest, in my opinion, air and earth signs should be not be considered for the planet of Neptune as an exaltation. Fire and Water signs do best with Neptune because Neptune is very spiritual. The last time Neptune first entered in Leo was the roaring 20s, when there was a boom of creative expression and art. The movies began providing a sense of escape from reality like no other amusement before it. The generation of people that has this natal position in their chart carried on their sense of optimism on through the great depression when people relied more on charity than any other generation and there was a strong sense of ethical generosity.
This optimism, that hard times would turn up for the better, helped them endure the Great Depression and eventually World War 2. There was strong idealism and puritanism among this generation; everyone admired the movie stars and idealized the glamorous life that was so unique for that time. Neptune represents film and acting Leo represents acting and center stage. The lion itself is said to be one of the greatest manipulators. They are good at entertaining people because they understand what moves others.
Just by examination of the two generations Neptune in Leo vs Neptune in Aquarius. And again, signs of domicile do not have to be like signs of exaltation. Jupiter is exalted traditionally in Cancer, even though it is nothing like Jupiter's ruler Sagittarius. Mars is exalted in Capricorn, even though it is hardly like the sign of Aries. Its not about whether they are alike when it comes to exaltations, but whether the planet has freedom of expression enough represent itself in the closest way.
Leo on its own may not be like Neptune. Not Leo, nor Aquarius. That's important when determining what position a planet is exalted in. Sorry for all the deletes If we're going to best make astrology fair, it would be better to exclude the idea of exaltations and domiciles altogether. The concept that something is better than another came with that ranking system and it has nothing to do with liking a sign personally.
It has to do with examining the planetary qualities and seeing how clearly the planets represented themselves in each sign. We can't just place a planet with a sign just because no planet exalts in that sign. Astrology is not really even about the signs. Astrology is the study of the planets. So whether each sign has a planet exalted in it is not as important as how the planet will express itself and where we will see the greatest or most debilitating expression of the planet throughout life. Understandable, earth and air are logical but then the problem becomes that fire signs are simply too emotional.
And usually in a negative way. The most hot-tempered signs as exaltations for watery, dreamy Neptune? Two of them well, one and a half considered "feral? So yeah I don't quite understand that. Fire is spiritual in the "courage" "warrior spirit" kind of way. Not so much in the "religious" or "higher power is out there" kind of way.
Actually, I read that Neptune entered Leo in July to July and a great, big bad thing happened there. Pretty much what happens when Leo of all signs has no emotional control. Total destruction. It was a bad time. It picked up a bit with the Roaring Twenties, but then let's not forget Leo's other weakness Another pretty bad thing. Neptune in Leo didn't seem like a good thing. The opposite actually. I actually don't really see Leo as that "center stage" "die for the theatre" character that so many modern astrologers want to portray him as. To me, he's the more wrathful, authoritative, regal, proud, fiery, and strong warrior-king the ancients saw him as.
I really don't know how the whole "theatre" thing came to be associated with him, but I wish it would stop. It just depends on people's interpretations. Because the signs and their exaltations are usually so unalike, I still see them as more "work-related" rather than "freedom-related" because I don't think a person can really be more "free" except in their own home which would be the domicile.
I think there's a way were every sign can get one unique domicile and one unique exaltation and have them all fit if people's interpretations match up. I still don't see how Neptune benefited from nearly destroying the world through Leo in WWI and causing the economic ruin that almost destroyed the American and world economies in the months leading up to the Stock Market Crash of XD Well, perhaps.
But again, it wouldn't really be the planets themselves or signs themselves that will "manifest" but rather people's interpretations from them. Right now, you and me are interpreting both Neptune and Leo and all other signs in different ways. You can see how Neptune and Leo can not only reconcile each other but even benefit each other. But I see the opposite. It would be the same for any sign and any planet. There shouldn't be the problem of assigning a planet or asteroid to a sign with even remotely similar qualities or not even similar since as you've pointed out that many exalted planets are NOT similar to their signs so there shouldn't really be any trouble with that.
But sorry, I do think that the whole exaltation thing is based of the personal likes and dislikes of moders "astrologers" and sadly, I've seen them fight and argue about which sign was "better. Plus, yet again let's not forget that as far as exaltations went, it was originally meant that only that specific DEGREE was exalted and not quite the entire sign.
I think that as long as the basic system is fair and all signs are paired up with their respective somicile and exaltation, there shouldn't be a problem. Any planet can pretty much benefit or be benefitted by any sign and vice versa With the ranking sysyem came the idea that some planets are better in certain signs than in others. If we want to make the sydtem fair its best to omit the idea of dignities or debilities and rather see each position with its own successes and weaknesses. The idea that leo is associated with creativity can very well be said about the idea of aquarius association with emotions.
But even though we would like to think of humans feral lions as descrived skyscript we also have think of how the lions roar has been expressed from a human standpoint. Yeah, but that wasn't really a ranking system since some planets are better in certain signs than others, and it was as balanced as it could be at that time since almost every sign got an exalted planet.
And yes, I agree. Seeing them more as their own "successes" and "weaknesses" instead of "debilities and dignities" would be a better way of putting things. One modern astrologer tried to put it best this way, "It's like comparing someone with natural talent to someone who has to work harder. But that doesn't mean that the sign who is naturally gifted in that area is guaranteed to always succeed since the influences of other planets and other factors also play a big part, and that doesn't mean that a sign that has to work harder is always doomed to failure for that planet.
Both must achieve a balance. Natural talent and luck will only go so far and if the naturally gifted sign in that planet doesn't make an effort, then its rewards won't be as great as they could've been. And likewise, a sign that has to work harder might not have the natural talents of that planet but if it tries to enhance the common ground it does share with the planet and downplay the weaknesses, then it can succeed too just perhaps not to the extent of the natural sign.
I'm a bit confused about that last bit. Leo's creativity seems to be a more modern concept. I don't know as much about Aquarius as far as its history in medieval or ancient times so I don't know if the two are comparable or not. If anything, it can be argued that a "lion's roar" in human terms is probably even worse than the actual animal's since human emotions and aggression can now lead to the very destruction of earth as almost happened several times in our history.
Plus, many must remember that a "lion's roar" is just a warning. Lions do more than just "roar. Lions roar to bring attention to themselves and as apart of their hunting tactics they often use manipulation, acting as the prey. Since humans beings do not hunt the way lions do, we must observe where this art if manipulation might show itself in the human world.
I noticed you mentioned that war 2 began during neptune in leo and the great depression followed right after. However, we must consider the other planets that usually indicate war and economic downturn, and that would be pluto and uranus. Pluto was in cancer at the time creating an obsession with homeland and power struggles regarding it. Again when observing where neptune fits in we must examine the indications that neptune is involved. Most interpretations have been made after observation.
When neptune was in leo we saw the strongest indications of neptune, which is why many believe neptune was exalted. Usually when a planet is falling the planets energy is weakened to the point we hardly see any indications of neptunes influence. But this was not the case last time neptune was in leo. We saw creativity come to life, new forms of escape through the movies, and a generation that most people would consider ideal for entertainment.
When neptune was in aquarius internet boomed, but it only served to disconnect us emotionally rather we only connect on a mental level. There were no strong indications of neptunes energy which is why many believe neptune is falling here. What we did see was a blockage with the rise of atheism and a stronger belief in science. A person with Venus in Pisces is more romantic than the practical venus in taurus and the logical venus in libra. To be romantic means to have a strong sense fantascism involving love and life.
Venus in pisces is waaay more fanticiful than venus in pisces by observation. I was giving an example as how venus' qualities is more prominent in its exalted state. And for most of the planets in there exalted state the qualities of the planets are enheightened or exaggerated. And this is what needs to be considered when we think of adding dignities or debilities to a planet in a sign.
I guess that's what you meant before by the "lion's roar" thing. I see. Sorry, it confused me a bit earlier. Yes, I think you have a point there. But it's still quite frustrating when modern astrologers see Leo as almost nothing more than this "attention whore" or "stage star" when he was really so much more than that. The ancients almost never saw him that way, too. World War 2 happened with our very own Pluto in Leo Kinda shows how negative and destructive Leo's emotions really are when not reined in properly. I agree that financial troubles are usually caused by the influences of other planets, but the reason I brought it up is because often but not all the time Leo's financial troubles are caused because at least according to some modern astrologers they are emotional financial spenders.
They shop, buy and spend on impulse and under the influence of emotional Neptune, the emotionally charged Leo made poor financial decisions that perhaps he might not have made if he was under a more logical, or materialistic sign. And the just like other planets influence finances more than Neptune, the internet is usually seen as Uranus' and thus Aquarius' thing.
I think maybe modern astrologers have confused Leo's preference for expression as creativity which nowadays seems like the same thing but really aren't. Leo wants to express himself whether he's happy, sad, angry, etc. But Leo's form of expression when he's sad and angry are usually destructive. He can be creative when he's happy and content, but they're not his main attribute Perhaps too much emphasis is being placed on Taurus and Libra's elements. Pisces gives Venus much more idealism but not much more "romantiscm" than Taurus or Libra. It even kind of reminds me of the saying "As romantic as a cold fish.
But I can see that Venus gives Pisces much more artistic ability and an etheral beauty that the other two might not have. But I can't really reconcile the "romantic" part. Pisces is one of the most "escapist" and shy of all the signs and to be romantic one must learn to trust and open up to others which Pisces has some trouble with. And this is why I really don't see a big problem in assigning the same amount of planets to each sign. I mean, of course I'm not saying to assign them "willy nilly," but that according to the balance of the zodiac and to the supposed natural balance of the universe, it shouldn't be much of a problem to find an equal amount of unique planets for the signs' exaltations and domiciles that are beneficial to both signs and planets if interpreted correctly.
There are two definitions of romantic. One is condusive to love; loving,tender, etc which easily describes the nature of pisces on its own right but especially when venus is in pisced. But another definition of romantic is an idealized view of life which also describes pisces. Romantic feelings may not always be expressed openly but venus in pisces has the most romantic outlook on love.
Venus in taurus is very practical and sometimes security and money rules over a loving relationship for them. Venus in libra often times will get people just for social reasons. But venus in pisces sincerly have love for people. It is the most loving placement by observation. Is it necessarily always as good as it exaggerates? Not always. Even exalted placements have a downside. But when considering exalted we must look for strong indications of the planets energy second to neptune in domicile. When neptune was in leo, neptunes power was more obvious than any other placement as well as neptune in cancer.
Neptune in leo probably did cause the great depression But the difference is the people with natal neptune in leo had more hope that things would turn around. They trusted their government much more than the natal neptune in aquarius generation whom so far they dont have much hope in the government or God, which in the long run is hurtful to what neptune represents. The ego cannot hurt neptune as neptune dissolves the ego.
Rather in Aquarius it dissolves humanity which is not good. Neptune dissolves whatever sign its in. To dissolve means to dismiss to melt into liquid form to terminate. Which one sounds worse terminating the ego or humanity? If anything the ego could serve neptune some good as it gives neptune more confidence to express its emotions. And since neptune greatly waters down Leos normal aggressive traits we see Leos more creative side.
In aquarius we see logic being dissolved as well. That is not good. This is why a planet like neptune does not belong in logical air and earth signs. It does better in fire signs and water signs where it softens the elements to make them purer. Btw fire signs are very spiritual and imaginative in nature especially sagittarius. Taurus as an earth sign has the most material love of art and floods people in romantic luxury and security. Libra is the most peaceful and fair sign and will find the balance in any relationship and of course expresses love by maintaining the peace.
So yet again, it all depends on how people interpret these things. Venus is certainly compatible with Pisces but I don't see it as necessarily its highest expression. The influences might or might not have been affected by that planet in that sign. It's very hard to isolate and measure each planet's influence on each sign by itself. Many other influences of course might have factored into the WWI and economic downturn of Neptune in Leo, but then the opposite is true and there might have been other planetary influences that allowed Leo to do so "well" and be so "creative" and "optimistic" since Leo isn't usually associated with those things on its own.
It goes both ways. An emotionally charged Leo isn't usually a "good" or "positive" Leo. The ego might not hurt Neptune per se, but it does hurt LEO and thus Leo cannot really benefit from Neptune since a big part of Leo's journey concerns the ego. As Leo's opposite, however, Aquarius is also the opposite of the ego and generally has the best interests of humanity at heart which is more similar to what Neptune does.