Hi
Apparantly, the 'ancients' used the ascendant, not the sun sign, as the main sign.
Anyone feel it'd be more accurate to read our horoscopes from the ascendant sign, rather than our sun sign?
Cheers
Hi Cinammon,
I have 5 planets in Pisces (Sun, Mercury, Saturn, Mars and Moon) + Chiron, but, I have a 6.46 Leo ascendant. I look more Leo, I have good boundaries, I can speak for myself and others, my hair is cropped and dyed red and I'm nearly 6ft tall. On the other hand, I'm a very sensitive healer with a deep compassion and empathy for others.
Upon meeting me you'll find the Leo is the prominent, but then the ascendant is how others see you and your physicality being the beginning of the 1st house.
You need to see the natal chart in it's entirety and not just the sun or ascendant.
Cheers, Sue
Cheers, Sue. It was really to see if anyone else felt the ascendant was more accurate for horoscopes, than the sun sign, as apparantly it used to be the ascendant people referred to. I read that it's only recently (well, I say recently ...!) that the sun sign's been used as the main sign.
I read both sun and rising sign information when I consult daily horoscopes.
Hi
Apparantly, the 'ancients' used the ascendant, not the sun sign, as the main sign.
Anyone feel it'd be more accurate to read our horoscopes from the ascendant sign, rather than our sun sign?
Cheers
Having some 25 years in studying astrology behind me now... I would heartily recommend that people ignore the greater majority of 'sun sign' literature and pay far greater attention to their actual natal charts. All natal charts begin with the ascendant; it is a critical position. It can reflect the appearance of the person - but this can be as much about the way others see or feel you than what you look like. However it is much more than that - accurately defined, the ascendant can be used to determine key events in life with attention to transits and progressions.
Unfortunately, the media propels this nonsense of sun sign horoscopes everyday and this tends to keep the majority of people in ignorance of the real subject... You won't find any of these celebrity (pseudo) astologers writing an article on key reality of astrology with examples of how the real subject works - in any newspaper or weekly magazine - but you will see them promulgate "what the stars have in store for you" type rubbish articles (IMHO) - because that is what they get paid their money for... It wouldn't do to tell readers the truth would it...
I'm amazed by the way so many folk become duped into the false belief of sun sign 'astrology' - I tend to grant people to be relatively intelligent generally speaking - yet so many fall for the same old stuff - as if they can't see through the facade. How can it possibly be that what some daily writer says about Cancerians will be right for 1/12th of the entire population?! They never specifiy exact case realities - yet if they really were genuine astrologers with thorough understanding of their subject - they could write case articles which could inspire more people to study the real subject... A good astrologer can for example tell you that you might get a job offer between 1pm and 3pm on a day, six months in advance... Then when the phone call & job offer comes and the astrologer is asked 'should I take it or not' - they might for example reply - no - wait - delay your answer back until 4.30pm... So the company calls again and offers another 2k/yr - then you take the job! That is real astrology... Wouldn't it make a change to read case examples like that in the tabloids - no - it would be a miracle!
Of course an ascendant is infinitely more significant than a 'sun sign'!
A.