2 planets in domicile does this mean anything good?
I have mercury in Gemini and Uranus in Aquarius. I heard Aquarius is ruled by Saturn and Uranus but I'm not sure please help.
- Anonymous11 months agoFavourite answer
>No statistics exist for astrology and astrology ignores statistics.<
No, skeptics do. I've given you the statistics dozens of times and you don't understand them or astrology. But in true bigoted fashion, you never let facts get in the way of your prejudices.
Having two planets in domicile is no big deal in and of itself. I've seen charts with 4 or so plus a couple in exaltation. Planets in domicile "act" independently since they are not disposited by any other planet. They are considered strong. The best attributes of those planets become obvious in the native, if other factors agree.
The traditional ruler of Aquarius is Saturn. Uranus was discovered about 1780 (I don't feel like looking it up), when astrology was sort of taking a nap. When it woke up, it had a new planet to consider and in the 1840s another one (Neptune). Although there has been some research into the history of Uranus "ruling" Aquarius, there doesn't seem to be a "eureka" moment when this association came about. A lot of astrologers seemed to agree on the assignation, but when it happened.. But if we look at the rulerships in sign order a possible scenario emerges. Starting with Aries and not using the outer three planets, the rulerships follow the order of the planets in the solar system, first "in" then "out," then back in again. Mars (Aries), Venus (Taurus), Mercury (Gemini), Moon (Cancer), Sun (Leo), Mercury (Virgo), Venus (Libra), Mars (Scorpio), Jupiter (Sagittarius), Saturn (Capricorn), Saturn (Aquarius), Jupiter (Pisces). So Uranus was stuck in after Capricorn, and then Neptune after Aquarius. The problem is, and this isn't just my opinion, but also that or Robert Hand, the pairing of Uranus and Aquarius is horrible. Modern astrologers teach that the planets and the signs they rule are similar in nature, but then the nature of Uranus was nothing like the nature of Aquarius, so they changed Aquarius! They were on stronger ground, but not much, with Neptune and when Pluto was discovered in 1930 astrologers originally tried to assign it to Aries, continuing the order.
The outer planets, as they are used today, simply do not fit into the traditional scheme at all. In fact they mess it up pretty good for this and other reasons. My advice is to stick with Saturn as ruler of Aquarius and use the outer three planets like fixed stars - conjunctions only, tight, tight orbs. Uranus conjunct the ASC is well worth looking at. Uranus in the 3rd is a yawn even if it is in Aquarius. .
>You are betting your life on inanimate objects <
Uhhh no. A) there is no wager, B) This is like telling a patient who is told an MRI shows a serious problem: "You're betting your life on a photograph."
Ignorance and bigotry go hand in hand and and there are no greater bigots than skeptics.
- Anonymous11 months ago
Heard from where? Do you really expect a lot astrology literate people hang out to give a quick answer? Just off the top of their heads? For free?
No statistics exist for astrology and astrology ignores statistics.
- Anonymous11 months ago
You need help, alright. But it's not with this, it's with your mental instability.
Let me ask you something. Let's say a pile of legos falls on the floor and arranges in a certain pattern. Would you bet your future on how it landed? No, because obviously it's stupid and only an idiot would even go there.
Welcome to astrology. You are betting your life on inanimate objects no more significant than legos.
- Rick BLv 711 months ago
No. that does not mean anything.