A Whole New Way of Looking at Libra
by Valerie Vaughan
The wholistic view is something we aim for in astrology. When a client or someone unfamiliar with astrology asks, "What does it mean that I'm a Libra?" Astrologers say, "Well, it depends," and then we try to see how that Sun in Libra is operating within the whole complex of the person's chart.
This wholistic approach is one of the major ways that astrology differs from the modern scientific approach. Science gains much of its information by breaking things down and isolating the parts. When scientists use their familiar methods to analyze their superficial understanding of astrology, they can't make any sense of it and thus they claim to have a scientific "reason" to dismiss astrology as illogical. They pick out isolated statements and make a hasty conclusion in the following way. "According to astrological principles, Capricorn rules administration, but we've divided everyone into sun-signs, and there's a lot of Capricorns that aren't CEOs. In the same way, Scorpio is said to rule surgery, but there's a lot of sun-sign Scorpios that aren't surgeons. There are too many exceptions to the rules, and therefore, astrology is wrong."
To this, astrologers would answer, "The problem is, you're trying to apply a literal approach, a limited method we would call cookbook astrology. Beginning students of our discipline might go through a phase that involves this kind of thinking, but eventually, with serious study, they get past that stage. It's rather like a future mathematician learning two-and-two makes four, but the same literal words may be useless or even misleading for understanding more advanced or complex concepts involving the whole pattern, such as fractals."
Astrologers say, "Yes, the chart contains many individual symbols, and each individual part has many different potential associations, any of which might manifest depending on the whole situation." All people born with a Libra Sun do not share the same whole chart. One person's Libra Sun might be in a square with Saturn or it might be located in the 5th house. The Libra Sun is qualified by other factors, just as the "two" in the equation in the math analogy listed above might be qualified, depending on whether it is in base ten or base twelve. The meaning of Libra Sun (or the "two") can change, depending on all of the information contained within the whole context.
There are literally hundreds of these individual factors in any astrological chart. If you attempt to understand the whole chart by simply breaking it down into a long list of individual factors, you lose the sense of wholeness and complex interconnection. It's like taking a machine apart so you can identify individual components. The information you gain about individual parts will not necessarily lead to an understanding of the overall purpose of the machine itself.
Those of you who have spent considerable time in the study of astrology might think back to when you were learning the first principles. You memorized all the individual factors, including planets and their rulerships, the signs and their characteristics, the aspects, etc. Then, at some point you made The Big Leap -- you started to be able to blend the parts and see them within the context of the whole chart. This is a very important conceptual leap, and it is so subtle that it's hard to explain how it happens. From what we know about how the brain works, however, conceptual leaps appear to be fostered by the ability of the right side of the brain to "get" the whole picture.
People who have more literal minds (concentrating with their left-brains) have trouble with this leap in developmental thought. This may explain why certain people who place emphasis on left-brain thinking just don't "get" astrology. Much of the work of scientists involves a concentration of literal, left-brain thought, and this is possibly a contributing factor in their rejection of astrology. (Scientists who reject astrology also do not generally bother to study the subject long enough to get past the 2+2 stage.) People who are less attached to a strictly literal view, who make more use of their right-brain, may find it easier to make the leap into perceiving the chart as a whole entity, and the individual as a whole person.
In this article I will attempt to assist the reader in a conceptual leap. I shall list many individual factors and then attempt to draw them together into one perspective. In this attempt I may seem to be wandering, but I'm really gathering together many apparently disparate elements.
Each one of the astrological symbols has many potential associations which must be considered. Let's take an example. We can't talk about a planet without implying the sign it rules, and vice versa. Each of the twelve signs is ruled by a planet; that is, each sign has one planet that is closely associated or compatible with the "energy" of that sign (the Sun rules fiery Leo, the Moon rules the watery sign of feelings, Cancer, etc.). The ancients knew of only five planets in addition to the Sun and Moon, and they gave each of these five the rulership of two signs (5 planets times 2 signs is 10, plus one sign each for the Sun and Moon, equals 12 signs). In the traditional rulership system, Mercury ruled both Gemini and Virgo, Venus ruled Taurus and Libra, Mars ruled Aries and Scorpio, Jupiter ruled Pisces and Sagittarius, and Saturn ruled Aquarius and Capricorn. These are the dual rulerships.
Table of Traditional Rulerships
Ladder of the Planets
Planet/Ruler and the Signs of Rulership
Sun / Leo / Moon / CancerMercury / Virgo / Gemini
Venus / Libra / Taurus
Mars / Scorpio / Aries
Jupiter / Sagittarius / Pisces
Saturn / Capricorn / Aquarius
This system is really quite orderly. As you can see from the Table of Traditional Rulerships, it forms what is called the Ladder of the Planets. Beginning with Leo and following the order of the planets, the signs progress in Zodiacal order down the "ladder," and then back up again. This system worked just fine for thousands of years until the discovery of Uranus, which disrupted the order (not surprisingly, for it is the planet that rules disruption and anti-tradition). Uranus was given the rulership of experimental Aquarius, and the old ruler Saturn, the planet of limitation/restriction, was the first planet to have its domain restricted to the rulership of just one sign, Capricorn.
In modern times, as each new planet has been discovered, the system of rulership has required adjustment. Each traditional planet had to "abdicate" one of its thrones, and give over part of its rulership, one of its signs, to the newcomer. Neptune took over Pisces, formerly ruled by Jupiter. Pluto became ruler of Scorpio, originally ruled by Mars. According to many astrologers, the rulership of Virgo was "taken" from Mercury and given to the Asteroids (headed by Ceres) or to Chiron. You will note that, so far, only one planet remains that is said to be ruling two signs -- Venus. Hang on to that idea because we're going to get back to that particular point later on.
Table of Modern Rulerships
(with Traditional Rulerships in Bold)
Sun / Leo / Moon / CancerAsteroids (Ceres) / Virgo / Mercury / Gemini
Venus / Libra / Venus / Taurus
Pluto / Scorpio / Mars / Aries
Jupiter / Sagittarius / Neptune / Pisces
Saturn / Capricorn / Uranus / Aquarius
Of course, even with the newly-discovered planets, we have not totally abandoned the traditional system because, for example, we still refer to Scorpio as being co-ruled by Mars and Pluto, and we still call Jupiter the "old" ruler of Pisces. Also, many astrologers recognize that astrology still works quite adequately by using only the traditional rulers, as the ancients did. Using the traditional planets instead of the modern ones is rather like using classical, Newtonian physics instead of quantum physics. You can get adequate results using classical physics, even with its "outdated" methods. In some situations, however, using the newer planets (like using quantum mechanics) is more appropriate and provides more accurate results.
It is interesting to observe how the "meaning" of each sign has been refined or changed somewhat since it gained a new rulership. Pluto, for example, was discovered just as we entered the Atomic Age, and we must admit that the nature of Plutonium and nuclear power has dramatically changed humanity's view of death (ruled by Scorpio). Likewise, the rulership of the Asteroids has given Virgo a much more feminine meaning than that bestowed by the old rational-logical ruler Mercury.
Meaning -- that's what it's all about. Humans seek meaning. From the time we can talk, we start asking why. People consult with an astrologer because they want to know why. We hear them say, "My wife is leaving me, my boss wants to fire me, I'm so depressed these days -- why?" Or, "Most of my planets are in fire, what does that mean?" As a consulting astrologer, you might mention to a client that their Moon is conjunct Saturn, or Neptune is transiting their natal Ascendant, but you don't stop there. You tell them what that means. And they, in turn, will tell you what it means to them. It's all about meaning and the content of consciousness.
Science gives us information, not meaning. Scientists in general are not looking for this type of understanding which they assign to other disciplines such as religion, philosophy, or psychology. They know that scientific methods do not work well with the "messy" nature of consciousness, which is too loaded with contradictions and fuzzy borders. Consciousness and meaning cannot be taken apart by literal scientific methods, or at least not without losing the sense of the whole.
On the other hand, a growing population of debunkers claim that the scientific way of thinking is the best way to approach all potential realms of knowledge, and some of them use this assumption to debunk alternative ways of thinking. They use rules that work for literal endeavors such as science but which fail (or give false impressions) when applied to wholistic disciplines such as astrology. It is easy to debunk astrology with the use of literal thinking, and because science is now touted as the ruling paradigm, society generally assumes that its methods must be universally appropriate. But, as we all know, the key to getting a job done well is using the right tool. Science has been using the equivalent of hammers and knives to pry open the secrets of the universe. How can such literal, mechanical minds understand that, in some situations, a paintbrush might be more appropriate?
Astrology has no order that makes any sense to the literal view. But if you put serious effort into studying astrology from a wholistic view, you discover that it has an incredible, albeit subtle, internal consistency. Astrology has a highly complex internal order such that the individual symbols and meanings all make sense with regard to each other. We can see this consistency in the planetary rulerships. Mars rules Aries -- an aggressive planet rules an assertive sign. Jupiter, the biggest planet, rules the most expansive sign, Sagittarius. When presented with the traditional dual rulerships, we say, yes, there are many ways that Mars is an appropriate ruler for Scorpio, but something's missing in this connection. Scorpio is secretive and there's nothing very secretive about the nature of Mars -- but Pluto, the new ruler, really fills that gap; it embellishes and expands our understanding of the meaning of Scorpio. In the same way, Jupiter does "work" as the ruler of Pisces, but some aspects of Pisces are really more Neptunian.
We can look to ancient mythology to confirm these associations. For example, Pluto was the Greco-Roman god of the Underworld, so his hidden nature fits with a rulership of Scorpio, and Neptune was the ancient god of the ocean, which fits with Pisces. Ancient mythology is, in fact, entirely consistent in supporting the themes and characteristics of the astrological signs and planets. Because I knew mythology to be a dependable resource that confirms astrological principles, I began to wonder about Venus being the ruler of Libra.
Astrology says Venus is a benefic, right? The planet that rules the sign of love and cooperation, Libra. What are some of those familiar keywords for Libra? Diplomacy, peace, balance, marriage. The nature of a planet is supposed to match the sign it rules, but, according to Greco-Roman myths, Venus was not happily married. Many people assume she was hooked up with Mars, but she actually had an ugly, deformed husband, Vulcan, whom she rejected a lot, and she was constantly running off to have extra-marital affairs, and in the process she was usually disturbing the peace and causing arguments. If you look up all the Greco-Roman myths about Venus, you will see that her behavior does not fit our understanding of Libra at all. The nature of mythological Venus is in total contradiction to our modern Western astrological idea that Venus is a benefic.
And we can see more contradictory evidence outside of Greece and Rome, because other ancient traditions identified the planet Venus as an out-right malefic. The Babylonians lived in fear of her wrath; their written astrological records are full of dark warnings about what happened during Venus transits. Studies of ancient Mexican astrology have likewise shown that the Mesoamericans believed Venus was highly dangerous. If any of you are familiar with the work of Immanuel Velikovsky, you will remember that he documented a great deal of this -- ancient writings and traditions from all over the world, pointing to the evil nature of the planet Venus. If you read up on ancient Mesoamerican myths or any of the early Mediterranean myths, you're going to have some serious doubts about Venus being a benevolent planet. You will also wonder, as I did, how she came to acquire her modern associations with peaceful, cooperative Libra.