Comparing rising, sun, moon signs.

I thought of this today and wondered if any other astrologers agreed. The rising sign has been confusing for me. For awhile I thought it was just describing your potential physical appearance, and then I read it's your personality. So one thing lead to another and I have a theory your rising sign is your personality, your sun sign is how you feel about yourself, and your moon sign is how you feel about others. Is this assumption correct?

Also, I read that your Descendant is your true nature, but then that contradicts the rising sign being your personality. For example, my rising sign is Gemini so my DSC is Sagittarius. Is that saying my personality is that of a Gemini? OR a Sagittarius? So confused about that.

How does this all work together on a day to day basis?

I am not by any means an astrology ace, but I always thought the following:

The Sun is your 'ego', your strongest motivation, the "ring that rules them all" (but hopefully does not bind them in darkness, lol!). It's what integrates (or not) the many parts of what you are into a cohesive sense of self. It's your most basic potential, your conscious self, but does not always agree with the conscious image you have of yourself. These are separate things.

The Ascendant, on the other hand, is the way you express this sense of self. The image you consciously have of yourself and how you present it to others. It'd be the first impression you create on others, how your project yourself. Of course, the sun and the ASC sign are not isolated, they influence each other.

The Moon, it's both how you relate to the world in an emotional level and how the unconscious/non-logical side of your mind works. The Moon is closer to your instinctive impulses and reactions, which tend to be very emotional. While the Sun shows your conscious self, the Moon can represent your unconscious self.

As for the Descedant being your "true nature", I believe this to be incorrect, as it would deny everything the ASC says. I understand we are multi-layered creatures and filled with contradiction sometimes, but really, how many "deep inner true selves" can we have? LOL!

I have read many descriptions about the DSC ,and it seems some astrologers take it into consideration, and others don't. I have not found any definition that "convinces me" of its true importance. It IS the cusp of the 7th house, and the sign in which it falls may be important in knowing how you connect to others, how you act in relationships etc.

But I'll let more experienced astrologers correct me. I am just beginning to understand the nature of the planets, it's far more complex than the definitions I wrote above.

It really depends on your approach to Astrology and your understanding of what the natal chart shows. The current psychological approach sees the chart as a whole as describing the person and requiring the full integration of the planets and point, as placed around the chart wheel. For beginners, this can bring some confusion on the role of the Ascendant, and Sun and between these two and the chart as a whole.

The traditional approach sees the Ascendant (and first house) as the 'native' - both physically and his or her life as a whole (as a living being). In medical issues, the first represents the head of the person. The Ascendant and first house is a major factor to be considered in a person's temperament (the other factors being Moon and Sun in that order). In the tradition the first is not the way we present ourself to the world - it is our physical selves and our general health. Our temperament is the way that we present ourself to others as well as governing the way that we make our decisions and formulate our actions.

The Sun makes a contribution to Temperament but it's main role traditionally is to signify the way that we 'shine' - with the MC it's a significator of our profession, career, dignity and honour. and our prudence, judgement, and confidence.

The Moon shows our 'animal' mind - our intuition, our unthinking responses and along with the Ascendant, a general indicator of our health and wellbeing. Ascendant and Moon determine about 80% of our temperament and with Mercury, the Moon shows our mind.

Both Sun and Moon have 'accidental' roles in our lives, as rulers of two of the houses in our chart (assuming that neither Cancer or Leo is intercepted).

The Descendant shows 'not us' or more specifically in a natal chart, our marriage partner (taking marriage to include long time romantic partner with whom we set up home). For the traditional Astrologer this is a real person out there, nor our attitude or approach to marriage or marriage partner. It can also represent our enemies - though the twelfth house used to be used more for enemies - today it seems to refer to 'secret enemies' in many interpretations. In Horary or Event Astrology, the seventh can represent the 'opposition' in sports or legal questions or events, the object of our romantic affections (such questions as 'Will Kate go out with me?')

In most charts the Descendant is important as it marks an angle and angular planets usually play the most noticeable and frequent roles in the matter under consideration.

Now I've given you a traditional view, if Dave contributes, you'll get a very good account of the modern perception and a very clear distinction between Ascendant, Sun, Moon and Descendant from a psychological standpoint.

My views on this interesting topic.

There is so much to say about the questions raised in the opening post, more to say about the comments that follow. As noted previously, there are several (many) approaches to this art of astrology that one can take --- and the manner in which we practice astrology, and the views we have of why it works and what constitutes this life-view of people and the universe above only makes the subject vaster and more intriguing.

Starlight09 raised several topics: 1) the rising sign, 2) Sun sign, and 3) Moon sign.

1) The rising sign, the first house, and the Ascendant (degree) are all quite different in my view and should not be lumped together. The RISING SIGN tends to color the personality that one displays moment by moment. Aries is brashness, Gemini is talkative and curious acting, Libra pleasantly hesitates in reacting to you, etc. The FIRST HOUSE reflects your personal space and immediate environment. How? Planets in the first house or ruling the first house, and planets aspecting planets in the first house all go into the mix. What? Clothing, theme or colors in your house or on your car, what you do and what you eat, how you express yourself. The ASCENDANT is "you in action, you alive, your attitude." Planets conjoiningor aspecting the Ascendant point to how you act, react, view life in personal terms, expression of feelings, etc.

I believe that personality is more than a rising sign, but includes all planets within that sign and the first house and planets in aspect patterns to planets in this area of the chart. It is also more, including the Sun, Moon and other factors. I think of personality as a specific mask that gives a first appearance, but which is also the mind and feelings and habit patterns underneath that mask.

2) The SUN is well described in many astrological cook books --- and its all wrong in my opinion, or much of it is wrong. Jeff Mayo (Faculty of Astrological Studies in London, and my former teacher) said it best when he noted that the Sun is the point of "Integration." It took awhile for that to make sense for me. Many of the Sun's keywords more properly belong to Jupiter (which may be the most complex of all the planets to understand). The Sun vitalizes and powers the planets it touches. It equally shine light on the chart angles. By itself, it has less direct "keyword" meanings but rather adds and powers whatever planet or angle it affects. SUN does have meaning the work for medical, health and mundane events, but as a personal planet-like expression it is not so big on specifics.

In terms of keywords, the SUN (in my opinion) expresses itself in terms of SIGN and HOUSE meanings. By Sign expression, I'm seeing the "sign" as being much like Vedic/Joytish signs are construed; Aries is hot, brash and active. (Fire, Action) Period. Taurus is aquisitive, self absorbed and comfort seeking. (Sensual, status quo) Period. So, we get to use these short approaches to how the Sun expresses itself along with relationships to the other planets and the angles.

3) The MOON sign can be approached as to 1) what the Moon "means" and 2) the sign the Moon is in. Again, Moon and Neptune are often confused in many of today's cook books. There are other recent threads in this forum that address this issue. It is enough to know that the Moon is linked to the past, to emotional patterns and habits, and to representing primary needs of the individual. By virtue of its passing back and forth over the Sun's ecliptical path, and these nodal points causing eclipse events, the Moon seems to partake of sign meanings much like the Sun does. In this sense, the zodiac is a philosophical "wheel" of natural and alternating expression rhythms, a "whole" set of meanings in which one leads to the next within a pattern based on "threeness, fourness and twelveness." So, if one reads the Moon as representing 1) the past (history, past lives, childhoon environment and ingrained habits), 2) emotions and rsponses (insecurities, joy or depression level feelings, appreciative of support), and 3) primary needs (to be held, supported, appreciated, responded to, made relevant).

Now, here I should mention that SIGNS may not have any real meaning for the rest of the planets in the chart. The planets (other than Sun, Moon) don't need signs but do react to aspects, phases, and house expressions, etc. This is contrary to what most books say. In the modern sense (relative to traditional, medeival or hellenistic or ancient practices) planets in aspect to each other, in a cyclic or phase relationship scheme, or in midpoint and harmonic structures are highly meaningful. I only need to note that it is easy to read a chart and a person in terms of only the planets and without recourse to sign meanings. In fact, that is the way I practice astrology. No signs beyond Sun and Moon signs in the natal chart, no houses other than in the natal chart. I have stripped away 95% of what i ever read in books and have kept only the few things that always work.

Do I reccommend this approach for most beginners? No. I recommend buying, reading at least 100 books covering many aspects of astrology, and of constructing and deeply reading a few hundred charts to start with. Astrology is a all-or-nothing pursuit. Anything less and you end up following astrology in books, magazines, the Internet, but you never end up really practicing it or understanding it. I've been at it for almost 40 years, non-professionally, and I still have weeks when I construct 30 or 50 charts. You have to get involved. Obsessed? No. I live for astrology but I don't live by it. I seldom look at my own chart. I can't exercise the perspective needed to deal with my own chart.

Last of all, keep in mind that "astrology" (in the big picture) has room to approach and practice it in many ways, and to apply it to many fields of human endeavor (medical, weather, mundane, politics, finance, relationships, psychological analysis, past lives, personality, prediction of events, etc., etc., etc.). In the small picture, one can use traditional, medeival, psycological, uranian, modern, vedic/joytish, midpoint, harmonic approaches and sub-variants to examine anyone and anything. In all of this, you will find that much of it can work, and that someone elses approach (for you) won't work. It requires respect, patience and the need to be curious about the magic of what we do and achieve. Astrology works best within a chosen system that is true to itself. Dave



** The rising sign has been confusing for me. For awhile I thought it was just describing your potential physical appearance, and then I read it's your personality. So one thing lead to another and I have a theory your rising sign is your personality, your sun sign is how you feel about yourself, and your moon sign is how you feel about others. Is this assumption correct?

** Also, I read that your Descendant is your true nature, but then that contradicts the rising sign being your personality. For example, my rising sign is Gemini so my DSC is Sagittarius. Is that saying my personality is that of a Gemini? OR a Sagittarius? So confused about that.

Hi, just wanted to check in and say I've read the responses so far and thoroughly appreciate them ALL. It's a LOT of info to take in though so let me digest it and I'll respond with feedback if necessary. A HUGE thank you to all three of you!

A few further comments

dadsnook2000 said:

1) The rising sign, the first house, and the Ascendant (degree) are all quite different in my view and should not be lumped together.

Click to expand...

That's a very interesting comment and I think it's well worth considering that distinction in analysis. Originally there was no distinction between first house and rising sign, as whole sign housese were used. However the gradual dominance of quadrant house systems does raise the issue of how first house and rising sign differ, if at all. Like Dave, I use a quadrant house system, so Dave's point is very relevant to me. Thinking about Dave's point I realised that I do distinguish between the rising sign and the first House and I'll explain how below, as the method is relevant to some of Dave's other points (from my approach - I'm not suggesting Dave uses it LOL)

dadsnook2000 said:

I believe that personality is more than a rising sign, but includes all planets within that sign and the first house and planets in aspect patterns to planets in this area of the chart. It is also more, including the Sun, Moon and other factors. I think of personality as a specific mask that gives a first appearance, but which is also the mind and feelings and habit patterns underneath that mask.

Click to expand...

Yes personality (temperament in my approach) is dependent on more than the first house, and yes, Sun and Moon and other factors are relevant - again I'll say a little bit more, as I only gave a potted view above. The point here though is that there's a difference between our life and body (the first) and our mind and personality.

Interetingly as an aside, Lilly, when looking for a significator of manners (what we would call outward behaviour) looks first at planets in the 'sign ascending' rather than the first house as such.

dadsnook2000 said:

2) The SUN is well described in many astrological cook books --- and its all wrong in my opinion, or much of it is wrong. Jeff Mayo (Faculty of Astrological Studies in London, and my former teacher) said it best when he noted that thi Sun is the point of "Integration." It took awhile for that to make sense for me. Many of the Sun's keywords more properly belong to Jupiter (which may be the most complex of all the planets to understand). The Sun vitalizes and powers the planets it touches. It equally shine light on the chart angles. By itself, it has less direct "keyword" meanings but rather adds and powers whatever planet or angle it affects. SUN does have meaning the work for medical, health and mundane events, but as a personal planet-like expression it is not so big on specifics.

Click to expand...

This point of Dave's had me scrabbling for my copy of Lilly's Book III as it remiinded me of something he said

'The luminaries in the Horoscope effect no great matters, but in a general way, unless they be wonderful stongly fortified'

Now this is not quite what Dave said, as when Lilly refers to the 'Horoscope' he means the first House, not the entire chart. However his sentiments about the luminaries are that there effect is general rather than specific - general across the board effect

dadsnook2000 said:

In terms of keywords, the SUN (in my opinion) expresses itself in terms of SIGN and HOUSE meanings. By Sign expression, I'm seeing the "sign" as being much like Vedic/Joytish signs are construed; Aries is hot, brash and active. (Fire, Action) Period. Taurus is aquisitive, self absorbed and comfort seeking. (Sensual, status quo) Period. So, we get to use these short approaches to how the Sun expresses itself along with relationships to the other planets and the angles.

Click to expand...

I take a slightly different view - I agree with Dave's comment about 'sign' taking the elements as Fire (Hot and Dry) = Choleric; Earth (Cold and Dry) = Melancholic; Ait (Hot and Moist) = Sanguine and Water (Cold and Wet) = Phlegmatic.

Although Dave doesn't use these terms, he's reduced the essentials of the Sign to Elements (and also the Modes, Cardinal, Fixed and Mutable) and it's the elements alone that I use in assessing temperament. I differ from Dave in that I don't apply the elements to the Sun in the same way that he does - I use the approach of assigning temperament to Season (The Sun in relation to Earth effectively defines these) So I for assessing the Sun, I'd actually treat Sun in Aries as being Sanguine - as Aries is a Spring sign and the Spring is Hot and Moist. While this is a bit different from Dave, we are both actually taking the Signs as Sun defined (The Zodiac being a band around the ecliptic) Dave takes Sun by Sign on a Sign by Sign basis, I take it on its phase relation to the Earth. Now whlist that is standard for a traditional approach it is very different from the moder cookbook approaches, so I think you need to think long and hard before you begin to toy with changing from the modern approach, as a beginner.

dadsnook2000 said:

Now, here I should mention that SIGNS may not have any real meaning for the rest of the planets in the chart. The planets (other than Sun, Moon) don't need signs but do react to aspects, phases, and house expressions, etc. This is contrary to what most books say. In the modern sense (relative to traditional, medeival or hellenistic or ancient practices) planets in aspect to each other, in a cyclic or phase relationship scheme, or in midpoint and harmonic structures are highly meaningful. I only need to note that it is easy to read a chart and a person in terms of only the planets and without recourse to sign meanings. In fact, that is the way I practice astrology. No signs beyond Sun and Moon signs in the natal chart, no houses other than in the natal chart. I have stripped away 95% of what i ever read in books and have kept only the few things that always work.

Click to expand...

Now here I differ quite a lot from Dave, and from the cook books of modern Astrology. I'll start with what I agree with above - planets in aspect, and planets in cyclic or phase relation. Oddly though Dave and I use quite different phase relationships. Apart from the Moon, I've not seen Dave make much use (or indeed any use that I can recall) of planets in phase relation to the Sun but I take that phase relation as very important. It governs and accounts for retrograde motion, it distinguishes between occidental and oriental positions, the 'speed' of the planet and it places great emphasis on whether a planet is visible or is obscured by the Sun. These phase relations have fallen out of use by modern Astrologers, who seem to see more importance in phase relations between the planets from Mercury out. But I must admit that I can see no reason for insisting that those phase relationships are important but that the phase relations with the Sun are not (apart from Sun/Moon).

Now let me turn to Signs - I don't use signs in the modern sense. But I do see sign placement as important. It's not just the Sun that moves through the Zodiac - the other planets do (apart from Pluto, which can be outside it) They may not always be on the ecliptic (and often are not) but a planet is in a sign and it's in a sign because the gravitational pull of the Sun has put the planets in a plane around the Sun. There's never been a time when the planets have not been placed or given meaning separate from the Zodiac. Yes you can read a chart without using signs for planets, but in so doing you cut yourself off from a significant core element of (All) Astrology. I agree with Dave's rejection of cook book sign meanings, but to be honest, if you reject signs for planets, what really is to stop you rejecting Signs for the Moon (which is not the only planet to have phase relationship with the Sun) and even the Sun itself by treating the Zodiac as simply a measuring scale. After all it's the phase relation of Sun to Earth that makes a difference, not the measuring scale - or is it?

dadsnook2000 said:

Do I reccommend this approach for most beginners? No. I recommend buying, reading at least 100 books covering many aspects of astrology, and of constructing and deeply reading a few hundred charts to start with. Astrology is a all-or-nothing pursuit. Anything less and you end up following astrology in books, magazines, the Internet, but you never end up really practicing it or understanding it. I've been at it for almost 40 years, non-professionally, and I still have weeks when I construct 30 or 50 charts. You have to get involved. Obsessed? No. I live for astrology but I don't live by it. I seldom look at my own chart. I can't exercise the perspective needed to deal with my own chart.

Click to expand...

I don't recommend my approach to beginners either, unless they are specifically interested, though I think it's very important that they realise that the cook books and the vast majority of modern texts are not the only way that Astrology can be practised. Read a lot - though 100 books is perhaps Virgo overkill (modern sense) unless of course you get the bug. Do lots of charts but think about them, store them away and as you learn more go back and look at them and rethink your interpretation.

Take a lot of note of Dave's comment about the big picture. There's far more to Astrology than the natal chart. Look at some of the other branches. Try Horary and Event Astrology because you will find the former easier if you are a Tarot reader (you have the basic understanding of answering questions) and Horary only uses part of a chart, so you begin to learn pictures at a simple level.

Like Dave I don't do my own chart - I've seen some professionals who get obsessed with it and let it rule their lives - Dave's advice above is so important that we should all keep it in mind and keep that obsession at bay.

To end I'll briefly list the factors that I'd take into account in assessing personality (temperament) - Note where 'sign' is mentioned it is by element, as above

Ascending Sign
Ruler of the Ascending Sign by nature
Ruler of the Ascending Sign by Sign placement
Planets in the first, if any
Planets aspecting the Ascendant by Sign
Moon Sign
Moon Ruler
Moon Phase
Planets aspecting the Moon by Sign
Sun by Season of the Year
Lord of the Geniture
Sign of the Lord of the Geniture

Now this fits in reasonably with Dave's comments above, though as I've said by no means exactly. Nevertheless we're both looking at Ascendant, Rising Sign, First House, Planets in the First, Planets aspecting the Ascendant,Moon by sign, Sun by sign (with the proviso I made above). In my case the rising Sign also has an effect by element, as it does for Dave, and I also take into account its ruler. we probably differ is in my use of rulers, especially for the Moon and the signs of those rulers (even though I'm not using 'sign' in a modern sense). I've also use a 'quick' system which leaves out the aspects and planets in the first but does include the Almuten of the Ascendant, which is determined by the degree of the Ascendant and may well be differ from elsewhere in the sign.

As a beginner, you should be aware of and take some note of the agreements between Dave and me, simply because they represent a reasonably good common ground. Whether you include any of the differences is up to you and if you're like me, this will change as you learn more. I once operated a scheme based on Tracy Marks - I gradually refined it and dropped the bits I didn't like. When I took up a traditional approach I based my method on a simplified Lilly - I'm now using a mixture of Lilly and the simplified approach of Dorian Greenbaum and as I do more charts and more thinking, I'll be dropping the bits that don't work so well and adding in new bits.

That's a very interesting topic on which I've been chewing for years already trying to understand why not even one horoscope I've got describes me the way I feel about myself. And I haven't found the answer. I have Capricorn rising and I absolutely cover in my physical appearance what I've read about Caps - bone structure, height, even the way my shoulders look always a bit down. I look serious to people and even what they say that Caps start looking younger as they age is tru ebout me while I looked older when I was a child and a teen.

But then I'm a Scorpio Sun and the way I act is totally Scorpio while some of my physical appearance still has the Scorpio signs - the eyes, the nose, the movement and the way I talk, even my voice. It looks like my appearance is a mix of Scorpio and Cap, not only one of them.

Now, with the Moon which is in Cancer and in the 7th house, I totally don't relate to her. I hate being stuck at home, I prefer risk to security, I absolutely need excitement and I never whine. My sensitivity is far more Scorpio than Cancer. I chase rather than stare at an object of affection. I don't like nurtutring anyone, I like to be equal and I prefer admiration to quiet love. And from here comes the fact that I haven't had even one horoscope to which I can relate and in which I can truly recognize myself.

I sometimes think it's the conjunction Moon/Saturn in the 7th in cancer/Leo against the Sun/Uranus conjunction in the 9th and to me it seems that latter wins. But I can't be sure, of course. In any case, the part of my horoscope I least relate to is that Moon description I always get. And I also can't stand Cancer men so I can't even see this a possible partner. Very confusing indeed.

Dave & Minderwiz - thank you for the very complete explanation on your methods! I'm still digesting it all, lol!

Ronia said:

In any case, the part of my horoscope I least relate to is that Moon description I always get. And I also can't stand Cancer men so I can't even see this a possible partner. Very confusing indeed.

Click to expand...

You know, this is why I avoid focusing too much on my chart during my astrology studies... of course I have looked at some things, but overall I realize I will always see the chart from the inside out with no objectivity whatsoever. I have Moon in Aries and trust me, I hate when they describe this kind of people as a psychological she-male amazons because I know I don't see myself this way - although I have to confess, people usually see me as more energetic and aggressive than most of women. I grew up in a house of strong women who never depended on men to get things done. I work in a room with 7 other women, and I am the tomboy, killing roaches, fixing chairs and carrying heavy boxes.

So, when I read these admittedly cardboard cut-out descriptions descriptions of women with Moon in Aries, when taking my own emotions into consideration, it doesn't feel right. However, in my emotional reactions and perhaps overall behavior, as seen from an outside observer, it'd would - to some point. Thankfully we are much more than our natal chart, lol!

Also, Minderwiz once told me that the Moon can also represent how the non-logical side of your mind works, as opposed to Mercury. I like this idea, because it makes the Moon a part of a whole, and not the center around which your emotional life gravitates.

Yes, but no one has ever seen me as a Cancerian woman either. All the people around me usually see me as a Cap, some can soon see the Scorpio but none has ever seen a Cancer. That's what's so puzzling to me. What is this Moon doing there and how is she manifesting... I've read as much as I could about Moon in Cancer and excluding the "very emotional" which, however, is part of the Scorpionic too, I can't really see how and where she's playing. I'm a fighter and doing things myself, not exactly the Cancerian feminity... Even my motherhood is Scoprionic and has nothing to do with this endless nurturing of the Cancerian mother... Very odd indeed. I don't know how to decipher this.

I'm not sure I understand this about the non logical side... Isn't this the emotional side?

Ronia said:

Yes, but no one has ever seen me as a Cancerian woman either. All the people around me usually see me as a Cap, some can soon see the Scorpio but none has ever seen a Cancer. That's what's so puzzling to me. What is this Moon doing there and how is she manifesting... I've read as much as I could about Moon in Cancer and excluding the "very emotional" which, however, is part of the Scorpionic too, I can't really see how and where she's playing. I'm a fighter and doing things myself, not exactly the Cancerian feminity... Even my motherhood is Scoprionic and has nothing to do with this endless nurturing of the Cancerian mother... Very odd indeed. I don't know how to decipher this.

I'm not sure I understand this about the non logical side... Isn't this the emotional side?

Click to expand...

In your case (and in Marina's) the Moon is in the same element as your Suns and that will make it more difficult to separate it. The most basic difference between both your Moons and Suns is that the Moons are Cardinal. So something inside of you has a deep need to START things. Cancer starts emotions, Aries starts action.

As a Scorpio Sun, you could be quite in contact with your Moon's needs, but you might be thinking it is your Sun's as they are similar. I am not the best to talk of the Moon, because I've always had it quite abandoned.