frac_ture
I just put up a similar post asking why only two out of the four Angles seem to be emphasized in chart analysis even though all four of the Angular Houses seem to be held in extra-high esteem -- the unequal treatment doesn't make sense to me...
Similarly, I see that the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant all seem to be hailed as the three most critical elements of a chart (unless other factors conspire to raise some other element to the same lofty heights)...and then most sources and authorities I've studied will advise astrologers to go on and examine the Sun's Ruler and the Ascendant's Ruler for placements, dignities, etc....and yet at this point, the procedure seems to slip, and no one ever mentions the Moon's Ruler.
Maybe I'm just being too much of a completist, but it would seem to me that if three things are considered vital, and then the next step involves looking at the Ruler of one...then a second...why would we stop there? Wouldn't it make just as much sense to continue on with analyzing the Moon's Ruler, too? And I realize that I don't need the approval and authorization of the Astrology community at large to go ahead and just analyze the Moon's Ruler in a given chart myself...I'm just curious if there's any explicit reason why no one seems to hold it forth as a "necessary" step on the same level as the examination of the other two Rulers I just mentioned. Is there some basis in tradition for neglecting the Moon's Ruler? Does anyone reading this have experience with finding that the Moon's Ruler does or does not factor in heavily when studying a given chart? Any input would be welcome here!
Similarly, I see that the Sun, Moon, and Ascendant all seem to be hailed as the three most critical elements of a chart (unless other factors conspire to raise some other element to the same lofty heights)...and then most sources and authorities I've studied will advise astrologers to go on and examine the Sun's Ruler and the Ascendant's Ruler for placements, dignities, etc....and yet at this point, the procedure seems to slip, and no one ever mentions the Moon's Ruler.
Maybe I'm just being too much of a completist, but it would seem to me that if three things are considered vital, and then the next step involves looking at the Ruler of one...then a second...why would we stop there? Wouldn't it make just as much sense to continue on with analyzing the Moon's Ruler, too? And I realize that I don't need the approval and authorization of the Astrology community at large to go ahead and just analyze the Moon's Ruler in a given chart myself...I'm just curious if there's any explicit reason why no one seems to hold it forth as a "necessary" step on the same level as the examination of the other two Rulers I just mentioned. Is there some basis in tradition for neglecting the Moon's Ruler? Does anyone reading this have experience with finding that the Moon's Ruler does or does not factor in heavily when studying a given chart? Any input would be welcome here!