PDA

View Full Version : Have the gems changed for sun signs?


marigold's
19-01-2008, 08:58
When I was a bitty person interested in astrology (ages 4-10, at least) I remember reading different gem associations with the sun signs than I'm reading about today. For instance, I remember reading that Scorpio's "stone" was the lodestone and Cancer's stone was the "pigeon blood" or ruby, but my sister and her best friend insist that ruby is Leo's stone (and Parker's Astrology backs them up.) I know I'm not too old, but does anybody else remember the old gem/sign associations and do I need to swap out a lifetime's worth of jewelry if the gem/sign's don't jibe? (just kidding on that last part : ) ) I guess, what's the story with the changing associations?

Thanks!
Marigold

floracove
19-01-2008, 14:12
Hi marigold, I do know that there are traditional gemstones as well as new ones that have been added or interchanged and those that certain cultures use to represent or align with their own beliefs, i suppose what we have now is a blended child of the traditional, modern and cultural.

Minderwiz
20-01-2008, 06:31
Interestingly, classical writers seem to attribute the rulership of gems to the planets, not the signs - I suppose it is the modern conflation of signs with planets that has led to the signs being associated with gems.

Lodestone according to William Lilly (17th Century) is ruled by Mars and as Mars is the ruler of Scorpio I can see where the connection has been made.

Ruby is attributed by a number of writers to the Sun (ruler of Leo) so again I can see where the association with the sign has come. I checked with Lee Lehman's book of Rulerships and could not find anyone attributing Ruby to the Moon but that is not to say that someone somewhere made that association.

Indeed there seems to be no agreed system used by classical writers and even the same writer might list a stone as being ruled by more than one planet. Thus Lilly lists Topaz for both Mercury and Jupiter.

My feeling would be that if you have come to use a set of associations with signs and you are happy with it then keep to it. There isn't a 'correct' set of associations or rulerships so no one can say you are wrong. You might be in a minority but if it works for you then keep to it.

ravenest
21-01-2008, 13:12
Yes, that's a good anser.

But also, for Cancer, I thought that Moonstone was pretty well accepted.

It depends what system one uses (as Minde says) the Vedic classification is quiet different from the western.

I use a western Euro, hermetic a la Golden Dawn / Crowley correspodence.
Crowleys 777 is a good book for it as he doesnt just say ; This is this (because I said so) but endeavours, where he can, to explain WHY it is so. (I like that).

Minderwiz
22-01-2008, 07:14
Wow Ravenest and I agree!

I don't want this next point to detract from what either I or Ravenest said before. So let me repeat that if your present system works well for you don't look to change it.

IF you want to explore the area of Astrological correspondances even more, then can I suggest that you ask yourself in what way you see the link between gem and signs. Personally I would see this as an association rather than a rulership. I would see planets as rulers of gemstones because planets act whereas signs simply modify or reflect the characteristics of their (planet) ruler.

Melody lists signs against each gemstone (Love is in the Earth, a Kaleidoscopoe of Crystals) but does not indicate rulership. So again I'd take this as referring to association.

I've also noted since my last post that several sources categorically state that a crystal is not ruled by one planet or sign. This makes sense to me because gems can have the characteristics of more than one planet or sign.

I'm not familiar with the Vedic associations but on one Vedic site I did see reference to their being different sign associations but common planetary rulers. The sign association was said to be to the Moon Sign Irashi) rather than Sun sign I'm not sure how widespread that view is, perhaps Ravenest can shed some light on it.

Exploring some of these issues might highten your understanding of the gems but don't feel that you need to change from your current system. What it might well do is make you more certain of that system.

ravenest
22-01-2008, 12:30
I've also noted since my last post that several sources categorically state that a crystal is not ruled by one planet or sign. This makes sense to me because gems can have the characteristics of more than one planet or sign.

I agree, I recently procured a large quantity of Topaz sand (98% pure crushed Topaz) I want to use this in a type of Bio-dynamic process. When I look in 777 Topaz is in several columns; Planetary Sun, Elemental Air and constellational ( ;) ) Taurus. I figure it is a drying fertile substance, just what I need with my melons going rotten in all this soggy rain at the moment.

I'm not familiar with the Vedic associations but on one Vedic site I did see reference to their being different sign associations but common planetary rulers. The sign association was said to be to the Moon Sign Irashi) rather than Sun sign I'm not sure how widespread that view is, perhaps Ravenest can shed some light on it.
The only 'light' I can shed on this weird (to me) vedic stuff is an old guru that insisted the Sun was female and he could prove it - if the Sun wasnt female, she wouldnt be afraid to come out at night.

Perhaps he was joking? I hope so.

Exploring some of these issues might highten your understanding of the gems but don't feel that you need to change from your current system. What it might well do is make you more certain of that system.

A current system can help you develop a sensible skeleton from which you can further develop specific muscles for your own particiular usage.