Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

Welcome to the Sun in Leo discussions project, which will run August 17 - September 17, 2017 (and then will remain around in case people want to revisit it in the future). Please gather your list of Sun in Leo people (especially those you know personally) and join us.

Here are Sun in Leo interpretive resources on the forum:
Primary section: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35#p159
Cyril Fagan: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=101#p626
Garth Allen: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33#p134
Rupert Gleadow: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=91#p562
Manilius: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=121#p742

My wife is a Leo. Her Moon is in Aries, and it's somewhat difficult for me to separate the qualities of the two since I associate both with being strong willed.

She is her own authority for sure. It's her feelings, her opinion, her experiences that are important in her own decision-making processes. There is an inborn rejection of external authority. I don't mean she is an anti-authoritarian, reactionary type. I just mean she's just sincerely not impressed. She's not impressed enough with authorities to protest them. She just ignores them and does her own thing. I just made myself literally laugh out loud because this is exactly true of her.

She's very loyal, devoted, and loving of both me and the children. She does have much affection to give. At the same time, there's a strength... a firmness to her. It's not a enabling kind of love - "enabling" in the sense of encouraging dysfunctional behavior. In that sense, she is sort of an anti-enabler. She can be pretty strict with our daughter, but it's usually a calm, matter-of-fact, this-or-that kind of strict.

She is very much a "doer" - almost to the point of defining her.

Definitely a strong woman, but not loud or ostentatious at all. Quiet and strong.

I know that you probably won't like my criticism, I am sorry, but somehow I feel compelled

I know so many people born during this period and they are so "un-Leonian" that it almost makes me laugh to read those descriptions that are so unlike them. In fact I can't say that they are all "alike", but a few of them have some similarities and they are all very "Mercurian", very intelligent and analytical and logical thinkers, literate in the sense that they read a whole lot and know a lot, some to the point that you can almost use them as an encyclopedia. Some of them work with analytics, data, computers and others with business. Very practical in all their approach, to love, the upbringing of children and to life in general. Another distinct trait I see in them all is that they are very un-religious and have no belief at all in "higher power" or any kind of "god". All of them very "down to earth" and none of them have any kind of tendency or need to "shine". Some of the above-mentioned people even have angular Suns (unless birth time is off).

This just encourages me even more strongly to keep going down the path of astrology that I am already on, which is not to look at the signs but much rather at angularity of planets and planetary expression in relation to each other, i.e. tight aspects.

Arena wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:21 am I know that you probably won't like my criticism, I am sorry, but somehow I feel compelled

Just speaking for myself, having "criticisms" is not a bad thing. The whole point of these threads is to collect observations, whether they agree with "tradition" or not. That's how we get new insights and ideas.

I seem to know few-to-no Leos. I hung around one in Senior High, but I would prefer commenting on someone past that age.

-Derek

I posted this to reinforce Derek's post below.

Arena wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:21 am This just encourages me even more strongly to keep going down the path of astrology that I am already on, which is not to look at the signs but much rather at angularity of planets and planetary expression in relation to each other, i.e. tight aspects.

What we're trying to do here is create a new basis for describing the "signs." Jim said that right up front. The reason we're doing that is Jim (and I, and you, and a lot of us) are not happy with what we have, and we want our descriptions to be observation based, not based on what Fagan or Manilius said nor even a younger Eshelman and Stanton said. The traits you describe as belonging to Leos you know are Leonine. The descriptions are (at least in part) wrong.
So just to be clear, I don't know who you meant by "you" when you said "I know you probably won't like my criticism" but criticism of our current definitions is the whole point of these threads.

I agree with your assessment of Leo characteristics, but not your attribution to their being "Mercurian." For instance, most of Mercury's breadth of learning is a product of getting bored and hopping along to a new topic. That's not a characteristic of Leo, which tends to go deep.

I am a Leo. (I'm sure that doesn't come as a surprise to most people here.) I also know a lot of Leos. Not a surprise there either. The end of Leo and beginning of Virgo are nine months after the Capricorn community unity celebrations and Sagittarian solstice holidays. There are a lot of Leos.

Of the resources Jim gave at the beginning of this thread, Fagan's fits me and Leos I know the least, and while who wouldn't want to be called the "growing tip of humanity" as the Eshelman/Stanton description does, I think Gleadow's, pieced together from older texts, is closest to the mark, at least in the superficial way most older descriptions take. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect a description meant to fit a twelfth of the population of the earth to fit me in every detail.

Leos do seem to have a lot in common, although not every single one of us shows every single characteristic. Most of us do seem to always have a book (or a Kindle) in hand. While other people keep a blanket and a power bar in the car just in case, most of us Leos also keep a book. Leos I know are analytical, down to earth, practical, especially with children, although in most other aspects of life as well, and have no interest either in worshiping anything, or in being the center or the leader of anything. They do often end up being chosen to lead, but that's because they're practical and capable, and good with the mechanics, not because they look for it.

(I think a lot of the older descriptions made it sound as if natives of the constellation sought out situations they often found themselves in, which certainly fits with Jim's apparent philosophy that you cause everything that happens to you, but most of us think there is actually outside action in people's lives. I don't believe anybody caused the recent hurricanes. You can say those old people who died because their nursing home didn't have a big enough generator to run the air conditioning this week (Sept 13, 2017 in Florida) should have made more money so they could have moved into a higher quality place. That doesn't explain the lack of response from the power company over the several days previously, or the government's decision not to make nursing homes a higher priority on the list for places to get their power restored.)

Reading through other descriptions, I find "spendthrift" (Manilius) and also "thousand little pieces of paper" (Eshelman) and other indications of Leos being less than organized. I disagree with any of that having anything to do with having an organized mind. Leos tend to choose not to rob today to pay for tomorrow. Although most live within their means, they aren't afraid of buying nicer things rather than saving up for a nicer nursing home. They also tend to believe, like many religious orders, that if they need it, the money will show up. They don't indulge in much magical thinking, but they do have a usually unconscious belief they will never go without. Doesn't always work that way, of course, but Leos also seem to be able to land on their feet.
I had a neighbor who used to say she couldn't understand how I could live "like that" (meaning messy) but could still find anything in my house faster than she could find things in her everything in it's place house, and that she'd eat off the floor behind my refrigerator anytime although she wouldn't do the same in her house. She was a Cancer. She needed her house to look good for company, while I needed mine to be clean. Other Leos I know are the same. Clean, but in need of minions to pick up after them.

Not finished yet.

But we also have to frame it in terms of contemporary cultural elements. Even the interpretations written in the late 1970s are out of date substantially because the cultural context in which they were written has shifted, so the same fundamental drives and characters cannot express in the same ways in people's actual lives.

The ancients were great, but you have to pick your ancients And a great deal of work has been done (especially by Gleadow, then by each investigator that has had access to his breakdowns) to filter through these exact issues you mention. (You'd probably like his analyses of the signs better than any other modern Sidereal authors: He mostly did the work that you say interests you the most.)

Who died and made Leo king? One Leo/Scopio/Libra friend of mine is easy going. He has Sun-Saturn, partile top, then sun-Jupiter, Uranus.. Most other Leo suns or angular sun people are arrogant at their worst. Most aren't fair logically but are self centered at their worst.

Leo can be big hearted and teddy bear like. But man can they also be intense! Like scary intense

James Condor wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:49 am Who died and made Leo king?

Some ol Babylonian.

I know about 4 females who have a luminary or Mars in this sign and one Male. Almost all of them love themselves because of some struggle they face due to society, and they often choose to use intellect before pride. All of them are either huge supporters of the LGBT community or are a part of it, and none of them are religious (3 of them reject their Catholic upbringing).
I'd say the very colorful nature does stick out in Aquarius/Leo aesthetic. (Including myself this list includes 2 gay men, 2 pan chicks, 1 bi chick, and one advocate).

Also all of them have some specific kind of intelltucal prowess even though not all of them got the best book grades in school (most of them don't like school or institutions actually although they are often involved with them)

For me the only major difference I can see between the Aquariui and Leo's I know is that Leos are pragmatic where sometimes Aquariuis is more idealistic.

The holding court thing very well may be true amoungst Leo's but not in the ones I Know (Mind you ALL but one of them has Scorpio in their charts so this my colour what I see).

I've been back working pointedly on the project of getting the Sun in Leo interpretations updated. In the course of that, I've discovered something this morning that I'd been trying to put into thoughts (on and off) for a year while I've been delaying tackling the Leo rewrite. This morning, I think I'm close to pinning it down and think I've found something really basic about the triad Leo, Sagittarius, and Aries: It matters profoundly to all of them how people think about them and (in a way that could easily be mistaken for the tedium attributed to Tropical Virgo.

There is a huge disconnect between how Leos see Leos and how other people see Leos. Even if both groups agree with the facts, it's enormously important to Leo that you have the right idea about those facts. - This completes the triad of signs, because one of the oldest practical things known Sagittarians is (as Linda Goodman observed about Tropical Capricorns) if somebody at a party says, "I'm sure you can't guess what sign I am," they're probably a Sag. (And they do want to mythologize their story more than a little.) Then there is the Aries trait cluster of not wanting anybody to be able to pin them down and decisively say they are a this or a that - it takes away their freedom to have someone be able to pin them down with a label or category or generalization! (Oh, the Pluto of it all.)

Leos want to control the narrative of their lives. That trait is so pervasive that it modifies most other basic traits about Leo and - more importantly to me <g> - it places unusual demands on astrologer to say things just right because, by golly, Leo is willing to take as many hours as necessary to make you understand where they're coming from so that you have the right idea and say it right.

This is why I've spent most of a year avoiding rewriting Leo.

Anyway, here are some notes I wrote on it earlier this morning as I was drawing this out of myself. It began as I was rewriting the bullet point about Leos and bragging. Let me clear that Leos aren't generally braggarts. In particularly, they almost never brag about their accomplishments. However (I noted), they need other people to understand what things matter most to them (what is most important in their lives) as a means of knowing who they are. I thought, yeah, that's really the goal, to have people correctly "know who they are," and they will hold forth hours at a time if necessary (I exaggerate only a little) until you no longer care what they do or how they act, but so you especially know why they do what they do.

Then I wrote (a version of) the following note (which will probably be edited before anyone sees it on the other page:

There's a broader trait I may not leave here unless I find exactly the right way to say it: One has to be careful what words one uses to describe Leos. (Only Aries & Sagittarius approach this level of "it matters very much to them how people think of them.") For example, it's not that they require other people be thinking about them all the time (they don't), but if people are thinking about them, they want to control what thoughts people are thinking. More abstractly [it's so easy to talk in abstractions about Leo, and many of them hate that!) I'd say they want to control their own myth or legend, i.e., they want to control the narrative about themselves. Yet, I hasten to add, most would rapidly deny that they have a myth or legend ("I don't want people thinking I'm that kind of Leo!"). In fact, there is quite a lot of, "Well, those facts about me may be true, but please don't think I want it that way, e.g., people naturally orbiting me all the time and and all."

Surely I will stir a new kind of roaring hornet's nest with this, but I'm sure I'm right. This behavior underlies nearly everything that is most so about Leo. (Of course, what matters isn't what they're like as long as I have the right idea about why things turn out that way... right? <vbg>

Probably.

I have now finished my major rewrite of Sun in Leo. You can read the full treatment here:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35&p=159#p159

I resisted this quite a while. There is a part of me that hates the result. I know there have always been those who resisted the pure grandeur and human apex demi-god tone of my historic treatment of the placement. I always knew it didn't necessarily fit Leos - the people - but I still hold that it represents Leo, the collective, the idea.

And, of course, this is my anti-Leo (i.e., Aquarian) side. Leo is much more interested in the individual than the collective, and Aquarius rarely cares about individuals except as examples of the something larger. (Aquarius loves people, it's just the persons that bother us.) There is a large part of me that strongly feels we need the representation of something superhumanly great and ideal here. Of course most individual Leos aren't like that (though a block of them mostly are); but, in one sense, who cares? Every sign has {bonked} up people, i.e., those who fall short of the archetypal ideal. The Leo essence remains one of the highest dignity, the unleashing of the sustaining brilliance of the Sun, and I do not mind waving this flag.

The new product is more down to earth but also bores me a little. It is tightly forged with every syllable damp with sweat. There is enormous subtlety that didn't make it in, so much of the flash and panache of how Leo - a sign of true, individual style - delivers these simple traits. Some of that character is in my post not far before this one, but it didn't much make it to the final descriptors.

Anyway, after trimming out even more of the color and distinction to meet my "no more than four lines" standard for a tight summary, here is the new concise summary of Leo that I will start copying into all the various locations:

PRELIMINARY SUMMARY: Competitive, strong, proud, authority, command. Quiet dignity, nobility, elegance. Seeks to control own myth or legend. Distinctive personal style. Holds forth (or holds court!), can "own the stage." Natural hub of attention. Loyal, generous, nurtures talent, improves lives. Sexually lusty, playful. Hates weakness, hypocrisy. Realistic, pragmatic idealist.

I actually like this theroy Jim! I think that and here I go again with myth but the scythe of leo is about perfection. Stemming from this Leo wants to be perfect (in their own views of course) this leads them to educate themselves and to put themselves in power.

"Like a sharp sparking knife through the sky leo but wants it's people to follow it's glisten"

Aquarius knows the king sacrificing people over a comet (or comment rather) is just nuts and wants people to see it. {Just one rather fun instance of course}.

Not all Leo's are selfish I get that and not all may be intellectual but these are things that are seen from people so comfortable with power. (Even the things I've seen in my own life admittedly the immorality complex dies shine also though I have utter faith in the universe and my insignificance).

For me my own reality is I'm living a works where people watch me, which already sucks, and also have expectations "I know" are actually just silly to have. I actually strive for my goals and things I want and that means seeing the naked truth and that upsets some people.

However in all of this and maybe I'm wrong but my moon is a little... Off? When I'm there sometimes it's like holly {bonk} I just almost could have died and I was just taking the bus home..more than sometimes.

But and here is my Uranian train running, I'd say that Leos are actually *pharoetic". "Too be the perfect king of his people'