Is Sidereal Astrology more accurate than Tropical?

XenaSharon

New member
Thank you Everyone for commenting.

So, would the reading of my chart as sidereal be drastically different from the tropical one?

I saw my natal chart for the first time about a year ago and was fascinated (as was my astrologer) by the emphasis in the intercepted 6th house of health, in opposition to Chiron, which was discovered on or just after my actual birthday, 18 October 1977. For this reason, I think that the idea of 'intercepted' houses has some weight.

Can anyone see any strengths in the chart or am I completely doomed? (This is not what my astrologer said, it is just what I think.) Keeping in mind this is a "night chart" so what is below the horizon is illuminated by the sun, which is flanked by Athena and Mercury on either side in conjunction.

BTW there was a boy born around the same time as me in the same hospital, carried shortly after birth by the same nurse who tripped and stumbled without injuring us. His natal chart would be almost identical to mine. I think it might be interesting to compare lives if only I could find the person. Then it might be clearer as to whether to use tropical or sidereal, or intercepted or whole houses.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Thank you Everyone for commenting.

So, would the reading of my chart as sidereal be drastically different from the tropical one?

I saw my natal chart for the first time about a year ago and was fascinated (as was my astrologer) by the emphasis in the intercepted 6th house of health, in opposition to Chiron, which was discovered on or just after my actual birthday, 18 October 1977. For this reason, I think that the idea of 'intercepted' houses has some weight.

Can anyone see any strengths in the chart or am I completely doomed? (This is not what my astrologer said, it is just what I think.) Keeping in mind this is a "night chart" so what is below the horizon is illuminated by the sun, which is flanked by Athena and Mercury on either side in conjunction.

BTW there was a boy born around the same time as me in the same hospital, carried shortly after birth by the same nurse who tripped and stumbled without injuring us. His natal chart would be almost identical to mine. I think it might be interesting to compare lives if only I could find the person. Then it might be clearer as to whether to use tropical or sidereal, or intercepted or whole houses.
There's an online Western Sidereal Astrology website
that gives guidance
as well as example chart delineation
plus an online forum
http://www.solunars.com/ now you can learn both Tropical and Sidereal
and delineate your chart using BOTH
:smile:
 

EbonyRay

New member
Hi! I am in the same boat as you. However, I have been studying Tropical Astrology since my mom had first showed it to me (since I was 6 or 7). But, as I grew older (Im turning 17 early December), I began to grow curious of other astrological systems since Sagittarius, Aqua Moon & Virgo Rising just didnt seem to fit me. Maybe a little - but not quite, you know? There isn't that "Aha!" moment. Then, I discovered Sidereal Astrology. At first I was very uneasy. "Me? A Scorpio? Psssh." Then I began to research a bit, and although many people might not particularly like Sidereal, I found that my results were scary accurate. However, when I read my families' charts for them in that system - they found it didn't describe them much at all. So I would say, yes, it's a very personal thing. However as long as it's accurate to YOU and you enjoy it, then you can partake in it and who cares what others think. I hope this helps and good luck on your endeavors. :smile:
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Based upon my own experiences and predictive experiments, I must state that I consider the tropical model (the zodiac of signs) to be more reliably and consistently accurate than the sidereal model (the zodiac of constellations)...
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
siderealday.jpg




ANY planet at 0° OF any TROPICAL SIGN

is SIDEREALLY between approximately 6° - 10°
up to a maximum 24°
of the PREVIOUS SIGN

dependent on the ayanamsha



fig5.png



a practical way to check that information is to view transiting MOON
at your locality
because
MOON is the swiftest moving celestial body from our perspective on planet Earth
and since

MOON visits each SIGN once a month aka "moonth"
it is therefore a simple matter to confirm that MOON
IS NOT ALWAYS IN SAME SIGN BOTH TROPICALLY AND SIDEREALLY
because
although Astrologers
whether Tropical or Sidereal
are observing THE IDENTICAL MOON in the skies
there is a minimum difference of 20° up to a maximum of approximately 24°
between TROPICAL AND SIDEREAL MEASUREMENT

so
when local skies are clear of clouds
and local Moon is seen above the local horizon
then
by visual observation at night
todays Moon locality is clearly observed with a CONSTELLATION in the background :smile:
i.e.so that's todays SIDEREAL location of the Moon

BUT
in contrast
todays computer generated tropical chart shows that
todays TROPICAL Moon
is up to a maximum of
24° AHEAD of Sidereal Moon
even though it is the same Moon on the same day and at the same time :smile:

once each month, Tropical AND Sidereal measurement places MOON in SAME SIGN
but always in a DIFFERENT DEGREE OF THAT SAME SIGN


VISUAL ANIMATION CLEARLY ILLUSTRATING
TROPICAL & SIDEREAL PERSPECTIVE
WITH DESCRIPTIVE NARRATIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-...eature=related





hqdefault.jpg



hqdefault.jpg



 

muchacho

Well-known member
Based upon my own experiences and predictive experiments, I must state that I consider the tropical model (the zodiac of signs) to be more reliably and consistently accurate than the sidereal model (the zodiac of constellations)...
How about natal? That's where I see tropical fail. Predictive astrology isn't a reliable source because of free will. There I find both systems do equally well/bad.
 
Last edited:

HoldOrFold

Well-known member
Ryan Kurczak is a Vedic astrologer who used to use the sidereal zodiac but then switched to tropical.

Here is a video of him talking about this

While testing the tropical zodiac in his practice, his readings became so much more accurate that his client based doubled within a few months due to clients being astonished and recommending him by word of mouth.

Quote from the video:

"I have to admit that over the 10 years that I was doing sidereal vedic astrology, I never used the signs. I would just look at what the planets meant in the houses and where the interchanges were and yogas... but I never used the signs because it never seemed to fit. And that was one thing that a number of astrologers had told me.
...
So as soon as we switched... [to tropical] ...the planets in signs all made sense.
"
 

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
Sidereal should be more scientific, astronomical and accurate to the very degree the sun or planet is located on the ecliptic. For example, Sep 1st is when the Sun is 20' Leo instead of 10' Virgo (tropical). I don't exactly understood why there are 360 degrees in a 365-day calendar (an extra day every four years, example: since 2000, known as leap year).
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Ryan Kurczak is a Vedic astrologer who used to use the sidereal zodiac but then switched to tropical.

Here is a video of him talking about this

While testing the tropical zodiac in his practice, his readings became so much more accurate that his client based doubled within a few months due to clients being astonished and recommending him by word of mouth.

Quote from the video:

"I have to admit that over the 10 years that I was doing sidereal vedic astrology, I never used the signs. I would just look at what the planets meant in the houses and where the interchanges were and yogas... but I never used the signs because it never seemed to fit. And that was one thing that a number of astrologers had told me.
...
So as soon as we switched... [to tropical] ...the planets in signs all made sense.
"

KENNETH BOWSER
is a WESTERN SIDEREAL ASTROLOGER
Kenneth Bowser correctly predicted Trumps winning US Presidency :smile:
and
is one of vew astrologers who managed to do so
Kenneth Bowser published the prediction on his website Sunday 16 May 2016

https://www.westernsiderealastrology.com/trump-election-news
 
KENNETH BOWSER
is a WESTERN SIDEREAL ASTROLOGER
Kenneth Bowser correctly predicted Trumps winning US Presidency :smile:
and
is one of vew astrologers who managed to do so
Kenneth Bowser published the prediction on his website Sunday 16 May 2016

https://www.westernsiderealastrology.com/trump-election-news

Sorry, JupAsc, but this article isn’t relevant to the whole tropical/sidereal zodiac debate at all! The author only makes use of such things as aspects, angles and transits, but not of signs and other features exclusive to the sidereal zodiac. You could literally get the exact same result if you used the tropical zodiac. Good for Kenneth that he managed to get the right result, but his prediction is utterly irrelevant to this debate.
 

Rawiri

Well-known member
Sorry, JupAsc, but this article isn’t relevant to the whole tropical/sidereal zodiac debate at all! The author only makes use of such things as aspects, angles and transits, but not of signs and other features exclusive to the sidereal zodiac. You could literally get the exact same result if you used the tropical zodiac. Good for Kenneth that he managed to get the right result, but his prediction is utterly irrelevant to this debate.

That's not entirely true. For someone of Trump's age, there will be more or less a whole days difference for the time of the returns if one is using its sidereal position as compared to its tropical position.

So naturally the angles and the moon will be significantly different in their aspects. Western sidereal astrologers rely highly on those angles in timing and choosing which planets to consider significant etc.

That said, predicting the president - while everyone loves those kind of "big" predictions and makes a big deal of them - really isn't a statistically marvelous prediction compared to many other things astrologers are called upon to predict. By the time a lot got around to doing it, it came down to a coin flip.
 
That's not entirely true. For someone of Trump's age, there will be more or less a whole days difference for the time of the returns if one is using its sidereal position as compared to its tropical position.

So naturally the angles and the moon will be significantly different in their aspects. Western sidereal astrologers rely highly on those angles in timing and choosing which planets to consider significant etc.

That said, predicting the president - while everyone loves those kind of "big" predictions and makes a big deal of them - really isn't a statistically marvelous prediction compared to many other things astrologers are called upon to predict. By the time a lot got around to doing it, it came down to a coin flip.

God dammit. That’s good to know, I guess. The author actually mentions the exact same thing you said about solar returns under his article, but I didn’t notice it. But oh well, at least my argument is still valid about the inauguration and relocation charts (right?).

I agree with you about all those predictions about the election, here the choice was only between two candidates, so you could actually flip a coin and go along with it... Also I think the problem was that many astrologers had a candidate they favored so naturally they mixed the objective use of different techniques with wishful thinking and got the incorrect result, but it still doesn’t mean they’re bad at what they’re doing. I mean, it’s still pretty cool that some astrologers can get predictions like this right but I think astrology is capable of much, much more than that especially if we remove our subjective interests from our predictions.
 
Last edited:

dr. farr

Well-known member
How about natal? .

I have found tropical MUCH more consistently reliable and closer in accuracy in natal delineation than sidereal, indeed, its in natal (rather than in predictive) astrology that I have seen (by my experiences) the significant superiority of tropical over the sidereal model.

Remember that I am only talking about my own experiences in astrological delineation over the past 54 years; I am only expressing my own conclusions.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
I have found tropical MUCH more consistently reliable and closer in accuracy in natal delineation than sidereal, indeed, its in natal (rather than in predictive) astrology that I have seen (by my experiences) the significant superiority of tropical over the sidereal model.

Remember that I am only talking about my own experiences in astrological delineation over the past 54 years; I am only expressing my own conclusions.
What is your method in natal?
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Tropical, largely Modernist, with inclusion of Manilius Decans, certain Lots, and examination of Fixed Star connections, using the whole sign house format.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
Tropical, largely Modernist, with inclusion of Manilius Decans, certain Lots, and examination of Fixed Star connections, using the whole sign house format.
Thanks. Do you calculate planetary strength?

Interesting. My point against tropical would have been the decanates and physiology, haha. I wasn't even aware of this other version. I did a quick search on the Manilius decans and I come across a series of posts where you mentioned that this is what Jaimini was using. Is there a special name for this kind of drekkana? I've got to try this out.

ETA: I think it's Parivritti-Traya Drekkana.
 
Last edited:

love-thinking

Well-known member
I am a taurus in tropical but an aries in sidereal. I have found out that most of the stuff in sidereal fits me in sidereal than tropical why is that. Also should i follow tropical or sidereal.

Okay so I have an answer which many people will disagree with me here especially the vedic astrologers.

I suggest you watch vic dicara's video on this topic on youtube. He's one of the best astrologers I know.

Tropical astrology is dependent on 12 divisions dependent on the equinox and solstices.

Sidereal astrology is dependant on the cosntellations/nakshatras which 2000 years ago was in line with the equinoxes and the solstices and was the same as the tropical zodiac. However back then, they had already developed such an intricate system of astrology; so much that they could not imagine a certain constellation being in another zodiac division than it formerly was so when the zodiac changed with time, vedic culture did not update themselves accordingly to changes the earth had made in relation to the sun. Therefore, the sidereal zodiac stayed with the formerly fixed cardinal points 2000 years ago.

So let me put this more into perspective. Astrology basically claims that you are a snapshot of the place, the energy, and time of birth and the sun in relation to the earth is highly important in this case. Time is dependent on the sun, the nature and brightness of it since it is the main source of energy the earth has.


Let me explain the nature of the zodiac division. When the sun rises, this corresponds to the northerly equinox(when the days start get larger than the night, at this point the days and nights are equal in length) on a seasonal scale- and on a day scale-this is the sun rise which is associated with brightness and the fire element and so this point is given to aries whose nature is firey, agressive, full of energy etc and through trines, leo and sagitarius also get this fire element.

Keep in mind the hermetic principle of as above so below as to illustrate the seasonal scale corresponding to the day scale which influences the nature of the person that was born in that particular time.

Then we have the southern point corresponding to the southern solstice-representing the ground and thus groundedness which relates to the earth giving this division the element of earth. This division is capricorn and through its trines virgo and taurus receives this earth element.

Then you have the sun set-which is associated with evening, the time that we all relax giving it the element of air. Libra rules this point, and through its trines, aquirius and gemini also receive this element.

Then you have the highest point-the northerly equinox which is associated with the water element-since the highest point of the celestial sky is associated with reflection, self awareness leading to enlightenment or moksha-this is cancer and through its trine, it gives its element to scorpio and pisces.

The zodiac sign's nature is dependent on the ruler of the sign first and foremost, the element of the sign, the mode of the sign, and the sequence from aries. Since sidereal is fixed on the FORMER(2000 years ago) cardinal points. The sidereal zodiac divisions/signs in relation to the CURRENT solstice, equinox points does not make sense or correspond to the nature of the sun, or the periods of sunlight earth is getting at a particular time.

So in this case the hermetic principle of as above, so below would make no sense.


Secondly what I will tell you is that I have dealt with the same issue. I was an advocate of vedic astrology and I used the sidereal zodiac at some point, and I practice vedic astrology but now I incorporate the tropical zodiac instead. Vedic astrologers have a much more inticrate system in place that allows them to get better predictions. But recently many vedic astrologers have tried the tropical zodiac and realized that it makes more sense. Vic dicara, earnst wilhelm and ryan(forgot his last name)

Now for the personality of a person. I had this problem too. You will see that a lot of the times, people will relate the sun sign(tropical or sidereal) based on whether the traits of the nakshatras have any syncronicity to either zodiac signs

For example: Jyeshtha which is currently in sagitarius, and is in scorpio(sidereal) will have more traits associated with scorpio and thus the person will be inclined towards sidereal astrology. In contrast to that, someone with a sun in Hasta, (given they don't have many virgo traits) will probably choose tropical zodiac because their libra analyisis makes more sense because hastas like libra are diblomatic and sweet. Hastas are very fickle in nature. So this person will say the tropical zodiac is accurate.

So this is how you go about analyzing yourself and others. You look at the nakshatra of the moon, sun, and ascendent. You see the nakshatra of each of these three, and find out about the mythology and the gods/goddesses each of the nakshatra is associated with. Once you have gained an understanding of the traits of each nakshatra, if there is a correspondance to the tropical zodiac sign it is in, these traits are accurate and you exhibit them.


Next you look at HARD aspects that sun, moon and ascendent makes to planets, and sometimes asteroids(chiron, blackmoon lilith) and you incorporate that interpretation in your analysis of yourself or whoever you are analyzing.

So nakshatra is the most significant and see if traits resonate with the traits of the zodiac sign it is in and the nakshatras of the other personal point/planets(sun, moon, ascendent)
Then you analyze the zodiac sign.
Then I would highly reccomend including certain hard aspects to the personal points with other celestial bodies especially if a certain celestial body makes a hard aspect to all three sun, moon ascendent.

Then there are also ways to classify each nakshatra. And I will leave a link of a video that will classify nakshatras to bitter, sweet, strong, quick etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toicbbactWc&t=4s

And this is the series as to why tropical zodiac is the true zodiac.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyAjMGUYG_M&index=6&list=PLqnDwobT_2hB4K4yogxMZp_arDs3Rbn9l


I hope i did an okay job explaining. I wish you all the best.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
I find the chart of Queen Victoria to be a very interesting case study - a triple Gemini in tropical, a triple Taurus in sidereal. I don't think it's difficult to decide which one is the correct one. It's a textbook case.
 
Last edited:
Top