Using the Tropical Zodiac with Vedic Astrology

sibylline

Well-known member
An astrological theory should work for the entire globe. The seasonal argument only works for the temperate climate zone of the northern hemisphere, that's at best only 1/6 of earth's total surface area.

It still works because Aries-Libra is always an equinox, Cancer-Capricorn always a solstice. Mutable signs mark the end of seasons in tropical; in sidereal they aren't indicated by anything in particular yet retain the same characteristics.

For physiognomy just looking at the Ascendant can be very misleading. You would have to also look at Moon and Sun placements and planets associated with. And you better work with nocturnal/diurnal and decans (drekkana or D-3 in vedic) as well. Check out Hill's book The Astrological Body Types for more details.

I have that book. I fit my tropical Ascendant appearance almost perfectly. I understand this is a rarity in any zodiac but this doesn't help sidereal. With the charts I have, they are more fitting with their tropical positions as well, even if not perfect.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
In the southern hemisphere the seasons are reversed and in the tropics near the equator there are no seasons at all. Click on the link I've posted above. It's all explained in great detail there. The seasonal argument is bogus no matter how you approach it.

Did you just test it with your own chart? I'd say if it isn't a perfect match, then it obviously isn't really working.
 

sibylline

Well-known member
In the southern hemisphere the seasons are reversed and in the tropics near the equator there are no seasons at all. Click on the link I've posted above. It's all explained in great detail there. The seasonal argument is bogus no matter how you approach it.

No, it isn't. You're confusing seasons with climates, which are not the same. Seasons exist all over the globe, no matter how large or small the difference in climate may seem.

Btw, near the equator there are certainly climate changes. I would know because I lived in a country right above the equatorial line for a year.

Did you just test it with your own chart?

I've tested on hundreds of people for a decade now. Guessing Ascendants used to be one of my "parlor tricks" and I was more often right than wrong.

I'd say if it isn't a perfect match, then it obviously isn't really working.

What I'm saying is that the Ascendant doesn't match perfectly, likely due to other factors in the chart and simple genetics. The sidereal Ascendant is a joke, however, no offense.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
The sidereal Ascendant is a joke, however,

no offense.
That remark is clearly offensive to any sidereal astrologer
and is not backed up by sufficient credible evidence

furthermore
it is important to take into account that sidereal vedic astrologers
have a completely different methodology
from sidereal western astrologers
and so
dismissing ALL forms of sidereal astrological delineation carte blanche
without having studied ALL in depth :smile:
is inadvisable
 

sibylline

Well-known member
Jupiter, your jumping into lecture when you haven't read and/or understood the discussion is not necessary or appreciated.

That comment was in reference to the charts I have studied. With the vast majority of the charts I have studied, the sidereal Ascendant is completely off -- that is a fact. I don't know what muchacho or other siderealists have studied and would never assume to.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member

Jupiter, your jumping into lecture when you haven't read and/or understood the discussion
is not necessary or appreciated.

That comment was in reference to the charts I have studied.
With the vast majority of the charts I have studied,
the sidereal Ascendant is completely off -
- that is a fact.
I don't know what muchacho or other siderealists have studied
and would never assume to.
That unnecessary innuendo regarding my comprehension of the discussion
is not appreciated
the fact is this is a thread on the public online forum
this thread is neither a private pm discussion nor your personal blog :smile:
anyone may comment
It still works because Aries-Libra is always an equinox,
Cancer-Capricorn always a solstice.
Aries-Libra IS "always an Equinox"

BUT

Aries SPRING Equinox in Northern climes
is
Aries AUTUMN Equinox in Southern climes :smile:

and so on

No, it isn't.
You're confusing seasons with climates,
which are not the same.
Seasons are not unexpectedly ASSOCIATED WITH climate
Aries Equinox in Northern Climes heralds the SPRING
and the Northern Hemisphere Climate favors new growth
this is completely at odds with
the Southern climes
Seasons exist all over the globe,
no matter how large or small the difference in climate may seem.
Btw, near the equator there are certainly climate changes.
I would know because I lived in a country right above the equatorial line for a year.
Seasons are quite simply linked with climate
 

muchacho

Well-known member
No, it isn't. You're confusing seasons with climates, which are not the same. Seasons exist all over the globe, no matter how large or small the difference in climate may seem.

Btw, near the equator there are certainly climate changes. I would know because I lived in a country right above the equatorial line for a year.
What are the 4 distinct seasons you've experienced on the equator?
 

sibylline

Well-known member
What are the 4 distinct seasons you've experienced on the equator?

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, since you can Google these sorts of things.

Seasons are not equivalent to weather, again. There are the rainy and dry periods in tropics which people mistakenly call seasons. Weather is only one aspect of a season, and many people in the tropical climates are aware of the others and have developed patterns around them. If you'd like to know what they are, you can research them.

In any case, while I don't find either "bogus", I don't find the seasonal or the celestial theories to be quite adequate. Although I think many phenomena can be explained logically or soon will be explained, astrological patterns is one I'm not sure that humans will ever have the tools or capacity to fully explain the mechanics of.
 

HoldOrFold

Well-known member
In my opinion, the seasons are not sufficient to describe all of the elemental and modality attributes of the signs anyway, the signs are symmetrically related to the planets in the order from the Sun to Saturn. But still there is some synchronistic correspondence to the seasons. Astrology as we use it had it's birth in the northern hemisphere, it then makes sense that the synchronistic correspondence related to the seasons would correspond to this hemisphere. Kind of like how the birth of cinema corresponded to the discovery of Neptune and atomic energy to the timing of the discovery of Pluto.

Astrology's beginning (Aries) was in northern hemisphere, so perhaps this is why the northern spring equinox works to mark the beginning of zodiac all over the world. Synchronistic correspondence, like the discovery of new planets.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
I can't tell if you're being serious or not, since you can Google these sorts of things.

Seasons are not equivalent to weather, again. There are the rainy and dry periods in tropics which people mistakenly call seasons. Weather is only one aspect of a season, and many people in the tropical climates are aware of the others and have developed patterns around them. If you'd like to know what they are, you can research them.

In any case, while I don't find either "bogus", I don't find the seasonal or the celestial theories to be quite adequate. Although I think many phenomena can be explained logically or soon will be explained, astrological patterns is one I'm not sure that humans will ever have the tools or capacity to fully explain the mechanics of.
You see, your story keeps changing. Now you are conceding that people usually distinguish only between 2 'seasons' in the tropics (based on rain patterns) which can't really be called seasons. And that's what I've been saying all along!

The reason I am asking is because you've said that the mutable signs mark the end of the seasons. There are 4 mutable signs: Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces. Which means there must be 4 seasons. And as I've already said, a valid astrological theory should work for the entire globe, not just for the temperate climate zone of the northern hemisphere. Which means according to your theory there must be 4 distinct seasons at the equator as well. But that's not the case as google and personal experience should tell you.

Here's a definition for 'season':

season:

each of the four divisions of the year (spring, summer, autumn, and winter) marked by particular weather patterns and daylight hours, resulting from the earth's changing position with regard to the sun.
At the equator, temperatures stay basically the same thru-out the year as do daylight hours. The only thing that may change is the amount of rain. Which means there actually aren't any seasons at the equator based on above definition.

And the fact that even to tropical astrologers Aries is always Aries - no matter if someone is born in the northern hemisphere, at the equator or in the southern hemisphere where you have either 4 distinct seasons, no seasons at all or all 4 seasons reversed in order - makes the seasonal argument such a bogus explanation.
 
Last edited:

sibylline

Well-known member
muchacho,

I haven't conceded or changed anything. I said "mistakenly" because confusing weather for seasons is clearly quite common. You're assuming (or telling me, oddly) what my personal experience was like. In the equatorial country I lived they have four different names for the four different seasons (these can be found in Google also, btw). Believe it or not -- that's your choice.

Anyway, since I'm not at all a fan of never-ending debates or repeating myself, I think I'm done with this portion of the discussion. I didn't come to this thread to discuss theories behind the tropical zodiac anyway, because like I said, the theories are good but not perfect. I wanted to discuss using the tropical zodiac in Vedic astrology, i.e. if there were any Vedic astrologers or students who have experience with using both zodiacs and/or were interested in the differences that result. It seems no one is interested in that.
 
Last edited:

Taurus9

Well-known member
I'm genuinely interested in it, mainly because the tropical whole sign ascendant has worked so well for me on certain things and the vedic system is balanced and makes sense. The Vedas had good ancient knowledge too.

I am willing to test other astrological methods for other things and I am interested in the difference. For example, I think it is possible tropical western placidus could be useful for certain things, tropical whole sign vedic for others, and sidereal vedic for even more things. I want to find out the accurate difference.

Statements such as "a valid astrological theory should work for the entire globe, not just for the temperate climate zone of the northern hemisphere" aren't actually that true either. They are human projections. A valid astrological theory should work because it is tested as working, not because a human wants it to work in a certain way. If it only works in one certain area, then it only works in one certain area. If there are other methods that work in other areas, then they work in other areas. Disregarding either results is a problem here.

Is it really so hard to accept that tropical could work for some things and sidereal for others and to objectively try to test what works best in what specific areas? The idea that there has to be a perfectionistic one-size fits all method for everything on either side is precisely why there is a pointless endless argument around ego and theory and not results.

Personally, so far I have found my whole sign tropical vedic ascendant in the birth chart to make the most sense in both myself and others for very basic general house and sign predictive astrology. However, I do think that placidus or sidereal may work better for certain planetary aspects and nakshatras. I am open to this being different for a range of things such as time, place of birth, current age, other factors due to navamsas etc...

But the main point is to find out what works and why. The earth could be geocentric, heliocentric, sidereal, tropical, and it still won't change if something works or not. Starting off from the position that it does is limiting to finding the best specific methods.
 
Last edited:

muchacho

Well-known member
muchacho,

I haven't conceded or changed anything. I said "mistakenly" because confusing weather for seasons is clearly quite common. You're assuming (or telling me, oddly) what my personal experience was like. In the equatorial country I lived they have four different names for the four different seasons (these can be found in Google also, btw). Believe it or not -- that's your choice.

Anyway, since I'm not at all a fan of never-ending debates or repeating myself, I think I'm done with this portion of the discussion. I didn't come to this thread to discuss theories behind the tropical zodiac anyway, because like I said, the theories are good but not perfect. I wanted to discuss using the tropical zodiac in Vedic astrology, i.e. if there were any Vedic astrologers or students who have experience with using both zodiacs and/or were interested in the differences that result. It seems no one is interested in that.
According to the definition of 'season' I gave above there are no real seasons at the equator. What is your definition of 'season'?

You probably better contact Wilhelm personally because it looks like tropical vedic astrology may just be a phenomenon of a handful of astrologers only. He seems to be the source and he may tell you more about the hows and whys.
 
Last edited:

Shanti

Well-known member
Perhaps the best way of investigating the zodiac is to look at stelliums and large
concentration of planets imo.
Here is a thread looling into the Sidereal constellations in some interesting
charts from searches in the Solar Fire search module.
Random looking at specific ascendants et.c may be more inclined to be biased
perception.

http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?num=1442585632/19#19




.
 
Last edited:

HoldOrFold

Well-known member
Here's some quotes from Wilhelm from question I emailed some time ago, we didn't have an extended discussion, he was just answering a question I asked as to why he wasn't using sidereal:

I did use sidereal, but after testing both and having tropical come out on top in every technique, I swapped to tropical. I do not think there is any use of the sidereal zodiac and I think its just the result of the Hindus having lost the knowledge of precession between 00and 600 AD.

I use different calculations than most other vedic
astrologers, though there is two groups in India that does some of the
calculations the same way as I do...
I use tropical rasis with sidereal nakshatras as that is
what the Indian astronomy books previous 600AD are doing. I tested that
versus sidereal rasis for 2 years, after having used sidereal rasis for 12
years, but tropical rasis tested out better with every technique so in 2007
I made the switch.
...
If you want to learn more about it please visit
http://www.vedic-astrology.net/FreeClasses/Ayanamsa-and-Rasis.asp
 

sibylline

Well-known member
Perhaps the best way of investigating the zodiac is to look at stelliums and large
concentration of planets imo.

Looking at stelliums and other concentrations would tip the scales to tropical, in my mind. We don't know public figures well enough to say which chart fits best and you could easily point to other factors to explain the traits we do see. I happen to know a lot of people personally, however, who have stelliums in a sign or overwhelming predominance in an element. In tropical their temperament and tendencies fit perfectly, in Vedic they move back a sign/element and make no sense whatsoever. Currently, I don't think personality profile and temperament are where sidereal makes its best case.
 

sibylline

Well-known member
HoldorFold, thank you for the information and videos.

What actually caused you to rethink using sidereal with Vedic? Was it Wilhelm? I admit, I'd never heard of these people before you mentioned them.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
The earth could be geocentric, heliocentric, sidereal, tropical, and it still won't change if something works or not. Starting off from the position that it does is limiting to finding the best specific methods.
Geocentric means earth centered, heliocentric means sun centered. Depending on where you live - earth or sun - you'll have to choose one model over the other.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
Perhaps the best way of investigating the zodiac is to look at stelliums and large
concentration of planets imo.
Here's the way I see it: What doesn't change if you switch zodiacs are aspects by degree. That's why sidereal and tropical delineations can agree up to 60% in special cases, especially if your technique is extremely aspect oriented (as modern astrology is). Which means aspects by degree is what you shouldn't be focusing on while comparing different zodiacs or ayanamsas. Instead you would have to focus on placements of house lords and divisional charts because that's where the most profound changes will happen. So this is going to be rather time consuming.
 
Top