Sidereal vs tropical

Shanti

Well-known member
For reference:
Here is Komilla Sutton a vedic astrologer writing some about Ashlesha:

"The presiding deity of Ashlesha is Nagas. Nagas are snakes who have great occult powers. It will be wrong to think of them as the poisonous snakes that only kill. Ashlesha persons are supposed to have incisive vision that enables them to look into the hidden secrets of nature and understand true wisdom. The snake carries his poison in a pouch and its body is not filled with poison. It will only use this poison when forced to do so. Also poison can be used for healing or for killing. So the Nagas have the capacity for both good and bad. Ashlesha can lead people to knowledge; wisdom, wealth and prosperity but it can also take them down the path of danger, self-destruction, sexual adventure and unexpected happenings"

These last sentences could have been taken directly from Amy wienhaus biography think.


From her website
http://www.komilla.com/pages/library/vedic_view.html
 

Shanti

Well-known member
One last reflection about Demi Moores chart (slighty off topic but maybe of interest anyway for astrology lovers).

Transiting Mars stationary exactly opposite Demi's Ascendent might suggest that her birthtime is rather correct.
Demi moores tropical chart ( I don't have grasped uploading sidereal chart yet).
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Moore,_Demi
 
Last edited:

retinoid

Well-known member
Shanti the problem with saying that you can see both moons as being you or what not gives into the skeptics of astrology that say that astrology bestows basic human characteristics that we all have which is why someone can pick out an event of their life and say 'ah this is my moon in gemini or my moon in scorpio'. This argument for why astrology is fiction has merit IMO because some of astrology's 'descriptions' can be applied to a lot of different aspects of life.

For my sidereal all my scorpio planets become libra and my jupiter in cancer becomes gemini and my saturn becomes sagittarius (from capricorn). This makes no sense to me. But sure, I could find some aspects of a mercury in libra (which was scorpio in tropical) that applies to me if I really tried. But that doesn't mean both are right. However I agree, if a skilled astrologer is reading the charts, they will come to the same conclusions because the aspects are the same and house positions are similar as well however house rulers are totally off.
 

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
Exactly, the Sidereal Zodiac natal chart reflects the reality that the Earth orbits the Sun and the Vernal Point precesses

In contrast the Tropical Zodiac is an almost two thousand year old mechanism now outdated*

It is possible to use the Tropical Zodiac for a form of divination

However, most people are unaware that their Tropical 'star' sign is totally disconnected from the stars (i.e. constellations) :smile:

That is NOT what I said, and that's not what I was talking about. I was addressing what you said about there only being 360 degrees in a circle, but 365 days and some hours in a year. And that, because of this, after 360 years, five years vanish. This can only be true if the Sun moves exactly one degree per day. It doesn't, so the fault does not lie with either zodiac, but rather with the insistence on symbolic progression. The system is not at fault, the method is at fault.

Most of those people who don't know are probably not astrologers, and probably don't know much past their Sun signs. I'm sure a decent amount of them don't even know that there's more to astrology than the Sun. So why does it matter if they know about sidereal or not?

Honestly I don't understand your insistence that tropical is all wrong and outdated. It works fine when you work within its own rules and boundaries. And of course it falls apart when you start comparing it to sidereal and claiming that it's false. But, again, the problem is not with the system, but rather your determination to compare the two. They're not the same, they're not going to match up, and that's okay.

Personally, I think it makes perfect sense to have a system of astrology that's Earth-centric. We live here, don't we? I don't entirely understand the correspondence of the signs with the seasons, since the seasons are backwards in the southern hemisphere. Western astrology is well, focused around western civilization (hence the name! :biggrin:), but that's another discussion for another day.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
retinoid, you stated earlier that you find sidereal transits the more accurate for prediction but Tropical better describes your natal chart - and my reply was and still is - why not use both then?

I say that because, since you have proved for yourself that sidereal works for you with prediction, then use sidereal for prediction. However it makes equal sense for you to use Tropical for your natal chart delineation at the same time:smile:

.................Personally, I think it makes perfect sense to have a system of astrology that's Earth-centric. We live here, don't we?
Both Sidereal and Tropical are Geocentric and I mentioned this on the parallel thread on this subject at this link http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=358658#post358658 :smile:
Those who accuse traditionalists of living in the past are themselves living in the past because they are using the approximately two thousand year old archaic system of the Tropical Zodiac which is based on the incorrect notion that there are no constellations and a stationary planet Earth is orbited by the Sun. Such a system, even if 'works' as evidently it does for many - is based on mathematical divination and from its inception never was a description of physical reality.

In contrast, the Sidereal Zodiac natal chart describes the non-imaginary idea that the Earth does in fact orbit the Sun and therefore is a physical reality-based system.

The Tropical Zodiac is Geocentric and reflects life from the viewpoint of those who are born on planet Earth – BUT the Tropical Zodiac's foundational rationale WRONGLY infers that those born on planet Earth are located on a planet that is motionless in space while being orbited by the Sun – that is incorrect. Furthermore the Tropical Zodiac totally does not incorporate the very real existence of numerous groups of stellar bodies which for descriptive convenience are referred to as 'the constellations' by astronomers.

The Sidereal Zodiac is also Geocentric and reflects life from the viewpoint of those born on planet Earth – AND the sidereal Zodiac's foundational rationale CORRECTLY infers that those born on planet Earth are located on a planet that is turning on its axis at approximately a thousand miles an hour whilst in orbit around the Sun – that is correct

Astronomers use Sidereal measurements for space exploration because sidereal measurements are based on reality

Many astrologers obtain good results using either and/or both Tropical and Sidereal and as always it is a matter of individual choice. Everyone is entitled to make their own choices, based on their own reasons. Some do not choose but instead make use of both Tropical and Sidereal methods.
:smile:
 
Last edited:

MSO

Well-known member
Shanti, comparing celebrities is probably the most useless thing you can do unless you know them very well. The side you see is fake. You'll never see the real so-and-so, and for the love of god it wasn't an Aries Sun that made Hitler what he was.

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sandstone

Banned
hi shanti

i like what you are doing and what you are presenting on this site and i hope it continues.. i agree with you! i think either system can be used.. the 2 systems are based on a different set of circumstances or reference points..

the tropic zodiac while not an actual zodiac (since it has nothing to do with the stars) appears to have taken the constellation names given and fixed them onto a system that is focused on our solar system only.. the basis for it is worked off the nodal axis of the earth to sun - equinox and solstice points, in other words it is referenced off the sun - earth relationship..

the sidereal system is based off of the sun in relation to other stars, the sun being a star itself.. it is more a star in relation to other stars as opposed to sun-earth - local solar system based, which is why the constellations are central to it.. the constellations while not 30 degree wedges, have been put into these wedges.. one wonders about the logic of this if indeed the constellation virgo is closer to 40-45 degrees, but regardless the indian astrologers work with this system with its many rules and get good results using it...

i think either system can work, but it helps to understand there basis and the differences..

the lunar mansions are a big part of indian or vedic astrology... 27 of them... interestingly the navamsha is based off a division of the chart by 9 and it is also considered the next most important chart after the natal for consideration... notice the connection of 9 to 27?

at any rate, i think both systems have a lot to offer... pick one and go with it! getting caught up in the idea one system is superior to another is a fools game as i see it.
 

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
JUPITERASC- Sorry, I meant Earth-centric as in everything revolves around the Earth and the Earth is stationary. That's sure how it looks, without knowledge that we're actually moving through space.

I'm not entirely sure that grouping together a bunch of stars that are probably, in reality, nowhere near eachother and saying that they all have one collective meaning makes sense. And my understand of sidereal astrology is that there are still 12 30-degree signs. Is this true, at least of the system that you use?

Is astrology of any kind meant to describe the universe, or rather patterns that we're all bound to? Maybe it's just convenient that these constellations (sidereal) and zones of influence (tropical) match up with these patterns. I'm not even going to touch on astronomy using sidereal. Of course it does, it's astronomy! It HAS to reflect reality!
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
JUPITERASC- Sorry, I meant Earth-centric as in everything revolves around the Earth and the Earth is stationary. That's sure how it looks, without knowledge that we're actually moving through space.
kennedyrosewhith "Geo" just means ground or land and has the following meaning as a prefix:

QUOTE:
geo- is taken from the Greek word γη or γαια meaning "earth", usually in the sense of "ground or land"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geo

So 'Geocentric' does just mean 'Earth-centric' :smile:
I'm not entirely sure that grouping together a bunch of stars that are probably, in reality, nowhere near each other and saying that they all have one collective meaning makes sense. And my understand of sidereal astrology is that there are still 12 30-degree signs. Is this true, at least of the system that you use?
Sidereal and Tropical both have twelve 30 degree demarcations that are named after the sidereal groups of stars - THE DIFFERENCE IS that Sidereal names are linked to the groups of stars BUT the Tropical names are completely dissociated from the groups of stars they take their names from

Is astrology of any kind meant to describe the universe, or rather patterns that we're all bound to? Maybe it's just convenient that these constellations (sidereal) and zones of influence (tropical) match up with these patterns. I'm not even going to touch on astronomy using sidereal. Of course it does, it's astronomy! It HAS to reflect reality!
These are interesting considerations kennedyrosewhith which would be great for discussion on a separate thread and since this is your idea, would you consider starting such a thread?:smile:
 

sandstone

Banned
the geo verses helio - 2 different reference points - one earth based, the other sun based...

isaac starkman - a very good astrologer in israel does astrology where he combines the two systems simultaneously! get your head around that for a second! pat t davis did a lot of work on this - wrote books on this - i have read some of them....same deal.. actually she probably was an influence on isaac..
 

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
I know it what it means, I'm just trying to clarify the difference between tropical and sidereal, and why I feel it's appropriate for a tropical zodiac to exist.

And that's what I don't understand. You're saying that sidereal is the accurate picture of the sky and universe, but doesn't the Sun pass in front of 13 constellations of various sizes?

I'm a little pressed for time, so I can't make the post now, or anytime in the next several hours. I'm not too attached to the idea, you can make the thread yourself and get the discussion going if you'd like!
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I know it what it means, I'm just trying to clarify the difference between tropical and sidereal, and why I feel it's appropriate for a tropical zodiac to exist.

And that's what I don't understand. You're saying that sidereal is the accurate picture of the sky and universe, but doesn't the Sun pass in front of 13 constellations of various sizes?

I'm a little pressed for time, so I can't make the post now, or anytime in the next several hours. I'm not too attached to the idea, you can make the thread yourself and get the discussion going if you'd like!
ok then kennedyrosewhith I understand you have time constraints

-
Briefly then, from our Geocentric aka Earth-Centric perspective, the sun does pass in front of a number of constellations of various sizes and the Tropical Zodiac completely ignores that.

In contrast the Sidereal zodiac acknowledges that the Sun - from our Geocentric aka Earth-Centric perspective - apparently passes in front of a number of constellations

Perhaps we can discuss the 'of various sizes' issue when we both are less pressed for time - agreed?
I myself am neglecting other commitments so I shall post a more detailed response to your above comment at some more opportune moment and in the meantime I shall also wait for you to prepare and make the new thread - you set the parameters then everyone interested can contribute to the discussion - agreed? :smile:
 
Last edited:

Shanti

Well-known member
Shanti, comparing celebrities is probably the most useless thing you can do unless you know them very well. The side you see is fake. You'll never see the real so-and-so, and for the love of god it wasn't an Aries Sun that made Hitler what he was.

[deleted attacking comment - Moderator]

It's precisely this kind of narrow thinking that makes discussions in these threads a waste of time.

If one can't look at charts of important historical figures or celebrities with strong symbolic events or destiny's, for astrological clarification and learning, which one should we use ?

Why not throw out our valuable astrological texts and books by good authors who have the bulk of example charts from famous people.
Is it "useless" ?

(I also see that there is an attacking comment directed to me that is deleted by our friend hardworking Wilson. Thanks.... I admire anyone moderating places like this making it a more peaceful place to be).

Sandstone,
I appreciate your astrological work. There is a to the point simplicity and accuracy that shows astrological intelligence and much experience in action, to sort out the important and not important stuff in a chart is not an easy thing.
 
Last edited:

MSO

Well-known member
It's precisely this kind of narrow thinking that makes discussions in these threads a waste of time.

If one can't look at charts of important historical figures or celebrities with strong symbolic events or destiny's, for astrological clarification and learning, which one should we use ?

Why not throw out our valuable astrological texts and books by good authors who have the bulk of example charts from famous people.
Is it "useless" ?

(I also see that there is an attacking comment directed to me that is deleted by our friend hardworking Wilson. Thanks.... I admire anyone moderating places like this making it a more peaceful place to be).

Sandstone,
I appreciate your astrological work. There is a to the point simplicity and accuracy that shows astrological intelligence and much experience in action, to sort out the important and not important stuff in a chart is not an easy thing.

Accuses me of narrow thinking.

Ignores my point of view and continues with own point of view.

Acknowledges anyone that agrees with own statement. Disregards rest.

Narrow indeed.
 

wintersprite1

Premium Member
Hey everyone,

A reminder that debate is healthy. Please keep the remarks from becoming personal. The points that are being made will be lost if the focus shifts to unnecessary attacks.


TK
 

Shanti

Well-known member
, and for the love of god it wasn't an Aries Sun that made Hitler what he was.

No it's the only reason.

But as you say that sidereal is worthless I wonder why it works so well in Hitlers chart.

He was a national leader and warlord.
His vedic chart have 4 planets in aries in angular house, Mars in own sign thus the whole chart IS Mars.

Is Mars a planet that relates to war and conflicts and selfassertion ?

His Sun is exalted in Aries in angular house, thus one that dominates the chart.

Was he a national leader, authorative person in government ?

MSO can you give me your wiewpoint instead of coming with attacking comments, and not just say that the method is wrong in looking at famous charts.
What in hitlers chart speaks of national leadership and war ?


also
Demi Moore have a stellium in Libra with venus in own sign making it a chart centered around art, beauty and relationships.
Wrong ?

Kate perry have a stellium in Libra with I think 5 planets (check celebrity section) art and music.
Wrong ?

Steve Jobs have a sidereal Leo ascendent aspected by SUN.
Leadership and power.
Wrong ?

Madonna have leo ascendent and Moon in leo sidereally.
stardom. leadership.
Wrong ?

Einstein Gemini ascendent have pisces stellium in 10th house.
5th lord of intelligence (in vedic exalted in pisces)
He said that all his insights was based on intuition.
Pisces is the sign of intuition.
Wrong ?
(He had his mercury in pisces which give information
handling via intuition and not logic. He was dyslectic
and failed school in the beginning.).


Now from the famous people file in my Solar Fire program:
A
Allen Woody:
Leo ascendent... actor star.

SUN,Mercury,Jupiter in scorpio in 4th house.
Complex psychology, attached to his homelocation.
5th ruler jupiter in 4th in scorpio.squaring saturn in 7th
(Complex family circumstances involving children).

Rahu in 5th... stepchildren

Is this causing trouble in his marriage ?

Peace
 
Last edited:

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
JUPITERASC- The various size thing is what's really tripping me up. Because it seems like sidereal does acknowledge that the Sun appears to move in relation to other stars (instead of to the Earth), but does it have that movement correct?

You know, I'm not even sure what to make the thread about. It seems like my question- are the signs directly related to the stars, or do they just happen to share the same name- has a definitive answer, and there's not much to discuss.
 

jamescondor

Well-known member
If precession isn't taken into account than it's not worth going any further.
Yoi, take what you said in your initial post "Tropical seems to be the most popular but I do see the logic in the reasoning that the location of the stars relative to the earth change with time. I must admit though I do feel the tropical chart is a much better fit to me than the sidereal one".
For the first part ask yourself why tropical seems to be more popular. Then go out and do research as to why it seems this way. I suggest tropical seems more popular because it has been advertised more in the papers and Internet and has become an easy to understand segment of pop culture. Of course we all know that just because something is more popular doesn't mean it is more beneficial or correct.
Logic and reasoning are vital because they can be used as a grounds for evidence to support a claim (objective). Feeling a chart is a better fit is just your interpretation (subjective) and is just wishful thinking.
Have you ever heard the expression "listen to reason"?
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
JUPITERASC- The various size thing is what's really tripping me up. Because it seems like sidereal does acknowledge that the Sun appears to move in relation to other stars (instead of to the Earth), but does it have that movement correct?

You know, I'm not even sure what to make the thread about. It seems like my question- are the signs directly related to the stars, or do they just happen to share the same name- has a definitive answer, and there's not much to discuss.
The focus of your planned thread is what is important kennedyrosewhith. The question: "Why do the signs share the same name as the constellations?" could lead to an interesting discussion - what's your opinion jamescondor? :smile:
 
Top