ivandwight
Active member
can anyone explain about the differences between these two? which one is better? why some of the calculations made in traditional astrology are not made today? (almuten figuris, and stuff like tha)
can anyone explain about the differences between these two? which one is better? why some of the calculations made in traditional astrology are not made today? (almuten figuris, and stuff like tha)
Modern is a simplified (and innovated) version of traditional and traditional is a simplified version of vedic. At the core, they are all the same. Vedic is the most complex version, modern the most willy-nilly version and traditional is somewhere in between (but relatively close to vedic).
Generally speaking you'll notice that modern is quite flexible and has mostly a rather positive outlook while traditional and vedic are a bit on the rigid and negative side.
IMO, for a quick overview, modern is excellent. It works really good for synastry. For more detailed and in-depth analysis, traditional and vedic are far superior. What you have to keep in mind is that you cannot calculate strength of the outer planets, but detailed analysis requires advanced calculations which are impossible if you don't know strength and temporary nature of a planet. Vedic is especially good for predictions. So depending on your purpose, you'll naturally gravitate toward a particular version of astrology.
The way I see it, the actual issue is not traditional vs. modern. They are different aspects of one and the same. The actual issue is tropical vs. sidereal, because that's a question about the very basics of astrology.
'Strong' or 'weak' is too vague. If two strong planets form an aspect, how do you know which one is going to dominate? Planets can be sufficiently strong, very strong, exceptionally strong etc. An actual number that indicates the degree of strength would be helpful. In vedic they have a very sophisticated system for calculating the strength of a planet, it's called shadbala, sixfold strength. It's similar to the traditional system. Which means strength by sign is only one of several kinds of strength, six in total. So if you want to calculate the strength of Neptune, then you first have to answer a series of questions:Why do you say you cannot calculate the strength of the outer Astrological-planets? Neptune in Virgo, for example would be weak, Neptune in Pisces is strong. Any Planet in the Sign it rules or the Sign opposite. By "weak" and "strong" I'm referring to its ability to express its true nature.
'Strong' or 'weak' is too vague. If two strong planets form an aspect, how do you know which one is going to dominate?
Planets can be sufficiently strong, very strong, exceptionally strong etc. An actual number that indicates the degree of strength would be helpful.
In vedic they have a very sophisticated system for calculating the strength of a planet,
traditional is a simplified version of vedic
So if you want to calculate the strength of Neptune, then you first have to answer a series of questions:
1) What is Neptune's exact degree of exaltation?
2) Is Neptune strong in even or uneven signs?
3) Is Neptune a male, female or neutral planet?
4) Is Neptune strong in the east, south, west or north?
5) Is Neptune strong at day or at night?
6) What is Neptune's fixed value of natural strength (luminosity)?
etc.
And if you want to do predictions with Neptune, you would also have to determine the length of Neptune's planetary period.
So, lots of questions we don't really have answers for.
ETA: And you would also have to determine Neptune's nature in relationship to all the other planets, e.g. is Neptune a natural malefic, benefic or neutral? What planets are Neptune's natural friends or enemies?
Vedic astrology derived from Hellenistic astrology, with the exception of the lunar mansions, which are indigenous to India. See the research of Brown University professor David Pingree on this point.
Without the three outermost ASTROLOGICAL Planets, the three that most Modern-astrologers consider basic to a Chart, you lose the contextual, generational considerations.
Actually, I’m curious about this. Can you elaborate?
_
Anyways, this site shows a few modernists attempting to assign Neptune rulership, since I thought you’d find it interesting. http://www.astrolearn.com/astrology-articles/neptune/
Actually, I’m curious about this. Can you elaborate?
Thanks for the link--amazing how long this debate has been going on, still with no consensus. There has been good reasoning on the topic I hadn't seen before--thanks again!
The Outers Neptune and (sorry J.A.) Pluto, are slow enough to describe both generations and eras. The WWII generation, for example, Neptune in Leo; and the "Roaring", flamboyant 1920's, as well. The emotional, "Soaring 60's" Neptune in Scorpio, etc. We've got several Neptunian generations in the Community. Anyone over 116 is Nep in , and up to Nep in . (A 4year-old member could have Nep in ) The younger Astrologers in particular are more comfortable using Pluto for generations and eras. Without the Outers, it's about individual's Charts, and assigning Astrological significance to successive generations and eras appears to be off the table.