Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

muchacho

Well-known member
I am with Waybread and Kalinka and Petosiris. All systems are valid. You decide for yourself which systems work best for you and for what.

Which house system is correct? Whichever house system you prefer to use, for whatever reason you choose to use it. There is many house systems. Must we pick only one. Each has it’s purpose.

There are different styles. Chinese. Aztec. Numerous numerology systems. Vedic. I Ching. And countless others. Which one is correct?

Astrology is not something that you can put in a tidy little box and put a ribbon on it and say this is it. There are a myriad of valid systems used, expand your mind.

Both and more are valid.
Comparing these various systems is an incredible complex and time consuming endeavor. In order to compare the validity of these various systems, you first need to study them thoroughly, all of them. Over the past decade, on these forums, I've come across maybe 2-3 people who have actually done that. So I think it's important to distinguish between fact and fiction, mere opinion and actual knowledge here. Mostly I see people just voicing opinions based on personal preferences. That doesn't really cut the mustard, IMO.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
Or are we finding horses in the clouds?

Both systems can't be right... well at least in terms of rulerships/signs/etc...
I think this confusion about which system is the correct one has a lot to do with how people explain the origins of astrology. The way I see it, there once was one original system of astrology, one 'source text' so to speak. And all current systems are only fragments of that original astrology, but they all draw from that same 'source text'. Some traditions mangled the original version pretty badly, some less so. But all traditions have been corrupted. So in that sense, all current systems are more or less incomplete and more or less equally 'correct' or 'incorrect'. You'll see evidence of that common origin when you study different systems more thoroughly.
 
Last edited:

muchacho

Well-known member
There are still lots of Vedic astrologers (like Ernst Wilhelm), who are working with the Tropical Zodiac system and making accurate predictions.
Wilhelm's version of vedic astrology is based on one specific translation of one passage in one of the surya siddhantas. His interpretation is actually highly questionable. But he claims to have done 'research' that supports his view. However, AFAIK, no one has seen his research file yet. So it remains highly controversial.
 

petosiris

Banned
I think this confusion about which system is the correct one has a lot to do with how people explain the origins of astrology. The way I see it, there once was one original system of astrology, one 'source text' so to speak. And all current systems are only fragments of that original astrology, but they all draw from that same 'source text'. Some traditions mangled the original version pretty badly, some less so. But all traditions have been corrupted. So in that sense, all current systems are more or less incomplete and more or less equally 'correct' or 'incorrect'. You'll see evidence of that common origin when you study different systems more thoroughly.

According to professor David Pingree, who was one of the most prolific scholars of both Sanskrit and Greek texts in the last century ''The science of astrology was developed in, most probably, the late 2nd or early 1st century B.C., as a mean to predict, from horoscopic themata draw up for the moment of an individual's birth (or conception), the fate of that native. This form of astrology, called genethlialogy, is rooted in Aristotelean physics and Hellenistic astronomy, but also borrowed much from Mesopotamia and some elements from Egypt as well as developing many theories of its own... All of these types of astrology depend on the notion that the planets, in their eternal rotations about the earth, transmit motion (change) to the four elements and to the assemblages of elements, animate or inanimate, in the sublunar world. This theory is completely different from that of celestial omens, in which the gods, whose physical manifestations are the constellations and planets send messages concerning their intentions regarding kings and countries by means of celestial phenomena.'' - Pingree, D. E. (1997). From astral omens to astrology: from Babylon to Bīkāner

His theory of transmission of major technical parts of Hellenistic astrology to the Indian side is quite undeniable, not only linguistically, but also technically in my opinion, no two persons could have come up with similar significations for houses, which are very loosely based on astronomical rationales. For the record, I don't use those, nor do I base my astrology on traditions or age.
 
Last edited:

muchacho

Well-known member
According to professor David Pingree, who was one of the most prolific scholars of both Sanskrit and Greek texts in the last century ''The science of astrology was developed in, most probably, the late 2nd or early 1st century B.C., as a mean to predict, from horoscopic themata draw up for the moment of an individual's birth (or conception), the fate of that native. This form of astrology, called genethlialogy, is rooted in Aristotelean physics and Hellenistic astronomy, but also borrowed much from Mesopotamia and some elements from Egypt as well as developing many theories of its own... All of these types of astrology depend on the notion that the planets, in their eternal rotations about the earth, transmit motion (change) to the four elements and to the assemblages of elements, animate or inanimate, in the sublunar world. This theory is completely different from that of celestial omens, in which the gods, whose physical manifestations are the constellations and planets send messages concerning their intentions regarding kings and countries by means of celestial phenomena.'' - Pingree, D. E. (1997). From astral omens to astrology: from Babylon to Bīkāner

His theory of transmission of major technical parts of Hellenistic astrology to the Indian side is quite undeniable, not only linguistically, but also technically in my opinion, no two persons could have come up with similar significations for houses, which are very loosely based on astronomical rationales. For the record, I don't use those, nor do I base my astrology on traditions or age.
Pingree's theory is actually a controversial one. I remember Ben Dykes taking Pingree to task over taking too many liberties in that regard (I can't remember in which book, but I'll find it if you need it).

As you say, the two traditions are very close and if Hellenistic astrology would be far more complex and sophisticated than Indian astrology then Pingree would have a point. In actuality, however, it's the other way around. That's why I never paid much attention to the linguistic argument, even though it is undeniable. Personally, I don't really care who gave who what first. That's something to quibble over for historians and scholars, not astrologers. What I can say though is that much can be gained from studying vedic astrology if you are a traditional western astrologer and studying traditional western astrology if you are a vedic astrologer. It helps putting things into perspective.
 

petosiris

Banned
Pingree's theory is actually a controversial one. I remember Ben Dykes taking Pingree to task over taking too many liberties in that regard (I can't remember in which book, but I'll find it if you need it).

As you say, the two traditions are very close and if Hellenistic astrology would be far more complex and sophisticated than Indian astrology then Pingree would have a point. In actuality, however, it's the other way around. That's why I never paid much attention to the linguistic argument, even though it is undeniable. Personally, I don't really care who gave who what first. That's something to quibble over for historians and scholars, not astrologers. What I can say though is that much can be gained from studying vedic astrology if you are a traditional western astrologer and studying traditional western astrology if you are a vedic astrologer. It helps putting things into perspective.

It is controversial in circles who believe their horoscopic astrology is 5000 years old, not in scholarly circles. There are loaned words in Indian astrology from Greek (which have no meaning in Sanskrit), but not the other way around. As for complexity and sophistication, I would have studied Indian instead of Hellenistic, unless you meant an amassing of many contradictory methods and traditions, which ancient method has mostly been lost in the latter tradition (Ptolemy and Valens talk about this being the case with the ''Old Astrologers''). But we have methods for pretty much everything in life in Western astrology, we don't need an impractical and unnatural complexity involving divisions and combination of everything one can possible come up with astronomically, or do we? Nature is pleased with simplicity.
 
Last edited:

Opal

Premium Member
Comparing these various systems is an incredible complex and time consuming endeavor. In order to compare the validity of these various systems, you first need to study them thoroughly, all of them. Over the past decade, on these forums, I've come across maybe 2-3 people who have actually done that. So I think it's important to distinguish between fact and fiction, mere opinion and actual knowledge here. Mostly I see people just voicing opinions based on personal preferences. That doesn't really cut the mustard, IMO.

Yes, it is a very complex system. And it is unlikely you will ever meet anyone that has studied all of them in depth. People usually specialize their interests and methodologies. They use what works for them.

I have two places where I like how the charts appear. That is just a visual interpretation choice. There are so many choices of what to use, I have chosen what I prefer, and that changes with my changing perspectives.

I do not choose to pick for others what is fact or fiction. That is a personal choice to be decided by every individual. Forums are full of the opinionated. I prefer to talk with those that don't know it all, as in my opinion, I will never in this lifetime achieve knowing it all.

The question is about the validity of, being questioned because of different methodologies. I have seen people that are very adept in what they chose to specialize in. I have also seen that most do not choose to learn anything here. But, that is their choice.
 

waybread

Well-known member
Pingree made a convincing case for the transfer of horoscopic astrology to India. However, there was an important exception: lunar mansions (nakshatras,) which pre-date the diffusion of western astrology to India.
 

muchacho

Well-known member
It is controversial in circles who believe their horoscopic astrology is 5000 years old, not in scholarly circles. There are loaned words in Indian astrology from Greek (which have no meaning in Sanskrit), but not the other way around. As for complexity and sophistication, I would have studied Indian instead of Hellenistic, unless you meant an amassing of many contradictory methods and traditions, which ancient method has mostly been lost in the latter tradition (Ptolemy and Valens talk about this being the case with the ''Old Astrologers''). But we have methods for pretty much everything in life in Western astrology, we don't need an impractical and unnatural complexity involving divisions and combination of everything one can possible come up with astronomically, or do we? Nature is pleased with simplicity.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of someone switching from vedic to western because western is the superior system? I haven't. It's usually the other way around.
 

petosiris

Banned
Just out of curiosity, have you ever heard of someone switching from vedic to western because western is the superior system? I haven't. It's usually the other way around.

I asked you to show me your superiority in theory and practice not in popularity.

I don't know people who were really into traditional who have switched to vedic, though I don't know many astrologers personally and in general.

A lot of modern astrologers might be keen on Indian astrology, because the spirit of eastern philosophy and the new age has become more prevalent in western society. In fact, I don't know a person who does Indian astrology who has anything, but that unique non-western and non-monotheistic worldview. Have you taken that into consideration?
 
Last edited:
Top