Vedic Planetary Transits vs. Western
- Thread starter tammyt
- Start date
Moog
Well-known member
This is what I've been taught.
You can look at the shorter dashas, but the effects they give are weaker and more fleeting.
I usually look 3 levels down, but not usually further. Usually timing errors creep in, and I'm not so hot with the rectifications yet.
A planet can be said to "transit" a sign in the sense of passing through that sign (though due to retrogression a planet may enter a sign, leave it then re-enter it). Since, as Moog pointed out, the tropical zodiac is (currently) offset from the sidereal zodiac by about 24°, the date that a planet enters a sign is earlier in the tropical zodiac than it is in the sidereal zodiac. For example, Mars enters Capricorn on November 18, 2012, according to the tropical zodiac, but it enters Capricorn on December 18, 2012, according to the sidereal zodiac. Due to retrograde motion, the time that a planet spends in a sign may be different in the two zodiacs.
The more usual use of "transit" is to denote the period during which a planet forms an aspect (square, etc.) with some other planet (this is called a "world transit") or with some natal planet (this is called a "personal transit").
A particular aspect between two moving planets begins when the angle between those planets differs from the exact value for that aspect by less than the orb chosen for that aspect (e.g., 7° for square aspects). For example, Venus is currently square to Mars. This aspect began on September 11, 2012, and will end on October 12, 2012, thus lasting 32 days. The angle between the two planets is independent of the zodiac used (because the angle is the difference of the ecliptic longitudes of the planets), so the time that such an aspect begins is also independent of the zodiac used. Similarly the time that the aspect ends is zodiac-independent, and thus the duration of the transit is also. Thus world transits do not depend on choice of zodiac.
The case is different for personal transits, since the angle between a transiting planet and a natal planet is not calculated for a specific time, but must take into account the difference between the birth date and the current date (the date at which the transit is occurring). For this reason, the start and end of personal transits (and thus their duration) does depend on the zodiac used, and the extent of the difference according to the two zodiacs further depends on the person's age and on the two planets forming the aspect. This is explained in more detail in an article The Influence of the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs on Personal Transits.
The more usual use of "transit" is to denote the period during which a planet forms an aspect (square, etc.) with some other planet (this is called a "world transit") or with some natal planet (this is called a "personal transit").
A particular aspect between two moving planets begins when the angle between those planets differs from the exact value for that aspect by less than the orb chosen for that aspect (e.g., 7° for square aspects). For example, Venus is currently square to Mars. This aspect began on September 11, 2012, and will end on October 12, 2012, thus lasting 32 days. The angle between the two planets is independent of the zodiac used (because the angle is the difference of the ecliptic longitudes of the planets), so the time that such an aspect begins is also independent of the zodiac used. Similarly the time that the aspect ends is zodiac-independent, and thus the duration of the transit is also. Thus world transits do not depend on choice of zodiac.
The case is different for personal transits, since the angle between a transiting planet and a natal planet is not calculated for a specific time, but must take into account the difference between the birth date and the current date (the date at which the transit is occurring). For this reason, the start and end of personal transits (and thus their duration) does depend on the zodiac used, and the extent of the difference according to the two zodiacs further depends on the person's age and on the two planets forming the aspect. This is explained in more detail in an article The Influence of the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs on Personal Transits.
Last edited:
It's true that Western astrologers and Vedic astrologers think of (and interpret) transits in different ways, and what I wrote above is based less on a Vedic approach than a Western approach, according to which a transit of a planet to another planet (over a certain time period), or a transit of a planet ( over a certain time period) to a planet in the natal chart, is understood solely on the basis of their ecliptic longitudes -- measured in degrees from whatever direction is taken to be zero degrees Aries (which differs in the two zodiacs). According to the Western concept a transit between two planets (for a given aspect, e.g., square) starts when the difference in their ecliptic longitudes differs from the exact value for that aspect (e.g., 90° for squares) by less than the the orb chosen for that aspect (e.g., 7° for squares). And it remains in effect for as long as that difference in ecliptic longitudes itself differs from the exact value by less than the orb (which period can be anything from days to years).
This approach applies to any pair of planets and depends neither on the zodiac being used nor on the signs in that zodiac in which those planets happen to be, so it is both sign- and zodiac-independent (and is also house-independent even if the ascendant etc. are considered as well as the planets). An archetypal astrologer might interpret a planetary transit solely in terms of the quality of the aspect (as in the difference between a square and a trine) and the archetypal qualities of the two planets involved. So you might say that this is a somewhat unVedic concept of transits, but nevertheless it can be used in conjunction with the sidereal zodiac just as well as with the tropical zodiac, although Vedic astrologers might choose to ignore this possibility. (Which raises the question: Is it the zodiac used or the methods of interpretation which makes an astrologer better described as Vedic or Western?)
This approach applies to any pair of planets and depends neither on the zodiac being used nor on the signs in that zodiac in which those planets happen to be, so it is both sign- and zodiac-independent (and is also house-independent even if the ascendant etc. are considered as well as the planets). An archetypal astrologer might interpret a planetary transit solely in terms of the quality of the aspect (as in the difference between a square and a trine) and the archetypal qualities of the two planets involved. So you might say that this is a somewhat unVedic concept of transits, but nevertheless it can be used in conjunction with the sidereal zodiac just as well as with the tropical zodiac, although Vedic astrologers might choose to ignore this possibility. (Which raises the question: Is it the zodiac used or the methods of interpretation which makes an astrologer better described as Vedic or Western?)
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Brief video for you tammyt, clearly illustrates how Earth's motion around the Sun accounts for the conundrum of TSaturn apparently leaving Tropical Libra 5 October 2012 YET SOMEHOW SIMULTANEOUSLY remaining in Sidereal Libra for the next two years!Hi everyone. I was just wondering why is it that according to western astrology Saturn is going to leave libra Octb. 5 but according to vedic it is going to be in Libra for next 2 years?
The explanation leads to an understanding of the two different ways that 'a year' on planet Earth is observed... i.e. (1) a 'Sidereal Year' and (2) a 'Tropical Year'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI&feature=relatedBrief video for you tammyt, clearly illustrates how Earth's motion around the Sun accounts for the conundrum of TSaturn apparently leaving Tropical Libra 5 October 2012 YET SOMEHOW SIMULTANEOUSLY remaining in Sidereal Libra for the next two years!
The explanation leads to an understanding of the two different ways that 'a year' on planet Earth is observed... i.e. (1) a 'Sidereal Year' and (2) a 'Tropical Year'
I watched only the first minute of this video, and it may be misleading, though I can't say for sure.
Although it is true that the orientation of the major axis of the Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun does change, this change is extremely slow (one complete rotation takes 137,000 years), and it is not the reason for there being two zodiacs. The reason is the change in the orientation of the Earth's axis of rotation, which has little, if anything, to do with the motion of the Earth around the Sun. This axis is itself rotating (like the axis of a spinning top rotates), and one rotation takes 25,500 years. The orientation of this axis determines the exact moments when the equinoxes and solstices occur.
The tropical zodiac takes as its 'zero degrees Aries' the direction of a line from the Earth to the Sun at the moment of the northern vernal equinox. The sidereal zodiac takes as its 'zero degrees Aries' the direction of a line from the Earth to a fixed point among the stars (on the ecliptic) -- though there is some slight uncertainty as to which point that is. During the last 2000 years these two directions have diverged (due, as I said, to a change in the orientation of the Earth's axis of rotation), and since a zodiac is defined by the direction it assumes as its 'zero degrees Aries', the tropical zodiac now differs from the sidereal zodiac (though both divide the zodiac into 12 parts in the same way).
This explanation is given in somewhat more detail in the first section of The Influence of the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs on Personal Transits.
Last edited: