Sidereal vs tropical

retinoid

Well-known member
Ok last chart I think....

Vincent Van Gogh

Genious artist, mentally ill and preacher.

*** Venus
planet of art is strong in exaltation sign for venus pisces.
In 10th house of profession. Venus rules 5th house of creativity.

*** Moon
planet of emotions and inner psychology is in 28.55 Scorpio.
Thus moon is the weakest planet in chart in it's debilitation sign scorpio.
Telling it's tale of suicide at mental institution.
(In his tropical chart moon is in sagittarius).

*** Jupiter
Van Gogh was working as a self sacrifying priest during a period before he
turned to the arts.
Note jupiter in angular house in own sign sagittarius.

Note his Sun are not in tropical aries anymore, but in Pisces, the sign of inspiration and did make him an idealistic dreamer.

His ascendent ruler Mercury is in Aries conjunct pluto telling of an intensive character with some obsessive ideas that together with the scorpio Moon contrbuted to his mental illness.

I would have counted the ascendant as the next house over w/ a 29 degree rising. So north node is in the twelfth house (encouraging seclusion which was a hallmark in his life). Moon is in the sixth house conjunct Jupiter and South Node. In Vedic astrology I think they would consider Jupiter in the sixth as BAD and definitely a moon conjunct ketu would be bad for mental health surely. Just the moon in Scorpio won't make someone more vulnerable to mental issues I don't think...Saturn in the tenth house, he never had his art recognized until death. His sun, mars and venus are in the 9th house denoting religion, philosophy...Idk just my interpretation. I'd like to go look at the tropical version since I use that more.

I just looked, his career's ruler is in the ninth house. Career is a bright spot in his chart for tropical I think or at least that is where he 'shines'. The eleventh house has Saturn in it which could increase feelings of seclusion. Who knows :)
 
Last edited:

Shanti

Well-known member
Yes there are different ways of interpreting depending on which system one use.

When using whole sign I generally let the planets be where they are.
In this delineation I just did a short summary and left out some vedic interpretations.

*But you are right, Moon conjunct south node is definitively very important in my way of thinking. south node ketu is a limiting factor in the chart.
Moon is still in 6th house.

*And you are right again...the 6th house is a challenging house in vedic.
(6th,8th and 12th house are the three most challenging places for planets to be with some exceptions).

*The Moon is also in the Gandanta (A sensitive junction point where there is a border of both sign and nakshatra) which is not considering good.


So the moon is quite blasted in the chart
 
Last edited:

Shanti

Well-known member
I did by coincident look at Fernard Legers chart at the birthday section of
celebrities at astro.com.
Fernard Leger influential artist have the exact same combination as Van gogh have.
An exalted venus in an angle house (Malavya yoga). This is one of the signatures of artists.
Here is his profile. Just convert everything 24 degrees back and see sidereal venus in 10th exalted. Same gemini ascendent as Van gogh.
http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Leger%2C_Fernand?lang=e

Synchronicity :joyful:
 

Moog

Well-known member
Someone here shared this link a while back (Moog? I think it was...)

http://www.astrologyscope.com/

Wow, that's totally cool. I didnae share it though. :smile: I did share something similar a while back though.

On topic: I've recently been somewhat convinced of the veracity of the Sidereal zodiac over tropical. :pinched: Jury still out. I'll be doing a lot of comparisons over the coming times.

Shanti, you make some convincing cases.
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
Wow, that's totally cool. I didnae share it though. :smile: I did share something similar a while back though.

On topic: I've recently been somewhat convinced of the veracity of the Sidereal zodiac over tropical. :pinched: Jury still out. I'll be doing a lot of comparisons over the coming times.

Shanti, you make some convincing cases.

There is no escape. Soon the whole world will be with us. Science will accept astrology. :devil:
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
You will be assimilated :wink:

In India it is accepted as a science, so I hear

That's because their (Vedic) astrology is accurate enough they can pass off for science, unlike our Sun sign bunk over here that most people think of when they hear "astrology." JK.
 

retinoid

Well-known member
That's because their (Vedic) astrology is accurate enough they can pass off for science, unlike our Sun sign bunk over here that most people think of when they hear "astrology." JK.

I don't think astrology can be considered science but maybe some people think so.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I don't think astrology can be considered science but maybe some people think so.

More than 'some' people think so - in fact many people think so.

Astrology being a 'science' depends on (a) your definition of astrology
(b) your method of practicing astrology :smile:
 

Shanti

Well-known member
It's actually true that the supreme court in India have stated that astrology is a science.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...te-for-maharashtra-government-dattaram-kumkar

But as a practioner of western astrology techniques as well, I think that western astrology is as much science as indian astrology. Anyone using the correct techniques in western astrology don't have any doubt about that it's working amazingly well.

But then is the definition of science ?
 

kennedyrosewhith

Well-known member
Yes, I think it depends on what you consider science. I think it'd be very hard to find a biologist or chemist who thinks astrology could be anything but a pseudo-science. They might not even give it that much credit! But I'm sure there are some people who study the hard sciences (biology, chemistry, etc), who also think psychology shouldn't count as science. And I know some people think astrology is more effective than psychology, when it comes to explaining human behavior. But you'd probably also be hard pressed to find a psychologist who thinks astrology could be a science.
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member


Astrology being a 'science' depends on (a) your definition of astrology
(b) your method of practicing astrology :smile:

Also, (c) your definition of science and (d) your method of practicing science. We could also add in (e) your definition of definition and (f) your method of practicing definition, among other things, and start really over-analyzing things...


But I'm sure there are some people who study the hard sciences (biology, chemistry, etc), who also think psychology shouldn't count as science.

There are.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Also, (c) your definition of science and (d) your method of practicing science. We could also add in (e) your definition of definition and (f) your method of practicing definition, among other things, and start really over-analyzing things... There are.
IMO astrology is based on complex analysis :smile:
 

Rebel Uranian

Well-known member
OK JUPITERASC. I tried avoiding this in order to not make a fool of myself but it seems like I'll make a fool of myself if I don't at this point.


More than 'some' people think so - in fact many people think so.

Astrology being a 'science' depends on (a) your definition of astrology
(b) your method of practicing astrology :smile:

Also, (c) your definition of science and (d) your method of practicing science. We could also add in (e) your definition of definition and (f) your method of practicing definition, among other things, and start really over-analyzing things...

Astrology being science depends on your definition of astrology and your method of practicing astrology. It also depends on your definition of science and your method of practicing science. It also depends on your definition of definition and your method of practicing definition, as well as your definition of method and your method of practicing method. If it takes a method to practice definition and a definition of method, then how does one define definition by method or practice method by definition?
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
OK JUPITERASC. I tried avoiding this in order to not make a fool of myself but it seems like I'll make a fool of myself if I don't at this point.

Astrology being science depends on your definition of astrology and your method of practicing astrology. It also depends on your definition of science and your method of practicing science. It also depends on your definition of definition and your method of practicing definition, as well as your definition of method and your method of practicing method. If it takes a method to practice definition and a definition of method, then how does one define definition by method or practice method by definition?
You are far from foolish Rebel Uranian - your analysis is well thought out and a valid (although one assumes) a rhetorical, question - good food for thought there, many thanks:smile:

btw you probably are familiar with this Robert McCloskey quote: “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”
 
Top