The_Sundance_Kid
Well-known member
Gotcha
I should have said, in the vedic reports I've received in the past, the nakshatra never featured much in interpretations and was only used to determine rulership and subrulership of the moon for weighting purposes. So there was less about characteristics and more about overall fire and sub-lord of mercury bi-ruled with saturn detrimented by rahu blah blah.
All the reports, from various sources, did talk alot about my Taurus moon (in Western zodiac it in Gemini.) And their interpretation of that was pretty neat. They seemed to focus on sign rather than nakshatra, but maybe they were playing up to the western readership?
And their interpretation of the Taurus moon was very contrary to the Krittika moon, which I found difficult to understand. Apart from the sensuousness
I should have said, in the vedic reports I've received in the past, the nakshatra never featured much in interpretations and was only used to determine rulership and subrulership of the moon for weighting purposes. So there was less about characteristics and more about overall fire and sub-lord of mercury bi-ruled with saturn detrimented by rahu blah blah.
All the reports, from various sources, did talk alot about my Taurus moon (in Western zodiac it in Gemini.) And their interpretation of that was pretty neat. They seemed to focus on sign rather than nakshatra, but maybe they were playing up to the western readership?
And their interpretation of the Taurus moon was very contrary to the Krittika moon, which I found difficult to understand. Apart from the sensuousness