Why Tropical "versus" Sidereal?

David starling,

I said that I practice just as any other Western astrologer. The only reason I spend a lot of time in the Vedic forum, is because this community pushes me there. No one will engage my charts or questions simply because I am using a different zodiac.

I also see it the way you do, that they are different lenses. But why cannot everyone else? Why must I be pushed to the side simply because I choose to use a different zodiac?

muchacho said:

Take a look at some climate charts around the world. The seasonal argument only works for the northern hemisphere. And even there it only works for the areas with temperate climate. Near the equator you have no actual seasons, the only difference they know there is more rain vs. less rain and the closer you come to the arctic the less seasons you get again. So this theory would only work for a rather narrow strip between the arctic and the tropics on the northern hemisphere, like central Europe. But they use the tropical zodiac for the entire globe. So obviously there's something not quite right here.

Click to expand...

I also agree. And truth be told, astrology would be more prevalent if people actually found their Sun signs to be true for them. I am speaking of the general public. And the most common sentiment that I have come across – is that the sun sign the tropical zodiac assigns to people does not apply to the person. So they dismiss astrology out right. "Astrology is too general, astrology is too vague."

Have you ever wondered why astrology is so prevalent in India?
Besides the cultural argument.

I personally believe that people who get into astrology are able to convince themselves that they are what the description says they are when it is the aspects that are telling the truth the most.

duenderoja, I've engaged in your charts when I visit this forum now and then

I use western sidereal astrology of Fagan-Allen, Donald Bradley, Ebertin, Eshelman. It isn't vedic, it is western sidereal. It takes the Earth's precession into account.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlVgEoZDjok

Yes, you do! You are very open-minded! There are a few who do engage my charts, but I would like to be a part of the community, you see.

Vedic is awesome! Keep up the good work! Interesting handle, duenderoja--what language is it from (if you don't mind me asking)?

Muchacho, a compass won't work at the Poles, but is still a useful navigational instrument. Anyone from Down Under care to comment on whether Tropical Astrology's Northern Hemispheric seasonal metaphor (Aries as the 1st Sign of Spring) appears to work for the Southern Hemisphere as well?
It's not really a Seasonal "argument"; it's a metaphor which might actually apply worldwide, and that would explain why it was discovered where the "correct" seasonal order was perfectly apparent (correct for Tropical Astrology worldwide). There are trees that can be grown in some climates and not others, but their fruit can be enjoyed everywhere, for a simile.

Spanish. Red fairy.

For instance, read how many people do not find their appearance fitting with their rising (tropical).

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25131&page=29

Our experience with Tropicalism is so different! In my case (in California, if that matters?) everyone I've met (when the subject came up) identified him or herself with the Sun-sign Tropically. Exception: A Sun in Virgo, who insisted that due to caesarian section, her natural birth would have been Sun in Libra (not Leo). I'm not great a guessing a person's Sun-sign, but have never been wrong about Tropical Scorpio rising: It's in the eyes and eyebrows. But Vedic is amazing when it comes to character traits. I have Moon in mid-Tropical Aquarius. I read the Vedic description of Moon in Aqua. and it fit me extremely well--couldn't have said it better myself. I thought, no way I have Moon in Capricorn based on the Vedic description of that placement. To my surprise, it's not as simple as just moving back about 24°, which would have put it in Capricorn. Vedic uses the Moon for its Zodiacal setting, and my Vedic Moon position is also solidly in Aquarius!
It's really not necessary to knock Tropical Astrology, which works so well for so many.
Just demonstrate the accuracy of the method that works best for you, and you can think of these as parallel matrices, each with its own viewing-angle. Allies, not antagonists.

david starling said:

Vedic is awesome! Keep up the good work! Interesting handle, duenderoja--what language is it from (if you don't mind me asking)?

Muchacho, a compass won't work at the Poles, but is still a useful navigational instrument. Anyone from Down Under care to comment on whether Tropical Astrology's Northern Hemispheric seasonal metaphor (Aries as the 1st Sign of Spring) appears to work for the Southern Hemisphere as well?
It's not really a Seasonal "argument"; it's a metaphor which might actually apply worldwide, and that would explain why it was discovered where the "correct" seasonal order was perfectly apparent (correct for Tropical Astrology worldwide). There are trees that can be grown in some climates and not others, but their fruit can be enjoyed everywhere, for a simile.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that astrology, like the movements of the planets, is based on geometry and certain universal principles that rule the entire macro and micro cosmos (as above so below). And so it may be an error to solely argue from a geocentrical position based on how things appear from here. There's a much bigger picture.

I look at Astrology as a 'symbolic language.' We look at charts depicting the sky and we speak about them symbolically. I happen to speak 'Tropical' and others speak "Sidereal.' Some Astrologers, like Red Fairie, speak a combination of the two.

duenderoja said:

For instance, read how many people do not find their appearance fitting with their rising (tropical).

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25131&page=29

Click to expand...

Does Vedic put as much emphasis on the Asc. as Tropical? In general, how do you identify someone's Chart as being of a single Sign. You're a ________. Sun, Moon, Rising, or maybe even a Planet? Or do you use a sort of "resolution of forces" that distills the Chart, making one Sign most prominent?

Yes Vedic finds the rising important. There are physical descriptions as well. Planets in the ascendant modify the appearance. (The Ascendant: The 108 Planets of Vedic Astrology https://www.amazon.com/dp/0970963637/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_DunZwbMZ81T4F)

I know this same principle applies in the tropical zodiac, but I just found it amazing how many people did not agree with their appearance as described in that thread.

Vedic does not label people according to a single sign because there are 9 planets. If anything, they label by the moon, because it is the fastest moving body.

I still speak tropical - I am a Virgo rising, Scorpio Sun and Capricorn moon.

A long time ago I was a Sagittarius. But I was a reluctant one, because I find very little in common with Sagittarius. I accepted it though because that is what everyone said I was. I am a little bit wise, and I am philosophical, but that is where it ended. Tropical also told me that I was a Libra rising. I am not very Nice to people's emotions, I tend to be extremely judgmental, I am pretty attractive. But I accepted it.

But someone in the summer of 2014, interpreted my chart in Vedic. You cannot believe how easily I understood myself as a Virgo ascendant. I saw so much commonality being a Scorpio Sun and Capricorn moon, and a fiery Mars – Sagittarius. My Mars was not an exalted Mars. Everything made a lot more sense.

I am an extremely introspective individual. Everyone in this world is not the way I am. So it is easier for them to fit themselves into the mold they have been pointed to.

I know that this is not the topic, but it is when I rejected the tropical. I still use a lot of the information I learned under western astrology, so I am a western astrologer who uses a different zodiac. I only use whole sign houses because the wonky house cusps annoyed me. The old astrologers saw fit to use whole sign houses so why cannot I?

Disclaimer: I do not say these things to offend. I apologize if someone takes offense. I am only expressing my own experience. I am only explaining my thought processes. Please see it as just that.

I had a similar experience with the Houses. Plac. and Reg., the only House methods I knew about, simply did not work in my case. So, not knowing there was such a thing as Whole-sign Houses, and not having yet realized it's not "one prescription fits all" (using the lens analogy), I not only stopped including Houses in a Chart, I thought anyone else using them was wrong to do so. Learned about Whole-signs when I joined the Community, saw clearly how well they worked for me, and also saw how well Placidian was working for others. Sort of like needing glasses to improve your vision. You try looking through someone else's glasses (which are perfect for that person's vision), it's all blurry for you, and you hand them back and say "if you think you're seeing things clearly with these, you're just fooling yourself!" Tropical is so clearly my "correct prescription", I never doubted that was the same situation for everyone. But, I need Whole-signs to go along with it, and I'm playing catch-up with House interpretation, having previously rejected the standard House methods. Some can use "bifocal" or even "trifocal" Astrology, or even a blend of several, such as Heliocentric. Like being multilingual.

david starling said:

I had a similar experience with the Houses. Plac. and Reg., the only House methods I knew about, simply did not work in my case. So, not knowing there was such a thing as Whole-sign Houses, and not having yet realized it's not "one prescription fits all" (using the lens analogy), I not only stopped including Houses in a Chart, I thought anyone else using them was wrong to do so. Learned about Whole-signs when I joined the Community, saw clearly how well they worked for me, and also saw how well Placidian was working for others. Sort of like needing glasses to improve your vision. You try looking through someone else's glasses (which are perfect for that person's vision), it's all blurry for you, and you hand them back and say "if you think you're seeing things clearly with these, you're just fooling yourself!" Tropical is so clearly my "correct prescription", I never doubted that was the same situation for everyone. But, I need Whole-signs to go along with it, and I'm playing catch-up with House interpretation, having previously rejected the standard House methods. Some can use "bifocal" or even "trifocal" Astrology, or even a blend of several, such as Heliocentric. Like being multilingual.

Click to expand...

Great analogy!

I must admit, I am excited to be a part of the conversation!

For me both zodiacs are a reality and is working. I am not sure why is that ? But having experimented whith both systems for many years I tend to Think that Sideal zodiac is a bit more soul oriented, even though it works excellently for mundane matters too. For example the wealth yogas of vedic astrology involving 2nd house 11nd House for example is so often working greatly as anyone would see investigation wealthy people an millionaires et.c. As for physical characteristics I must say that the tropical zodiac is doing very well. And the sun sign characteristics working quite well also. My wife as a Taurus tropically is just such a shopaholic. As is my sister, also a tropical Taurus et.c.

Whole sign houses work best in the sidereal system I think. There is often slightly difference in houseplacements in whole sign charts casted in sidereal and Tropical zodiac.

But that's just my own personal feeling of course.

duenderoja said:

Yes Vedic finds the rising important. There are physical descriptions as well. Planets in the ascendant modify the appearance. (The Ascendant: The 108 Planets of Vedic Astrology https://www.amazon.com/dp/0970963637/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_DunZwbMZ81T4F)

I know this same principle applies in the tropical zodiac, but I just found it amazing how many people did not agree with their appearance as described in that thread.

Vedic does not label people according to a single sign because there are 9 planets. If anything, they label by the moon, because it is the fastest moving body.

I still speak tropical - I am a Virgo rising, Scorpio Sun and Capricorn moon.

A long time ago I was a Sagittarius. But I was a reluctant one, because I find very little in common with Sagittarius. I accepted it though because that is what everyone said I was. I am a little bit wise, and I am philosophical, but that is where it ended. Tropical also told me that I was a Libra rising. I am not very Nice to people's emotions, I tend to be extremely judgmental, I am pretty attractive. But I accepted it.

But someone in the summer of 2014, interpreted my chart in Vedic. You cannot believe how easily I understood myself as a Virgo ascendant. I saw so much commonality being a Scorpio Sun and Capricorn moon, and a fiery Mars – Sagittarius. My Mars was not an exalted Mars. Everything made a lot more sense.

I am an extremely introspective individual. Everyone in this world is not the way I am. So it is easier for them to fit themselves into the mold they have been pointed to.

I know that this is not the topic, but it is when I rejected the tropical. I still use a lot of the information I learned under western astrology, so I am a western astrologer who uses a different zodiac. I only use whole sign houses because the wonky house cusps annoyed me. The old astrologers saw fit to use whole sign houses so why cannot I?

Disclaimer: I do not say these things to offend. I apologize if someone takes offense. I am only expressing my own experience. I am only explaining my thought processes. Please see it as just that.

Click to expand...

Yes, in vedic astrology, ASC is the most important, then Moon, then Sun. Also, the Moon can be used as ASC and you can look at the chart from there to get additional information about your psyche.

when it is the aspects that are telling the truth the most.

Click to expand...

This sentence is to me a golden truth in astrology.

Sometimes I kind of dismiss the signs and zodiacs because in astrology, the planets do have their own symbolism. I've often wondered if I can possibly dismiss the zodiacs altogether and only count on the planetary symbolism.

F.ex. a person with a Moon in Libra, but then a Moon-Mars partile aspect will not find that Moon in Libra fits her personality. She will find the Moon-Mars aspect and planetary symbolism fits her a lot better. She might even think that Aries Moon description fits her better. You could say the same for Moon in Capricorn with a partile aspect to Neptune. This Moon will not find the Capricorn description very fitting, as the Moon will be strongly affected by Neptune, possibly giving us a musician or film maker and possibly a drug addict.

A person with Sun in Sagittarius and then a partile Sun-Saturn aspect will not find the Sun sign description fitting - but when reading the aspect, she will go "AHA - that's it".

For myself I am ok with just ignoring the signs most of the time. I don't care much about the description of a Leo vs. Cancer Sun in my own case - I care more about the Sun-Uranus aspect and the planets/aspects on angles that are more descriptive. In my case I have Moon in Aries sidereal and in Taurus tropical. I find the sidereal description fit a lot better and it also describes my appearance in my view. But then again my Moon has a tight aspect to both Mercury and Mars. IF Moon would be aspected to Venus, I would possibly find Taurus description more accurate. But you can find the truths in the tight aspects - aspects within 3-5 degr ...but the partile ones are strongest.

david starling said:

Our experience with Tropicalism is so different!
In my case
(in California, if that matters?)
everyone I've met
(when the subject came up)
identified him or herself with the Sun-sign Tropically.

Click to expand...

It is possible that everyone you have met thus far in California
has their sun in the same sign BOTH Tropically AND sidereally

david starling said:

Exception:
A Sun in Virgo,
who insisted that
due to caesarian section,
her natural birth would have been Sun in Libra
(not Leo).

Click to expand...

So she was a Virgo Sun by caesarian section
however, she shall never know for certain the Sign of what could have been her natural birth
simply because her natural birth never happened and never shall
because she was born by Caesarian.

If she thinks her natural birth would have been Sun in Libra
then clearly she was born by Caesarian towards the end of Tropical Virgo
and in that case, even if her natural birth could have occurred in Libra
she would have been Sidereal Virgo

Leo would not have been a factor in either case
in this case

david starling said:

I'm not great a
guessing a person's Sun-sign,
but have never been wrong about Tropical Scorpio rising:
It's in the eyes and eyebrows.

Click to expand...

Depends on how many Tropical Scorpios you have "never been wrong about"
for statistical purposes a sample of at least two hundred and fifty is required
Many of those Scorpios had their rising at a degree of Scorpio
that was the same Scorpio degree sidereally as well as tropically
Mars is Scorpios ruler and influences the appearance of Scorpio rising

david starling said:

But Vedic is amazing when it comes to character traits.
I have Moon in mid-Tropical Aquarius.
I read the Vedic description of Moon in Aqua. and it fit me extremely well--couldn't have said it better myself.
I thought, no way I have Moon in Capricorn based on the Vedic description of that placement.
To my surprise, it's not as simple as just moving back about 24°, which would have put it in Capricorn.
Vedic uses the Moon for its Zodiacal setting, and my Vedic Moon position is also solidly in Aquarius!

Click to expand...

Capricorn and Aquarius are both ruled by Saturn

david starling said:

It's really not necessary to knock Tropical Astrology, which works so well for so many.

Click to expand...

And does not work at all for so many as well

david starling said:

Just demonstrate the accuracy of the method that works best for you,
and you can think of these as parallel matrices,
each with its own viewing-angle.
Allies, not antagonists.

Click to expand...

keep in mind that on an online forum such as ours
which allows anyone from beginner with a few hours intro to astrology
to post their opinion as "gospel"
as well as more seasoned astrologers to make their comments
that therefore
there is no continuity

a course from some respected professional is recommended

Arena said:

For myself I am ok with just ignoring the signs most of the time. I don't care much about the description of a Leo vs. Cancer Sun in my own case - I care more about the Sun-Uranus aspect and the planets/aspects on angles that are more descriptive. In my case I have Moon in Aries sidereal and in Taurus tropical. I find the sidereal description fit a lot better and it also describes my appearance in my view. But then again my Moon has a tight aspect to both Mercury and Mars. IF Moon would be aspected to Venus, I would possibly find Taurus description more accurate. But you can find the truths in the tight aspects - aspects within 3-5 degr ...but the partile ones are strongest.

Click to expand...

If you ignore sign and house of the planets then you also ignore their strength and relevance, and so you can't possibly read those aspects correctly.

Well muchacho, that is simply not right.

Their strength and relevance are measured by how closely they are to the angles and how tightly aspected they are.

You don't need houses nor signs. You do however need planets and angles.

Arena, I have a question about the Lunar nodes, more imaginatively "Dragon's Head and Tail": Standard Tropical attitudes vary, but one view is that the DH is Benific, and DT is Malefic; and in Vedic tradition, the standard view is that both are Malefic. As a Western Siderealist, what's your understanding of them, in terms of the Angle they make to the Ascendant? (I have them squaring my Asc., and DT conj. Midheaven.)
Or, does a Planet need to be involved for that to matter? Thanks!