Sidereal Astrology is More Accurate

[Rebel Uranian]

http://www.findyourfate.com/astrolog...gy/cancer.html

(quote not from URL)

"On the positive side, Cancerians contribute qualities of empathy, sympathy, nurturing, leadership, organization, practicality, intuition, kindness, open-heartedness, protectiveness, emotional availability, generosity, joviality, creativity, amicability, diplomacy, business saavy and accounting talents. Let's go - Cancer is a great sign to have represented in your chart!"

Jupiter is also clearly exalted in Cancer.

(I've heard that Cancer is jovial quite a few times. Got to keep searching and searching...

IT'S TOO LATE TO BE GRATEFUL...

Never mind. No randomness. But still searching.)

[serafin5]

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

There are Western Sidereal Astrologers - eg Cyril Fagan http://www.westernsiderealastrology....cyrilfagan.asp and here's another website that refers to Cyril Fagan http://www.eclipses.biz/ancient_mistake.html

Vedic is sidereal and has a reputation for accuracy

QUOTE: HOT TOPICS IN ASTROLOGY http://www.mybirthchart.com/hotfaq.aspx

"There are two zodiacs. The Sidereal zodiac is a physical reality depicting commonly acknowledged pictures made up of groups of stars used by astronomers, Vedic and Sidereal astrologers.

The Tropical zodiac is a mathematical construct used by astrologers only.

Most people in the Western Hemisphere think of their astrological signs based on the Tropical zodiac, which is a math-only based system of division with the zero point starting at the Vernal Equinox. On March 20, 2004 when the Sun crosses the ecliptic, it’s the first day of Spring in the Northern Hemisphere. New babies born on the following day will be told that they have an Aries Sun sign. And they will Tropically. All the Tropical astrologers will mark out the 12 signs, Aries to Pisces, 30 degrees each, from that point in space.

If you could see where the Sun actually was, you would see it in the 7th degree of the constellation Pisces. Sidereal Astrologers use the physical Zodiac which consists of 12 constellations. So if you were born on March 20 or 21, the Sun is physically in the Sign Pisces, not the constellation Aries.

What does this mean to you? Well, it might explain why you weren’t like all those other “Aries” born at the end of the month. But then again, you could have other planets in Aries that gives you the giddy-up that we associate with Aries. You need to see your birth chart to know how many planets are in each constellation. Look at both and see for yourself which makes more sense to you"

Wow, JupAsc, I had no idea that this was so your explanation was really great! This is a topic that I have promised myself that I would study on and find out what the differences are but I had no idea that they are so blatant. So which is the right one? If the Sun was actually in Aquarius and not Pisces when I was born that no wonder I have always identified with Aquarius all of my life! However, I do also identify with my Asc. sign being in Scorpio, I'm not sure if that changes or not. Now I am questioning the validity of the Tropical system and why we use it.

Food for thought.....
Thanks astrologers-Serafin5

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by serafin5

If the Sun was actually in Aquarius and not Pisces when I was born that no wonder I have always identified with Aquarius all of my life! However, I do also identify with my Asc. sign being in Scorpio, I'm not sure if that changes or not.

It depends on which ayanasyma you use if your Asc degree is late enough. I personally think I'm more of a Capricorn and Pisces that Aquarius. I first thought I was more of a Pisces when I was reading Sun signs, but after a while I was like no, I like reality and responsibility and I don't like sob stories or pity, but if you mix that with Capricorn you get exactly that, a creative and intuitive disciplined person. I don't even look like an Aquarius. Aquarius are supposed to have really bright blue eyes but mine are brown and darker than most people's.

[Inconjunct]

Can I just point out that you are not just your Sun sign - you have nine other planets and two major points to consider. Basing your judgement of tropical astrology solely on superficial, cookbook interpretations of Sun positions is like deciding a cake is delicious because the icing is a nice colour.

Can I also point out that astrology uses geocentric positions of the planets because we are all born and live on the Earth, not the Sun.

[dr. farr]

As I have posted elsewhere, I myself (albeit a dedicated Tropicalist) have respect for sidereal approaches, but I have been disappointed with the common Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley corrections (ayanamsa); my experiments with the little known Alcyone/Krittika ayanamsa (used by certain adepts in India) have been much more positive/interesting in results-to test this, simply take all tropical placements back 30 degrees*, and see what you come up with (currently this correction is approx 5 to 6 degrees more than the Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley corrections)


(*formula for the Alcyone/Krittika ayanamsa is: given year + 149 X 50.25 divided by 3600 = exact number of degrees and minutes to be subtracted from the tropical zodiacal degrees and planetary positions)

[SniperBomber328]

Well if I use Sidereal Astrology, every single planet of mine, minus Saturn and the Moon are all found in the 1st House Libra. Meaning Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Mercury are all there! The Moon and Saturn (in Sidereal) are found in the 4th House Capricorn.

What does this all mean? All my traditional planets are Cardinal and Angular in Sidereal Astrology, and my chart would implicate that I am very Venusian and Librian. Heck even my PoF would be found in the 4th House Capricorn.

The Outers are as follow in Sidereal:

Pluto in Libra
Uranus in Capricorn
Neptune in Capricorn

So using Sidereal Modernly, would still leave me with a Cardinal/Angular based chart! I don't really see myself as Capricornian or Librian in any way. Then again I don't see myself as very much Scorpionic or Aquarian either (which would be the results of my Tropical Angular Chart).

Though, with tha above statted, I can relate more to my Tropical Chart, then my Sidereal one, because with my Tropical I am a mix of Libra, Scorpio, Aquarius and Pisces, which I think fits the bill for my personality much better. Well at least more than my sidereal chart which consists again, of Libra and Capricorn only.

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by Inconjunct

Can I just point out that you are not just your Sun sign - you have nine other planets and two major points to consider. Basing your judgement of tropical astrology solely on superficial, cookbook interpretations of Sun positions is like deciding a cake is delicious because the icing is a nice colour.

Yes, I have nine other planets, like my shy, easily persuaded and heart-over-head Cancer Moon, my weak Aries Saturn, my even weaker Libra Mars, and my LoG Venus that always avoids fights. Well, what am I doing now?

Originally Posted by dr. farr

my experiments with the little known Alcyone/Krittika ayanamsa (used by certain adepts in India) have been much more positive/interesting in results-to test this, simply take all tropical placements back 30 degrees*, and see what you come up with (currently this correction is approx 5 to 6 degrees more than the Lahiri and Fagan-Bradley corrections)


(*formula for the Alcyone/Krittika ayanamsa is: given year + 149 X 50.25 divided by 3600 = exact number of degrees and minutes to be subtracted from the tropical zodiacal degrees and planetary positions)

I thought you used the Hipparchus ayanamsa...

Originally Posted by SniperBomber328

Though, with tha above statted, I can relate more to my Tropical Chart, then my Sidereal one, because with my Tropical I am a mix of Libra, Scorpio, Aquarius and Pisces, which I think fits the bill for my personality much better. Well at least more than my sidereal chart which consists again, of Libra and Capricorn only.

Planets are more important than signs. In tropical I'm Venusian and Lunarian (or vice versa.) In sidereal I'm (extremely) Mercurial and (less so in most systems) Saturnian. How do you see me? Try thinking about how you see you and then look at your planets in both systems too.

[SniperBomber328]

Planets are more important than signs. In tropical I'm Venusian and Lunarian (or vice versa.) In sidereal I'm (extremely) Mercurial and (less so in most systems) Saturnian. How do you see me? Try thinking about how you see you and then look at your planets in both systems too.

Too which I exactly point out. I see myself more in the light of my Tropical Chart, rather than my sidereal, which I think I mentioned. But other than that, I was trying to make the point where I personally think one should stick too one chart rather than both.

Which I was seeing in some posts, you can't just say, "Well I am this, since this and that on this chart" and "This and that on another". It pretty much ruins the whole regime, no?

Also in my way of expertise (which holds no accountability) isn't Sidereal a Vedic system, therefore must be delineated quite differently?

[Zonark]

Hmm you're using Vedic sidereal yes, Uranian?

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by SniperBomber328

Also in my way of expertise (which holds no accountability) isn't Sidereal a Vedic system, therefore must be delineated quite differently?

No. It can be, and (@Zonark -) I'm actually thinking about using Vedic, especially since I use some of their techniques such as sect, but sidereal does not require Vedic delineations. In fact, astronomers use it in determining (generally unimportant) things such as the Great Year.

Sidereal - of or pertaining to the stars

Sidereal astrology is astrology that uses the position of the stars rather than the invented 12-sign division based on equinoxes and solstices. Of course, most sidereal systems use the same constellations in their 30* divisions as crossed the ecliptic 2000 years ago, but the astrological zodiac is such an imaginary thing it doesn't matter much anyhow.

[dr. farr]

No, I have been using the Alcyone/Krittika in my experiments; however, the (somewhat) better known Hipparchus is only about 30 minutes (1/2 degree) different and for the past decade they can be rounded to 30 degrees (Hipparachus = year + 109 x 50.25 divided by 3600; Alcyone/Krittika = year + 149 x 50.25 divided by 3600)

[retinoid]

My sidereal is all Libran and Sagittarian energy, which nobody would guess from me...my tropical is a lot of Scorpio with a little of Sagittarian. Which I can see. However, in Sidereal (and Tropical) I have 5 planets in the 8th house which could explain why I have a lot of Scorpio traits.

This question is bothering me though because I think it is important for predictions. If someone asks about their career, the tenth house needs to be the correct sign and the ruler of that house needs to be in the correct house for accuracy...Like I said, I don't identify with a lot of Libra energy that sidereal bestows upon me but I have a bunch of planets in the 6th and 8th houses which can explain it. But Idk...

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by retinoid

My sidereal is all Libran and Sagittarian energy, which nobody would guess from me...my tropical is a lot of Scorpio with a little of Sagittarian. Which I can see. However, in Sidereal (and Tropical) I have 5 planets in the 8th house which could explain why I have a lot of Scorpio traits.

This question is bothering me though because I think it is important for predictions. If someone asks about their career, the tenth house needs to be the correct sign and the ruler of that house needs to be in the correct house for accuracy...Like I said, I don't identify with a lot of Libra energy that sidereal bestows upon me but I have a bunch of planets in the 6th and 8th houses which can explain it. But Idk...

Not only (a) keeping tabs on current transits to/from/by natal MC planetary ruler but also (b) researching - checking back over past years for events potentially involving natal MC planetary ruler is the way to find answers to this important question in relation to prediction by contrasting Sidereal MC ruler transits with Tropical MC ruler transits.

Other important considerations are that frequently the MC ruler is in a Sign disposited by another planet - plus it is not unusual to find that the MC is located in a Sign other than that of the 10th house

[kennedyrosewhith]

Originally Posted by Inconjunct

Can I just point out that you are not just your Sun sign - you have nine other planets and two major points to consider. Basing your judgement of tropical astrology solely on superficial, cookbook interpretations of Sun positions is like deciding a cake is delicious because the icing is a nice colour.

Can I also point out that astrology uses geocentric positions of the planets because we are all born and live on the Earth, not the Sun.

I was typing up this same thing just now. Except much more wordy, haha.

The thing about sidereal astrology that i don't understand is that the constellations aren't even all 30 degrees wide. So why are sidereal signs 30 degrees wide? It just seems like sidereal is hailed as being THE accurate picture of the sky and... it's not.

Regarding my own sidereal chart, if you ditch the signs, then i'm almost as Plutonian and Saturnian in my sidereal chart as i am in my tropical chart. After all, all the aspects are the same, and all the planets are still in the same houses. The signs are just different- and i don't agree with where they are! I saw someone mention how some astrologers don't use the signs as much in sidereal, what was that about?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Zonark

Also an interesting article on House systems that posits Topocentric as the most logical system, well worth a read. I think you'd enjoy this one, Uranian; http://www.astrowisdom.net/articles/...use-system.htm

And thanks for posting this, Zonark. I use topocentric (or prefer it) because i like how it doesn't fall apart at the poles, and what little i could find about it made sense, but i could never find much.

[MSO]

Using sect is vedic now? Kid, you crack me up.

Get off this sidereal kick. Or at least stop making threads about it. It's a phase and you'll eventually come out of it.

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by MSO

Using sect is vedic now? Kid, you crack me up.

No, just making Saturn nocturnal and Venus diurnal is Vedic.

Originally Posted by MSO

Get off this sidereal kick. Or at least stop making threads about it. It's a phase and you'll eventually come out of it.

Phase:

3. a side, aspect, or point of view: This is only one phase of the question.

Yes, it is a point of view. It's my point of view. I'll come out of it when I die, quit astrology, or get proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Haizea

The ones who are more interested in defining and describing Signs are Psychological Astrologers. Or let's call it in whatever way you want, like those who are not predicting but attempting to talk about how a person is.

...And they failed. I know nothing about myself and I know more then they do. They must know a negative amount about me. I'm a very introspective person, so I know a little more about me than most people do, which is cheating on my part. The only thing you can't learn about yourself from introspection is how you interact with people. Most psych astrologers appear to be nearly complete extroverts who are only interested in how people interact, so...

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

I'm a very introspective person, so I know a little more about me than most people do, which is cheating on my part.

I already gave the reason, and it's not "because I'm an Aquarian," but thanks.

[Rebel Uranian]

introspection:

1. observation or examination of one's own mental and emotional state, mental processes, etc.; the act of looking within oneself.

2. the tendency or disposition to do this.

3. sympathetic introspection.

It's hard to get an objective viewpoint of yourself since you "move" every time you have to look at yourself, so you do have a point.

[From the far future: Curse the edit button's unlimited time, or at least the delete button's. Haizea...]

[Zonark]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

No. It can be, and (@Zonark -) I'm actually thinking about using Vedic, especially since I use some of their techniques such as sect, but sidereal does not require Vedic delineations. In fact, astronomers use it in determining (generally unimportant) things such as the Great Year.

Sidereal - of or pertaining to the stars

Sidereal astrology is astrology that uses the position of the stars rather than the invented 12-sign division based on equinoxes and solstices. Of course, most sidereal systems use the same constellations in their 30* divisions as crossed the ecliptic 2000 years ago, but the astrological zodiac is such an imaginary thing it doesn't matter much anyhow.

Sidereal does seem more sound, if only because the stars are not as subject to change as the Earth's axis.

I've always been intrigued by the astrological systems which posited purely theoretical mathematics as the basis for their derivation since the planets, stars and real heavenly bodies are subject to changes (yes, even stars. It might take millions of years but they do go supernova or implode eventually). Our own Earth's axis just recently shifted due to the Chilean earthquake. How many astrologers do you think took that into account? Many planets, particularly Mercury are constantly bombarded with asteroids.

In a purely theoretical astrology model, the configurations of planets, aspects and so on aren't mathematically derived from the objective movements of the planets. They're derived as the functions of octaves or some other purely mathematical construct. That kind of astrology interests me just as much as astrology derived from actual objects.

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by Zonark

In a purely theoretical astrology model, the configurations of planets, aspects and so on aren't mathematically derived from the objective movements of the planets. They're derived as the functions of octaves or some other purely mathematical construct. That kind of astrology interests me just as much as astrology derived from actual objects.

That wouldn't be astrology any more. That would be pure-mathematical divination.

[Zonark]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

That wouldn't be astrology any more. That would be pure-mathematical divination.

Ah yes of course, hadn't realized that

[Rebel Uranian]

Originally Posted by Zonark

Ah yes of course, hadn't realized that

As soon as we applied it, it would no longer be pure math, and I hadn't realized that in naming it

[Zonark]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

As soon as we applied it, it would no longer be pure math, and I hadn't realized that in naming it

well that's true too!

There's this interesting article relating to theoretically derived astrology that MSO had given me to read. You should ask him for it if you find that kind of thing intriguing.

[MSO]

Originally Posted by Rebel Uranian

Phase:

3. a side, aspect, or point of view: This is only one phase of the question.

Yes, it is a point of view. It's my point of view. I'll come out of it when I die, quit astrology, or get proven wrong.

Phase-

1. A distinct stage of development:
2. A temporary manner, attitude, or pattern of behavior:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phase

Let's not look up very specific definitions to win arguments. You know what I meant. Twisting people's words will not make you right.

One day, when you're not 14 and your emotions don't shift from one extreme to the other on a weekly basis, you'll understand.

[Zonark]

http://www.bonniehill.net/pages.aux/.../tobey.01.html

Here's that article I mentioned. Just forget I said MSO showed me it