Astrologers' Community  

Go Back   Astrologers' Community > Anything Else... > Chat

Chat For posts that don't have to do with astrological chart interpretation, but they're still important to you. Gossip, show off, hot topic, spiritual thoughts, Sun sign astrological discussions, chit chat: come in and share!


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 11-30-2019, 02:54 AM
oolongmonkey oolongmonkey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 19
Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

I've been studying my western chart(which seemed accurate) to now learning that Vedic astrology is more substantive has made me doubt the entire science of astrology. Most of my planets are now in different signs under the Vedic measure.

I've been look at and comparing the wrong sun signs for a couple of decades now only to learn that my planets weren't in the signs I thought they were.

I always thought I was a Aries, Leo ascendant, Moon in Cap. It always made sense, it always fit, In fact it would blow my mind how accurate it was---now after seeing the "real" Vedic---Im a pisces sun, cancer ascendant with a Sagittarius sun...

I'm starting to wonder if astrology was a form of confirmation bias. I wanted to believe so I found evidence to support my beliefs. How could the wrong placement have been so right?

Are we all just finding horses in the clouds?

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to oolongmonkey For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (11-30-2019)
  #2  
Unread 11-30-2019, 03:17 AM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 4,270
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolongmonkey View Post
I've been studying my western chart(which seemed accurate) to now learning that Vedic astrology is more substantive has made me doubt the entire science of astrology. Most of my planets are now in different signs under the Vedic measure.

I've been look at and comparing the wrong sun signs for a couple of decades now only to learn that my planets weren't in the signs I thought they were.

I always thought I was a Aries, Leo ascendant, Moon in Cap. It always made sense, it always fit, In fact it would blow my mind how accurate it was---now after seeing the "real" Vedic---Im a pisces sun, cancer ascendant with a Sagittarius sun...

I'm starting to wonder if astrology was a form of confirmation bias. I wanted to believe so I found evidence to support my beliefs. How could the wrong placement have been so right?

Are we all just finding horses in the clouds?
If your whole experience with astrology is confirmation bias, it doesn't mean that all astrology out there is confirmation bias and that there is nothing real about it. In my experience, a system is more likely to be bs if it has no observable effect in nature and is only based on tradition and divination (like those finding patterns in the skies), or if it is too broad to be measured (like most of modern).

Prepare to change many more ''working'' systems if you do not have a solid foundation built on the four elements. I went through a few before discovering this - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...d.php?t=130820
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (11-30-2019)
  #3  
Unread 11-30-2019, 04:47 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,910
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Oh, gosh. This sort of comment comes up at least once a year; with some people throwing in the 13th constellation on top of it.

Western astrology uses a tropical zodiac, pegged to the equinoxes and solstices, not the constellations. Both systems use 30-degree signs, not the constellations. Vedic astrology uses a sidereal zodiac, more aligned with the constellations. In ancient times, people either used the sidereal zodiac, or they practiced at a time when the tropical zodiac overlapped with it.

Today both zodiacs have adherents and critics. See what works for you. There is no objective basis for saying that one is right and the other is wrong.

But your question is one reason why I pay more attention to aspects between planets than to their signs or houses.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And well change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to waybread For This Useful Post:
kalinka (11-30-2019), oolongmonkey (11-30-2019)
  #4  
Unread 11-30-2019, 09:15 AM
kalinka kalinka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 752
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Both systems are correct!
Besides the different zodiac systems, Vedic astrology considers the Moon as constant (any other planet is moving) and Western Astrology considers the Sun as constant. That's why in Vedic your Rashi (moon) and Lagna (Ascendent) ist more significant while western astrology considers the Sun sign as most important.
In Vedic the Moon is the mind of a person and Lagna is the person himself. In western astrology the sun represents the personality, the moon reflects your feelings and the Asc shows your first impression/ your appereance. You can't translate both systems 1:1.
However, when you read about characteristic facts of your vedic and western sun sign, you will notice that both are right.

Last edited by kalinka; 11-30-2019 at 10:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 11-30-2019, 09:38 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,750
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolongmonkey View Post
I've been studying my western chart(which seemed accurate) to now learning that Vedic astrology is more substantive has made me doubt the entire science of astrology. Most of my planets are now in different signs under the Vedic measure.

I've been look at and comparing the wrong sun signs for a couple of decades now only to learn that my planets weren't in the signs I thought they were.

I always thought I was a Aries, Leo ascendant, Moon in Cap. It always made sense, it always fit, In fact it would blow my mind how accurate it was---now after seeing the "real" Vedic---Im a pisces sun, cancer ascendant with a Sagittarius sun...

I'm starting to wonder if astrology was a form of confirmation bias. I wanted to believe so I found evidence to support my beliefs. How could the wrong placement have been so right?

Are we all just finding horses in the clouds?
Well, looking at it from a purely logical perspective, one of the two systems has to be bogus. But in practice, that doesn't seem to be the case. And I think the two main reasons why people get 'good' results with both systems (or any system) is because they 1) don't do a thorough analysis and keep the reading superficial 2) they read the client and not the chart.
__________________

Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to muchacho For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (11-30-2019), oolongmonkey (11-30-2019), petosiris (11-30-2019)
  #6  
Unread 11-30-2019, 10:06 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,750
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by waybread View Post
But your question is one reason why I pay more attention to aspects between planets than to their signs or houses.
From a modern astrological perspective that may seem like the safest option, yes. From a traditional perspective, however, that's not an option.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 11-30-2019, 10:55 AM
Opal's Avatar
Opal Opal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,785
I am with Waybread and Kalinka and Petosiris. All systems are valid. You decide for yourself which systems work best for you and for what.

Which house system is correct? Whichever house system you prefer to use, for whatever reason you choose to use it. There is many house systems. Must we pick only one. Each has its purpose.

There are different styles. Chinese. Aztec. Numerous numerology systems. Vedic. I Ching. And countless others. Which one is correct?

Astrology is not something that you can put in a tidy little box and put a ribbon on it and say this is it. There are a myriad of valid systems used, expand your mind.

Both and more are valid.

Last edited by Opal; 11-30-2019 at 10:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Opal For This Useful Post:
katydid (12-01-2019)
  #8  
Unread 11-30-2019, 11:45 AM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 4,270
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka View Post
Both systems are correct!
Besides the different zodiac systems, Vedic astrology considers the Moon as constant (any other planet is moving) and Western Astrology considers the Sun as constant. That's why in Vedic your Rashi (moon) and Lagna (Ascendent) ist more significant while western astrology considers the Sun sign as most important.
In Vedic the Moon is the mind of a person and Lagna is the person himself. In western astrology the sun represents the personality, the moon reflects your feelings and the Asc shows your first impression/ your appereance. You can't translate both systems 1:1.
However, when you read about characteristic facts of your vedic and western sun sign, you will notice that both are right.
In my western system of astrology following Ptolemy, the Moon is the predominator of the mind too, not the Sun. - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...d.php?t=130820

Most people generalize based on pop versions of Western and Indian astrologies. A lot of the ancient texts in Indian astrology I've read are similar in focus to traditional western rather than to westernized versions of Indian, in that they are cut and dried, and very narrowly focused on objective matters. When personality plays a role, it is almost always related to other objective matters like becoming a governor or becoming a rogue.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to petosiris For This Useful Post:
JUPITERASC (11-30-2019), kalinka (11-30-2019)
  #9  
Unread 11-30-2019, 03:02 PM
kalinka kalinka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 752
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
In my western system of astrology following Ptolemy, the Moon is the predominator of the mind too, not the Sun. - https://www.astrologyweekly.com/foru...d.php?t=130820

Most people generalize based on pop versions of Western and Indian astrologies. A lot of the ancient texts in Indian astrology I've read are similar in focus to traditional western rather than to westernized versions of Indian, in that they are cut and dried, and very narrowly focused on objective matters. When personality plays a role, it is almost always related to other objective matters like becoming a governor or becoming a rogue.
of course, it was maybe too simplifed. Moon not only represents emotions, it's also about the subconscious mind, our reactions, temperament, everyday behavior, personality. When reading a person's natal chart, we look at the whole picture. It just seems to me that oolongmonkey thinks, he/she "is now a Pisces sun" and the characteristicas of Aries sun is wrong. Most people speak about their"zodiac sign", when they are talking about their sun sign. ("I always thought I was a Aries, Leo ascendant, Moon in Cap.")...and that's the pop version thinking you are talking about.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kalinka For This Useful Post:
petosiris (11-30-2019)
  #10  
Unread 11-30-2019, 03:37 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 4,270
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka View Post
of course, it was maybe too simplifed. Moon not only represents emotions, it's also about the subconscious mind, our reactions, temperament, everyday behavior, personality. When reading a person's natal chart, we look at the whole picture. It just seems to me that oolongmonkey thinks, he/she "is now a Pisces sun" and the characteristicas of Aries sun is wrong. Most people speak about their"zodiac sign", when they are talking about their sun sign. ("I always thought I was a Aries, Leo ascendant, Moon in Cap.")...and that's the pop version thinking you are talking about.
Yes, that is exactly what I was thinking about, thanks for expressing it better.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Unread 11-30-2019, 05:17 PM
oolongmonkey oolongmonkey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 19
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka View Post
Both systems are correct!
Besides the different zodiac systems, Vedic astrology considers the Moon as constant (any other planet is moving) and Western Astrology considers the Sun as constant. That's why in Vedic your Rashi (moon) and Lagna (Ascendent) ist more significant while western astrology considers the Sun sign as most important.
In Vedic the Moon is the mind of a person and Lagna is the person himself. In western astrology the sun represents the personality, the moon reflects your feelings and the Asc shows your first impression/ your appereance. You can't translate both systems 1:1.
However, when you read about characteristic facts of your vedic and western sun sign, you will notice that both are right.
How can you say both are correct when one doesnt account for progression so all the planets are roughly one sign back? So all the talk of sun signs, dignities, rulerships, receptions, etc etc are wrong for western astrology.

All the talk of "guess my sign" is all bunk...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 11-30-2019, 05:19 PM
oolongmonkey oolongmonkey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 19
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by muchacho View Post
Well, looking at it from a purely logical perspective, one of the two systems has to be bogus. But in practice, that doesn't seem to be the case. And I think the two main reasons why people get 'good' results with both systems (or any system) is because they 1) don't do a thorough analysis and keep the reading superficial 2) they read the client and not the chart.
Or are we finding horses in the clouds?

Both systems can't be right... well at least in terms of rulerships/signs/etc...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 11-30-2019, 08:09 PM
kalinka kalinka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 752
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolongmonkey View Post
How can you say both are correct when one doesnt account for progression so all the planets are roughly one sign back? So all the talk of sun signs, dignities, rulerships, receptions, etc etc are wrong for western astrology.
Here are 2 links, which could answer your question:
https://vedicfeed.com/differences-be...ern-astrology/

http://scienceofthestars.com/2015/05...-a-comparison/

Many astrologers (me too) are working with both systems.especially when casting event or horary charts, it is not questioned which system is right or wrong-both work!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kalinka For This Useful Post:
katydid (12-01-2019)
  #14  
Unread 11-30-2019, 08:47 PM
kalinka kalinka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 752
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolongmonkey View Post

All the talk of "guess my sign" is all bunk...
The sidereal zodiac system in Vedic astrology is used in a different way than the tropical in Western astrology. The signs of the zodiac play a much smaller role in Vedic astrology than in the Western world. Nor do Indians, like Europeans and Americans, talk about which sun sign they were born in, but rather about their Rashi Lord.
Logically, the question of which of the two zodiacs is correct, the respective use should not be ignored.

The interpretation of zodiac signs is not even cover in some Vedic textbooks because of their low importance. But when it is treated, we will find that it differs from the interpretation we know, in some cases massively.
I quote the description of a Zodiac Sign from a modern Vedic textbook: Fundamentals of Astrology by Ramakrishna Bhat (20th century), a highly respected Vedic astrologer and scholar. The description is:
"He will be intelligent, virtuous, will command his relatives, be proud, troubled by fire and wind, talkative, of strong body, with a few children, will have connections with many women, be an astrologer, prompt, happy, of low income, learned, having secret sons, knower of many languages, always in company and receiving wealth from a king."

This is Bhat's full description for the sidereal Cancer Ascendant!His description for the sideral Cancer Sun is even shorter.
note the brevity and disorder in the text. It is probably symptomatic for the low significance attributed to sign interpretation in Vedic.
But it is also striking how different it is from the Western understanding of the tropical cancer. The question of whether the sidereal or the tropical cancer is to be considered, will not ask here, because the very different ideas of Cancer are linked.

When modern astrologers make Western-style sign interpretations with a Vedic sidereal zodiac, this is not an old tradition, but rather a new invention, and less an Indian than an European-American one.

Source: Dieter Koch/astro.com

Last edited by kalinka; 12-01-2019 at 09:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 12-01-2019, 03:32 AM
waybread's Avatar
waybread waybread is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: A class M planet near you
Posts: 14,910
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Oolongmonkey, this all hinges upon a 2000+ year-old problem in astrology: why does it work? (Assuming momentarily that it does.)

If you think in terms of a mechanistic, uni-directional, cause-and-effect model; then any system except for one would have to be wrong.

I don't think about it that way. To me, a horoscope is a form of graphic communication that allows the astrologer to tune into another person or event; in much the same way that a skilled map reader understands the lay of the land simply by looking at a topographic map. You could view this as a form of divination; but I think of it more in terms of the horoscope as enlarging our abilities to think in a non-linear way about time and space.
__________________
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And well change the world. Jack Layton, "Letter to Canadians"

I thought we went along paths--but it seems there are no paths. The going itself is the path.
C.S. Lewis, Perelandra.

Life is not about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself. Message on a refrigerator magnet.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 12-01-2019, 01:02 PM
oolongmonkey oolongmonkey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 19
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka View Post
The sidereal zodiac system in Vedic astrology is used in a different way than the tropical in Western astrology. The signs of the zodiac play a much smaller role in Vedic astrology than in the Western world. Nor do Indians, like Europeans and Americans, talk about which sun sign they were born in, but rather about their Rashi Lord.
Logically, the question of which of the two zodiacs is correct, the respective use should not be ignored.

The interpretation of zodiac signs is not even cover in some Vedic textbooks because of their low importance. But when it is treated, we will find that it differs from the interpretation we know, in some cases massively.
I quote the description of a Zodiac Sign from a modern Vedic textbook: Fundamentals of Astrology by Ramakrishna Bhat (20th century), a highly respected Vedic astrologer and scholar. The description is:
"He will be intelligent, virtuous, will command his relatives, be proud, troubled by fire and wind, talkative, of strong body, with a few children, will have connections with many women, be an astrologer, prompt, happy, of low income, learned, having secret sons, knower of many languages, always in company and receiving wealth from a king."

This is Bhat's full description for the sidereal Cancer Ascendant!His description for the sideral Cancer Sun is even shorter.
note the brevity and disorder in the text. It is probably symptomatic for the low significance attributed to sign interpretation in Vedic.
But it is also striking how different it is from the Western understanding of the tropical cancer. The question of whether the sidereal or the tropical cancer is to be considered, will not ask here, because the very different ideas of Cancer are linked.

When modern astrologers make Western-style sign interpretations with a Vedic sidereal zodiac, this is not an old tradition, but rather a new invention, and less an Indian than an European-American one.

Source: Dieter Koch/astro.com
True but signs still play a role. In Vedic the ascendant ruler is of the upmost importance so I would imagine that having the correct ascendant is of the utmost importance.

Either my planets were in X sign or they weren't...both cant be right/true.

Either I was born in Chicago or I was born in New Yokr. Either I was born in 1979 or I was born in 1980. Either I was born as a Leo ASC or a Cancer ASC.

No way these two can be mutually inclusive. It defies logic.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 12-01-2019, 07:50 PM
kalinka kalinka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 752
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

I understand your problem and your question is entitled.
In the traditional Indian astrology there was no zodiac. They (still) use Nakshatras (lunar mansions),Houses, Navamsa, sub-systems. The sidereal zodiac with the twelve signs was transmitted due to Hellenistic astrology.
So your real question is: Which is the right zodiac system: tropical or sidereal?
The first zodiacs were sidereal, the tropical zodiac has been introduced later with Ptolemy.
So still this question is debatable but for me there is no "this system is more accurate than the other." You can use sidereal zodiac with whole sign houses or Placidus, vedic astrology with tropical zodiacs etc.. you just have to know how to use it right to get to the right conclusions. For me both systems are just like different measurement methods.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sidereal2.html
http://vedicartandscience.com/vedic-...isinformation/

Last edited by kalinka; 12-01-2019 at 08:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 12-01-2019, 08:14 PM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 4,270
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
The first zodiacs were sidereal, the tropical zodiac has been introduced later with Ptolemy.
No it wasn't. House rulership and exaltation rulership were based on the seasons, more probably with the equinoxes and solstices at 8, 10 or 15 degrees rather than 1 though.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 12-01-2019, 08:54 PM
AJ Astrology AJ Astrology is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 294
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolongmonkey View Post
I've been studying my western chart(which seemed accurate) to now learning that Vedic astrology is more substantive has made me doubt the entire science of astrology. Most of my planets are now in different signs under the Vedic measure.
Hi oolongmonkey,

Your statement is incorrect, which is part of the problem. Your planets are not in different signs in Vedic astrology.

You have made the mistake of confusing signs with constellations.

Signs are not constellations and constellations are not signs.

The only thing constellations and signs have in common is the use of the same symbols to represent them.

If you wish to use the sidereal zodiac, then you must abandon Western astrology and exclusively employ the Vedic system.

If you choose to use traditional or modern techniques, then you must use the tropical system only, or you will fail.

That's not my opinion, that's the peer-reviewed work of Dr. Kyosti Tarvainen, a Finnish mathematician and statistician.

An examination of 20,382 charts shows sidereal is a spectacular fail.

No, I did not say the Vedic system is a fail. I said use of sidereal with Western astrology is a fail.

Traditional and modern astrology combined with the tropical zodiac work. They work so well that if you used the sidereal system, you'd have to read 401 charts in the hopes of accurately delineating even one chart correctly. Of the two, traditional is more accurate than modern astrology, although there are a few modern techniques that are highly accurate.

The techniques of modern astrologer Ann Henning (who I believe is British) work extraordinarily well for career/profession.

If there's confirmation bias, it rests with the individual.

This forum is full of people want to see something in their chart that isn't there or don't want to see something that is there, so they attempt to self validate by combining systems. You just have to read threads to figure that out.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AJ Astrology For This Useful Post:
kalinka (12-01-2019)
  #20  
Unread 12-01-2019, 09:20 PM
kalinka kalinka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 752
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ Astrology View Post

If you wish to use the sidereal zodiac, then you must abandon Western astrology and exclusively employ the Vedic system.
There are still lots of Vedic astrologers (like Ernst Wilhelm), who are working with the Tropical Zodiac system and making accurate predictions.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Unread 12-06-2019, 09:09 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,750
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opal View Post
I am with Waybread and Kalinka and Petosiris. All systems are valid. You decide for yourself which systems work best for you and for what.

Which house system is correct? Whichever house system you prefer to use, for whatever reason you choose to use it. There is many house systems. Must we pick only one. Each has it’s purpose.

There are different styles. Chinese. Aztec. Numerous numerology systems. Vedic. I Ching. And countless others. Which one is correct?

Astrology is not something that you can put in a tidy little box and put a ribbon on it and say this is it. There are a myriad of valid systems used, expand your mind.

Both and more are valid.
Comparing these various systems is an incredible complex and time consuming endeavor. In order to compare the validity of these various systems, you first need to study them thoroughly, all of them. Over the past decade, on these forums, I've come across maybe 2-3 people who have actually done that. So I think it's important to distinguish between fact and fiction, mere opinion and actual knowledge here. Mostly I see people just voicing opinions based on personal preferences. That doesn't really cut the mustard, IMO.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 12-06-2019, 09:17 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,750
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by oolongmonkey View Post
Or are we finding horses in the clouds?

Both systems can't be right... well at least in terms of rulerships/signs/etc...
I think this confusion about which system is the correct one has a lot to do with how people explain the origins of astrology. The way I see it, there once was one original system of astrology, one 'source text' so to speak. And all current systems are only fragments of that original astrology, but they all draw from that same 'source text'. Some traditions mangled the original version pretty badly, some less so. But all traditions have been corrupted. So in that sense, all current systems are more or less incomplete and more or less equally 'correct' or 'incorrect'. You'll see evidence of that common origin when you study different systems more thoroughly.
__________________


Last edited by muchacho; 12-06-2019 at 09:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to muchacho For This Useful Post:
petosiris (12-06-2019), Rawiri (12-06-2019)
  #23  
Unread 12-06-2019, 09:23 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,750
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka View Post
There are still lots of Vedic astrologers (like Ernst Wilhelm), who are working with the Tropical Zodiac system and making accurate predictions.
Wilhelm's version of vedic astrology is based on one specific translation of one passage in one of the surya siddhantas. His interpretation is actually highly questionable. But he claims to have done 'research' that supports his view. However, AFAIK, no one has seen his research file yet. So it remains highly controversial.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 12-06-2019, 10:12 AM
petosiris petosiris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 4,270
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by muchacho View Post
I think this confusion about which system is the correct one has a lot to do with how people explain the origins of astrology. The way I see it, there once was one original system of astrology, one 'source text' so to speak. And all current systems are only fragments of that original astrology, but they all draw from that same 'source text'. Some traditions mangled the original version pretty badly, some less so. But all traditions have been corrupted. So in that sense, all current systems are more or less incomplete and more or less equally 'correct' or 'incorrect'. You'll see evidence of that common origin when you study different systems more thoroughly.
According to professor David Pingree, who was one of the most prolific scholars of both Sanskrit and Greek texts in the last century ''The science of astrology was developed in, most probably, the late 2nd or early 1st century B.C., as a mean to predict, from horoscopic themata draw up for the moment of an individual's birth (or conception), the fate of that native. This form of astrology, called genethlialogy, is rooted in Aristotelean physics and Hellenistic astronomy, but also borrowed much from Mesopotamia and some elements from Egypt as well as developing many theories of its own... All of these types of astrology depend on the notion that the planets, in their eternal rotations about the earth, transmit motion (change) to the four elements and to the assemblages of elements, animate or inanimate, in the sublunar world. This theory is completely different from that of celestial omens, in which the gods, whose physical manifestations are the constellations and planets send messages concerning their intentions regarding kings and countries by means of celestial phenomena.'' - Pingree, D. E. (1997). From astral omens to astrology: from Babylon to Bīkāner

His theory of transmission of major technical parts of Hellenistic astrology to the Indian side is quite undeniable, not only linguistically, but also technically in my opinion, no two persons could have come up with similar significations for houses, which are very loosely based on astronomical rationales. For the record, I don't use those, nor do I base my astrology on traditions or age.

Last edited by petosiris; 12-06-2019 at 10:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 12-14-2019, 08:15 AM
muchacho muchacho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,750
Re: Questioning validity of astrology after learning that western sign were incorrect

Quote:
Originally Posted by petosiris View Post
According to professor David Pingree, who was one of the most prolific scholars of both Sanskrit and Greek texts in the last century ''The science of astrology was developed in, most probably, the late 2nd or early 1st century B.C., as a mean to predict, from horoscopic themata draw up for the moment of an individual's birth (or conception), the fate of that native. This form of astrology, called genethlialogy, is rooted in Aristotelean physics and Hellenistic astronomy, but also borrowed much from Mesopotamia and some elements from Egypt as well as developing many theories of its own... All of these types of astrology depend on the notion that the planets, in their eternal rotations about the earth, transmit motion (change) to the four elements and to the assemblages of elements, animate or inanimate, in the sublunar world. This theory is completely different from that of celestial omens, in which the gods, whose physical manifestations are the constellations and planets send messages concerning their intentions regarding kings and countries by means of celestial phenomena.'' - Pingree, D. E. (1997). From astral omens to astrology: from Babylon to Bīkāner

His theory of transmission of major technical parts of Hellenistic astrology to the Indian side is quite undeniable, not only linguistically, but also technically in my opinion, no two persons could have come up with similar significations for houses, which are very loosely based on astronomical rationales. For the record, I don't use those, nor do I base my astrology on traditions or age.
Pingree's theory is actually a controversial one. I remember Ben Dykes taking Pingree to task over taking too many liberties in that regard (I can't remember in which book, but I'll find it if you need it).

As you say, the two traditions are very close and if Hellenistic astrology would be far more complex and sophisticated than Indian astrology then Pingree would have a point. In actuality, however, it's the other way around. That's why I never paid much attention to the linguistic argument, even though it is undeniable. Personally, I don't really care who gave who what first. That's something to quibble over for historians and scholars, not astrologers. What I can say though is that much can be gained from studying vedic astrology if you are a traditional western astrologer and studying traditional western astrology if you are a vedic astrologer. It helps putting things into perspective.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005-2018, AstrologyWeekly.com. Boards' structure and all posts are property of AstrologyWeekly.com and their respective creators. No part of the messages sent on these boards may be copied without their owners' explicit consent.