Hot topic-Sidereal is not Vedic - Discussions, questions

Aren Levi as i always wrote to you,

sidereal whole sign system is VEDIC astrology

"i think the first indian zodiac astrologers were using tropical" OMG really ? do you even ..... i do not want to be evil to you kid, but you gotta use brain sometimes, as i wrote you - vedic 3000bc, tropical 500bc - indians and asia was using vedic 2500 years before tropical even existed ....

vedic astrology has originated in ancient Babylon which is not in india

indian people took vedic astrology as majority of Asia, .....

i like how you know shitt about vedic astrology and you are hating on it - calling it a tool of emotional games

grow the fuck up

Psyle I´m also a big proponent of tropical vedic astrology.
As for house systems I guess it depends on the context and the technique used.

In my opinion the zodiac clearly resonates with a tropical symbolism and the lunar mansions (indian and arabic) line up with a stellar symbolism. It´s the difference between the heavenly realm of the gods (Swarga loka, stars, deity symbolism) and the encosmic realm of fate (Bhuva Loka, solar system, animal symbolism). The tropical zodiac´s construction has an internal coherence because it naturally arises out of the four elemental cardinal points. The ancient guardians of the directions. And the seasons. At least that´s the vivid experience I got out of it in practice (tropical signs on the one hand and sidereal nakshatras on the other).

The usual answer "both sidereal and tropical can be right" also means astrologers rely on their intuition alongside technical tricks, and that somewhat rectifies the discrepancies. A less popular answer would be that the sidereal zodiac was caused by a confusion that occured once the precession of the equinoxes became noticeable. Many ancient astrologers weren´t aware of it and they ended up keeping the fixed stars to facilitate their calculations. For tropical vedic astrologers, the ancient techniques become more accurate with the tropical zodiac. The signs add an extra depth to the independent planetary geometries.

astreo » Psyle Do you use divisional charts with sidereal or tropical?

Astro-Seek.com System message: Post has been written by user Seanfhear, who already deleted profile on this website:
=====
Sidereal is just a term used to describe how to calculate the beginning or positions of the stars. In the list of Sidereal systems or Ayanamsa, here on Astro-Seek, you can see that some systems are Europeans and some is Sassanian (Persian). The term "Sidereal astrology" is just weird. It´s just a mathematical/astronomical concept. And so is tropical.
Vedic astrology on the other hand, or Indian astrology, is the collection of practices and concepts that majorly developed in India. Personally, I don´t care much about the terminology here; Vedic or Indian, it doesn´t make a difference to me. It just happens that most Indian astrologers prefer (and some are hardcore) to use the Sidereal calculations, and the most common is Lahiri (but there are others).
Sidereal has nothing to do with the house system even. As I said, it is a mathematical/astronomical concept for how to locate the beginning of the zodiac in the sky. The house system was originally Whole Sign system as attested already in old Hellenistic practices (for example, if you check the Annual Profection technique, you would still see that the whole sign system is used for this old timing technique).

As for the Nakshatras being there before the zodiac; This is something I´m not sure and aware of. Most astrologers I know of (and some are well-versed and learned Sanskrit to read old scripts) do talk about such old and ancient books of India and it´s all about the zodiac and not Nakshatras. The concept of Nakshatras is/was pretty common for ancient people in general. Arabs used Manzils (or lunar mansions) for various purposes including astrology (but in my readings, seems they are at the bottom of the pyramid). To me, Nakshatras look like more of a mathematical division for the circle, but I´m not quite sure if these are real stars in the sky. Manzils, however, are real stars in the sky and people still use some of these stars for the seasons (or even in slang or sayings in daily life), and many of these stars were sometimes worshiped by ancient Arabs before Islam. Manzils are 28 placements while Nakshtras are (commonly, not always) 27 placements.
The concept of the zodiac is quite old in time. So old that it was attested in Babylonian (and the Sumerian before) texts, as well as in ancient Egypt in some tombs. It´s just so hard to be convinced that ancient India did not have a say in this or did observe the details (Nakshatras) without considering the big picture (zodiac).
The moon is surely an important element in Indian astrology because it is the fastest moving planet and it governs the emotions and it controls many aspects of life on Earth and hence it comes as no wonder if Nakshatras take an important place in Indian astrology. I even heard someone say that the horoscopes on some or majority of newspapers in India (need someone to confirm this) do actually display lunar signs predictions as the daily horoscopes and not the solar like most newspapers we have here.

Emanuel » Psyle "
The usual answer "both sidereal and tropical can be right" also means astrologers rely on their intuition alongside technical tricks, and that somewhat rectifies the discrepancies"

Yeah. Chris Brennan had a podcast about this. It s after all astrology some kind of divination?

Emanuel » Seanfhear Nice contribution on this topic.

Emanuel » Aren Levi You embarrass yourself again dude.

cubic Recently Vic Dicara finished a 4 part series of his take on the whole issue as a Vedic astrologer, thought it might be relevant to this scholarly debate between gentlemen.

All in all about 4 hours long indeed, yet to finish the whole thing myself, but interestingly enough he seems to be making a case for the use of Tropical in Vedic astrology, according to the Indian classical texts:

https://www.youtube.com/results/…

Additional material:

http://vicdicara.com/tropical

Aren Levi » Emanuel me ? so far i did not write a single lie, you on the other hand ....

Rosincvist Oh my Gadzooks! I opened up the VW-bug and there was a Wankel Engine!

Aren Levi » Rosincvist i almost bought a mazda RX-8 2 months ago, i did not buy it because of freaking wankel .... not many people can repair it and the repair itself costs more then car itself

Emanuel » Rosincvist :))))

Based_in_venus Very interesting info..
I just started studying astrology and I was very confused because I dont know which system should I follow .
My logic says that the siderial system seems more trustworthy due to the exact planetary positions but on the other hand tropical charts seem to be accurate when describing personalities.. I really don´t know ......

Psyle » astreo I use the tropical zodiac for everything. For instance if I want to study the mahadasha periods I will find the dasha lords (with the sidereal nakshatras) and then interpret the placement of these lords in my tropical natal chart.

astreo » Psyle Oh thank you very much, I see my nakshatras in the tropical positions, but I wasn´t quite sure how correct that was.

Aren Levi » Psyle wow, using nakshatras outside of vedic feels so wrong

it was not made for tropical anything .... any REAL vedic astrologer would say that ....

when we start mixing everything with everything .... there will be only mist

Psyle » astreo See nakshatras, like any kind of lunar mansion, are very similar to fixed stars. This means that, in their essence, they are completely unrelated to any zodiac. A nakshatra is defined by its main star, its symbol, its vedic god, its ruling planet and that´s it. No signs are being used here.

Astro-Seek.com System message: Post has been written by user OS*, who already deleted profile on this website:
=====
interesting tread. the comments lol. I have to agree with Aren here: I believe vedic might precede tropical. however you´re right about the rest, and correct about word "sidereal, since I believe it is derived from latin, sider-star. . .

The term vedic is not ancient, actually pretty modern and comes from word Ayurvedic. since Ayurvedic has so many branches, astrology or study of "Jyotish" is one of them. in my opinion, Jyotish or Vedic astrology might be more appropriate than Sidereal.

"Many astrologers in India use the word Vedic astrology only to play the emotional game with other Indians. The reason is purely monetary."

yeah, unfortunately there are "charlatans" in all types of industries, everywhere around the world. not just in astrology.

drsendero This is an attempt to clarify a few terms here.

Many folks divide the two most common forms of astrology into "Western" and "Indian". The term "Vedic" is also used for "Indian" but I´ve read that this is not the best term to use since it is not mentioned in the Vedas. So, I´ll say "Indian" here.

The vast majority of Indian astrologers use a sidereal zodiac, which by definition is based upon the stars. The most common anayanamsa is Lahiri, but the Krishnamurti and Ramen ayanamsas appear to have quite a few adherents also. Most Indian astrologers use whole sign houses, but many also use an equal house system with the cusp as the center of the house, not the beginning point as in Western equal house. There is also the Sripathi house system which is Porphyry with the cusps as the centers.

Very few Indian astrologers use the tropical zodiac. Vic seems to be the most well-known.

Western astrologers primarily use the tropical zodiac (and have a variety of house systems floating around with Placidus the most popular).

There is also "Sidereal Astrology" - note the capitalized "S" in "Sidereal". This is a branch of Western Astrology that uses the Fagan-Bradley ayanamsa, the Campanus house system, and many of the techniques that other Western astrologers use. "Sidereal Astrology" was developed by Cyril Fagan and information about it can be found on the solunars website.

Other Western astrologers can, and do, use Western techniques with a sidereal zodiac. There aren´t many, but they´re out there. And there is even Tajik, a form of astrology used by some astrologers in the East, with a sidereal zodiac and western techniques, that focuses in particular on solar returns.

So, there does not really seem to be a cut and dried division between what kind of astrology is used with a tropical zodiac and what kind is used with a sidereal zodiac. The reality is much more complicated.

Sorry for begin pendantic. I´m a Virgo (tropical).

Astro-Seek.com System message: Post has been written by user Leo_Ness, who already deleted profile on this website:
=====
I was moving from one (tropical) to another (sidereal) for a very long time until one morning I have clearelly realised that tropical has nothing to do with Constalations.

It is pretty absurd to take Constalations, and signs based on that Constalations, while you´re linked only to relative position to Sun (you do not need constalations for this )

Tropical is seasonal and it has some value, of course, but since seasons are changing from paralel to paralel and Tropical Aries in Australia has totally different character that of North, it is rather local than something we can use everywhere in unchanged form.

Sidereal calculations are at the other hand linked to Constalations and heaven sectors represented by that Constalations, so no doubt for me there anymore.

I use sidereal calculations, but I do not practice Vedic astrology, since I interpret it the western way.


Last time sidereal and tropical calculations matched was AD 313, but after that every next 72 years tropical was wrong for 1 additional degree.

The reason why Tropical still seams True is because it still resemble to Sidereal . 24 degree shift is not that much, but we are moving toward critical 30 degree (432 more years) where things Will be obvious. By that time we´ll hit the age of Aquarius and thing will generaly be less obscure, so let the Pisces deceive US (with Tropical) little more since this long period (313- around 2500) is Piscean show after all.

atlantickush My friends who use ´sidereal Indian astrology´ call it Jyotish, and call themselves Jyotii´s. Indias a fucking big place though, I doubt everyone all agrees over there.

Arguing over what the origins are of all this stuff means nothing, because its completely unknown. What the earliest recordings of these systems are is not the same as what the actual origins are. Those early Empires were run by Narcissistic nutters, and would have attracted local magicians from across the whole continent. Types like that are obsessed with any method by which they could rule and maintain power. They also stole all the knowledge they could from whoever they were ram-sacking, and then proclaimed it was their great civilisations knowledge, and things like that.

Arguing ´it was Babylon first!´ and stuff like that is basically being no better than a football supporter. Its based on nothing other than records Narcissists wrote about themselves or whoever´s civilisation survived until writing appears on the scene.

atlantickush » Seanfhear Hi, I just wanted to add to your awesome comment.

The term missing from this debate about the zodiacs is ´datum points´. The sidereal and tropical zodiacs are the same zodiac, but calibrated to a different datum point.

The datum of the tropical puts 0 degrees Aries at the the location of the Sun against the stars, when the Sun is at exactly 0 degrees declination, specifically on its way from the southern to northern hemispheres, otherwise known as the Vernal Equinox.

The datum point for the sidereal zodiac is the actual constellation of Aries. I´m blundering that a bit as I´m not sure precisely where in the constellation, apologies.

The thing with those zodiacs is they start at their datum point and then give 30 degrees of the ecliptic to each sign. Hence Equal sign versus true sign chart calculations. The constellations arent actually all the same size.

The 27 Nakshatras are derived from the distance the moon travels in one day. The 28 Manzils are the same pretty much. Theres some technical difference which I dont quite remember which accounts for the different number. They are not separate from the zodiac, and the Nakshatras datum points are actually supposed to overlap the zodiac as far as I know.

Im retarded so none of that is perfect but I am pretty sure most of it is based on some truth.

Astro-Seek.com » atlantickush System message: Post has been written by user Leo_Ness, who already deleted profile on this website:
=====
"The constellations arent actually all the same size."

Constalations (group of stars) are orientation, just references to from what side of Cosmos to expect what kind of energy (frequency) that are changing gradually and at constant pace.

There is no up, down, start, end... or whatever in Cosmos but we need those things to understand.

Energy sectors (represented by Zodiac) are discovered (created) purely thnx to statistics, tracking over time ...

atlantickush » Leo_Ness That´s one way to put it.

I was talking more cartographically, about how you define different reference frames. I was using the word constellation to mean the astronomical feature, like you said it´s not even a real thing, just a reference like the signs are, except not necessarily 30 degrees in longitudinal length.

I think you went more metaphysical than I was up for, but now you have said it, I don´t agree with the doctrine of celestial rays myself. If that´s your vibe no worries, I have my own ideas though.

Aren Levi » OS* you got me at - I have to agree with Aren


I am too lazy to read the rest.