Which one is accurate? How can one be so off? The answer is no, as if you ask a Vedic astrologer when something will happen or a western astrologer the same question, they both are using instruments while they seem quite different will end up giving the same date. Think of it this way. You have a schedule for a train and so does your sister. But yours is in daylight savings time, an hour ahead, but your watch is set in daylight savings time also. Your sisters train schedule is in standard time, but her watch is set to standard time. You both will arrive at the train station at the same time.
So which system is better? The sidereal or tropical. They both work, you need to ask who is the best astrologer for either system. There is a little more to it. My experience is those who are attracted to the Vedic system are more comfortable with making peace with a fated reading. The time varies for a number of reasons. Notice the jump--in both--between and During that time our calendar must have undergone a non-standard change. After tropical 0 Aries occurs only around March How interesting and funny! Here, too, is the link to her site : Amber. At a. This is the same sun we all see.
It is just regarded as in different places by the two zodiacs. The sidereal sun--speaking in terms of the order of the signs from Aries to Taurus to Pisces--is almost a whole sign behind the tropical one. Disagreement--not great--exists about exactly when the tropical and sidereal zodiacs coincided. It sponsored two main, slightly different conversion factors for going from tropical to sidereal positions and vice versa.
Since separation between zodiacs occurred in small increments over a long period of time, consequences of their divergence have been subtle. If an astrologer lived to age 70, additional separation between the zodiacs during his lifetime was only about 58 minutes and 20 seconds--not even a whole degree. People cannot perceive such a slight difference with their senses. Why It Is Difficult to Evaluate the Difference Between Zodiacs Tradition and habit—inertia—in both systems, however, are not the only reasons impartial examination of tropical versus sidereal astrology has not occurred.
Another, major reason exists. Astrology everywhere appears to produce three main types of astrologers. One type consistently bases his astrology on principles of planets, houses, and signs. I suspect he is more left- than right-brained, and is more scientific. A second type is psychic, and might be considered more right- than left-brained.
Looking at the chart he gets, from somewhere, information about the individual. The third type is intuitive, and closer to right- and left-brained. He works with astrology as mandala, as pattern, but his inferences from it are based on astrological principles. His methods vary. He may be psychic. He may be intuitive. He may be using astrological principles. He may believe he is using astrological principles. He may also not be using them. He may or may not be able to make intelligible--that is, truly acceptable—to other astrologers his reasons for the interpretations which, over time, led to his successful career as an astrologer.
This little fact, that it is our astrology which ultimately sponsors our success, does not just apply to astrologers.
- You have Successfully Subscribed!.
- capricorn love horoscopes february.
- Navigation menu.
It applies to every one. But it is not possible to know that is true until you have an astrological method which "exposes" that fact. This one does, without exception, and there are many examples in papers throughout this site. Traditional astrology-- birth charts using either Eastern or Western zodiacs--does not. The conception chart has to be added to the birth see Method and Home Page, links at bottom. He exists in both systems, sidereal and tropical. Indeed, his type is represented in all categories of fortune-telling as well as all areas of success.
This fact, that it is possible to be a successful, even a very successful, practicing astrologer using either system is the suspicious fact.
Vedic Astrology and the Sidereal Zodiac in the Age of Misinformation - Vedic art and Science
Any scientist would consider it an odd fact, embarrassing and requiring investigation. And any astrologer who interacts with his astrology in terms of at least hoping to arrive at measuring classes of conditions and events such that they produce statistical significance, should also find it, if not embarrassing, at least troubling. They have been doing it for centuries. I do not know how sidereal astrologers in sidereal countries respond about tropical astrology, but tropical astrologers of the West, when confronted with the existence of both zodiacs, almost always have the same response. Each tradition has gifted astrologers.
Each has brilliant ones. A simple story will have to serve as my minor example of this phenomenon. Astrologers rarely comment on other astrologer's results in print. Using astrological principles, the former simply could not figure out how the latter had been successful in predicting that third marriage. Well, the third marriage, indeed, occurred. By sound I mean that they would be such that almost all astrologers would agree that when they occur they imply a marriage or close relationship. Whatever her reasoning, she was bound to come up with the right prediction as long as her own chart was not temporarily afflicted at the time.
One way to put this is that her astrology represents a "union card" from the universe for just such success. This has nothing to do with work. Throughout history both successful and unsuccessful individuals have been known to work hard all their lives. In general, success also involves many more social obligations "work" than does failure, so it is silly to take a position that any one is successful only because of his astrology.
Using only the birth chart and tropical astrology, now deceased French astrologer Michel Gauquelin did a study looking for correlation of people's profession with planets "on"--I believe only--the Midheaven. I have not actually read his published results, but seen references to them in astrology articles. His results were unprecedented, but they hardly made a dent in astrology's potential.
Neither zodiac has produced useful research that is statistically significant. At least, very little. How do I know that? Just like people in other careers and avocations, some astrologers are connected to prominent individuals in the sciences. Or actually are prominent scientists. If the astrologers had important, statistically significant results, astrology would be an integral part of the sciences. It is not. Neither tropical nor sidereal astrology has authored an astrology of classes of conditions and events so that other astrologers, duplicating their method, could diagnose with it.
Neither has produced an astrology with which any practitioner could, for example, tell parents or their health representative--we do not want to sponsor illness their child is prone to schizophrenia. Prone not because the astrologer predicted it, but because it was an objective possibility for that child. Neither has had its results, its findings, its understanding of the nature of the cosmos and the place of man in it correlated with and used by the exploding sciences of mind, behavior, medicine, criminology, and all the other human sciences. To go any further in our understanding of the difference between tropical and sidereal zodiacs, we need to take a more comprehensive and practical look at signs and their rulers, especially since ruler descriptions are correlated with sign descriptions.
If signs and rulers have meaning and real value in astrology--I think they do--one of these zodiacs is assigning the wrong ruler to most of its signs. Moreover, it is not even getting most of its signs right. Put in a table, the overlap looks as follows:. Currently approximately the last 5 degrees of tropical astrology and the first 5 degrees of sidereal astrology share the same sign. So, they share only five degrees associated with the same constellation and ruler. Some one born in the past years with sun tropically at 27 Taurus, then, would have his sun at 2 Taurus sidereally.
The signs are the same, just the degree differs. Really, should both zodiacs work? How are you feeling about being both a Cancer and a Gemini? Tropical Astrology and the Results of Sign Corruption Over the nearly years since the inception of the tropical zodiac, tropical astrologers--gradually but definitely--began passing sign descriptions from generation to generation as a description. By failing to retain the ruler as the referent, each tropical sign became more and more corrupted by descriptions using two different rulers from the two differing signs their one sign was now covering.
Well, astrologers are observers. In observing individuals, they noticed, for instance, that their Taurean man was stubborn or bull-headed, from Taurus the bull. Anyway, tropical astrologers added stubbornness--a trait that belongs to Aries sidereal sign, mars-ruled, afflicted mars quality to their sign description of Taurus tropical sign, venus-ruled, venus is appeasing, not stubborn.
Repeat that process for their Taurean man who, though usually placid venus , was to be feared when he finally did get angry mars. They were using two rulers to describe one sign. This addition of qualities of rulers not associated with that sign had to happen only several times before sign descriptions were corrupted. Two thousand years allows a lot of time for such variations. Besides, planets, houses, and Angle emphasis helped counterbalance the confusion caused by sign corruption.
Later, however, as the two zodiacs were split by fifteen degrees and more, they became less correct. They became fifty per cent or more incorrect about signs and rulers. It does not make that much difference that corrupted sign descriptions are used in tropical readings. After all, their sign descriptions are corrupted in the right direction, that is, based on adding in valid non-ruler descriptions.
What difference, really, does it make if it is moon in Scorpio or moon in Sagittarius which may sponsor savagery as long as it is one the non-corrupted for sidereal astrologers or the other the corrupted for tropical astrologers? Sign names are just words. Even if they are different, if their implications are dependable, then whatever name the astrologer uses is of little consequence. But the consequences of sign corruption do not stop with sign descriptions containing mixed rulers.
These mixed rulers are sometimes actually antagonistic, so the description containing them is not only erroneous, it is sometimes absurd. Below are some more examples : he the astrologer has noticed individuals with Cancer suns and moons are writers! I assume in making that statement he is putting emphasis on the alleged Cancerian love of home. Writers often write at home.
Gemini is ruled by mercury, which is correlated with the 3rd house, both correlated with speaking, writing, and communication. Libra is the sign naturally associated with the 7th house, the house representing partnerships like marriage. Unafflicted venus demonstrates generosity, affection, magnetism, tenderness, appeasement, and aesthetic harmony appreciation.
Afflicted, it exhibits traits involving distortion of those qualities, like stinginess, coldness, hard-heartedness, and jealousy. Fighting occurs in all kinds of relationships ; Libra should not be made to bear the brunt of it. We had some venusian "wars" in the s. They were called love-ins. But, says the tropical astrologer, look at all those generals with sun in Libra see footnote 8.
Mars in Libra does lead to fighting mars in close relationships Libra. I am not sure all those generals do have their tropical suns in Libra. My first and only tropical astrology teacher Charles Jayne said that was the case. If generals really have more suns in Libra than in other signs, might it not be because those general's suns are sidereally in Virgo, a mercury-ruled sign?
What, you might ask, has mercury to do with war? Well, generals usually come out of academies of higher learning, like West Point. Virgo--and mercury--is involved in the capacity to analyze, to be a tactician. They may be lords over their men, but they are at the absolute command and service of their president.
They are tacticians in war because of their angular mars or mars-ruled Angle. If it is Angular, they must use it or get used by it. Being interested in fighting and war--a general--is one way to use Angular mars. Scorpios are very fair-minded venus and vindictive mars. Their tropical Scorpio is mostly a sidereal Libra. Libras are always equalizing others and not all individuals are obligingly equalized. Because, for instance, Leo is a fire sign, a fiery temper is often attributed to its natives, that is, those with sun in that sign.
But, she had moon opposition mars across the horizon.
- Mastering the Zodiac- True Sidereal Astrology.
- Sidereal and tropical astrology - Wikipedia!
- aries compatibility chart with all signs!
- Everything You Need To Know About Sidereal Astrology.
- Real Astrology: What is better? Sidereal or Tropical?!
- Tropical Zodiac vs Sidereal Zodiac??
- The Study Of Western Astrology Vs Vedic astrology - Jothishi!
What she was fighting about was the schooling of her children in a parent-run school. Individuals with unafflicted sidereal sun in Leo are not so scrappy afflicted fire sign as they are dignified. Their dignity is based on their powerful experience of the value of their own identity. I would like to go on, but cannot for several reasons.
First, I seldom hear tropical speech any more. I do not read tropical astrology, but might if I could even find an astrology magazine these days. These two deficiencies have impoverished my inventory of selections on which to comment. Second, most of the tropical astrology articles from journals I have read in the past decade have been ones highlighting planets, not signs. Planets have not been corrupted. Third, once past the sign of Scorpio, planets rule one sign only, and furthermore, except for jupiter ruling Sagittarius, are outer planets.
It is trickier seeing sign corruption in signs ruled by outer planets than in those ruled by planets of personality. Based on statements made by tropical astrologers in the past, however, I have a few questions and comments about them :. This process of the mixing up of signs and rulers occurred in tropical astrology for all the signs.
It was their premise--that they were talking about qualities of one sign--which was arguably incorrect. The above is the case for individual astrologers and individual readings.
When, however, it comes to research on groups sharing the same sign or its ruler--writers, for instance--sign corruption makes an impressive difference. It means that even if tropical astrology did research which found, for instance, a lot of people with mercury -influenced Angles and 3rd houses are writers, thinkers, and public speakers, it would fail to find the other indicator of those groups--prominence of Gemini lights. Its Geminis have become Cancers.
* Lahiri Ayanamsha
One or the other, that is, Gemini lights or forefront mercury, and sometimes both, should be prominent in the charts of individuals who think-write-speak for a living or beloved avocation. And, unfortunately, because both zodiacs produce the whole gradient from brilliant, very successful astrologers to those who are merely aspiring to be astrologers, both sides have acquired an ingrained, nearly unconscious belief that the traditional chart--sidereal or tropical, birth only, without harmonics-- should be able to produce the science of astrology.
For them, from generation to generation it has been a matter of finding the "right" parameters to measure the trait or event in question. Somehow they have never really arrived at questioning the very tool--the standard tropical or sidereal chart--they have been working with. Some Illustrations It would be useful to illustrate with some partial charts from this method which reconnects signs and their rulers. Of course this is not the only useful astrological approach.
Astrology is a very big discipline, with incredibly creative practitioners. While astrology was developing in the West, it was also developing in the East. Hindu astrology, called Vedic astrology or Jyotish astrology has always used the Sidereal Zodiac. Jyotish astrology has an entirely different set of techniques and interpretations for the signs and planets. The fundamentals may be the same as in Western Astrology, but the similarity ends there.
Although definitely in the minority, there are many astrologers who practice Western Sidereal Astrology, using basically the same interpretations for the signs and the planets, but an entirely different measurement system. Because no one can agree as to the exact location of the start of the Constellation of Aries , and therefore to the point where the Sidereal Zodiac would begin, the Sidereal Zodiac is calculated backwards from the Vernal Point , using one of many different ayanamsas.
Tropical Astrology and Western Sidereal Astrology have fundamentally different approaches to the symbolism and interpretation of the Signs. Tropical Astrology believes that the qualities associated with the signs are linked to the seasons, rather than to the fixed stars, and therefore the precession of the equinoxes and the growing difference between the Tropical Signs and the relative positions of their namesake constellations is of no consequence.
Sidereal Astrologers both Western and Eastern believe that the qualities of the signs are not related to the seasons, but rather to the specific portions of the ecliptic as measured against the fixed stars. With respect to the question of the accuracy of ancient charts and interpretations, we only need to remember what Zodiac system was used at the time, and keep things in context. Therefore, all charts and interpretations from these times and places would be as accurate and valid today as they were then.
The difference between the Tropical zodiac and the Sidereal Zodiac changes each year, and the degree of precession would have to be taken into account for the date of the chart. This would be rather nightmarish to try and calculate by hand; fortunately, most computer astrology programs that offer a Sidereal Zodiac option take this into account and can produce accurate Sidereal charts for any time or place. The precession of the equinoxes has to do with more than just the two different zodiac systems. As the equinoxes precess, they relate to the Great Ages of Man.
These Ages mark different periods where significant evolutionary changes occurred. Each Great Age is associated with a major evolutionary and cultural advancement of the species. In the Age of Gemini, language was developed. In the Age of Taurus, agriculture was discovered, and for the first time, towns, villages, and cities were formed because humans no longer needed to hunt and gather for their food and so were not required to be so nomadic. The Age of Aries ushered in wars and warfare, violence and conquest.
The Age of Pisces has been dominated largely by religion, Christianity in particular, with its peculiar mixture of persecution and spiritual salvation. The general thoughts about the Age of Aquarius are that it will mark a period of enlightenment and freedom. But once again, even the most generous estimates put this off for another years at least. The fact that the Signs of the Zodiac share the same names as 12 of the constellations , and were, in fact, named after the constellations , has resulted in the popular misconception that the signs are the same thing as the constellations.
This fallacy has given rise to all sorts of pseudo-scientific attacks on the validity of astrology, all of which come from individuals who do not understand astrology in the first place. Some have even come from a small faction of Western Sidereal astrologers who attempt to discredit Tropical astrology. This one pops up in the media from time to time. What it reefers to is the Constellation of Ophicuchus, which also intersects the ecliptic , and which actually occupies more space along the ecliptic than the Constellation of Scorpio. The rest will be addressed below.
The data in the following table was published by Dr. Lee T. The dates and days refer to the time that the Sun appears to spend in each of the constellations. I took the days based on a day year and converted them to the corresponding arcs that each constellation occupies along the ecliptic. I also included the approximate dates that the Sun enters each of the Signs , both in the Tropical Zodiac and also in the Sidereal Zodiac. The table should illustrate clearly the difference between the signs and the constellations.
The signs , you will remember, are units of measurement, each consisting of 30 degrees of arc. While there are most certainly 13 constellations that cross the ecliptic, the signs are not the same thing as the constellations.
It should also be obvious from looking at this table that the Sidereal Zodiac does not rely on the constellations any more than the Tropical Zodiac does. While there is certainly a greater correlation between the Sidereal Signs and the constellations along the ecliptic , again, the constellations do not divide the ecliptic into equal segments and therefore they are not used as the basis for the Sidereal Zodiac. In fact, there even appears to be a discrepancy between when Dr. Shapiro notes that the Sun Enters the Constellation of Aries and when the Sidereal Sign of Aries is thought to begin for the year The discrepancy between where astrologers place a planet in the night sky, and where astronomers place that same planet is also related to the difference between the Constellations , the Tropical Zodiac and the Sidereal Zodiac.
Once again, although the Tropical and the Sidereal Zodiacs are very different, they each represent an entirely valid system of astrology. Kevin, this was a great answer. I was looking for a post that explains sidereal calendar for my blogpost on classifying Indian calendars.
I found the wikipedia article not very illuminating. Your article was fifth on the google search on this topic, but I ended up linking yours. Once again, although the Tropical and the Sidereal Zodiacs are very different, they each represent an entirely valid system of astrology wrong, both systems can not be correct at the same time.