*HTML is OFF *UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend
Smilies Legend
If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.
T O P I C R E V I E WIsis71I was wondering, I saw few articles about new zodiac sign Ophiuchus, if its correct I would be Sagittarius, not Capricorn. In Vedic, I'm also Sagittarius and not Capricorn and a lot of my planets are in sign before my Natal Chart sign. So I'm confused now, in what to believe?RandallIn Western Astrology, the precession doesn't change anything, so you would be both. Vedic interpretations for what the Signs mean may be different, but you are a Capricorn in Western Astrology. We are all more than just our Suns anyway (espcially Moon and ASC), so being both is not a stretch. Meatballzzzzzz quote:Originally posted by Randall:In Western Astrology, the precession doesn't change anything, so you would be both. Vedic interpretations for what the Signs mean may be different, but you are a Capricorn in Western Astrology. We are all more than just our Suns anyway (espcially Moon and ASC), so being both is not a stretch. Lotis WhiteThere is some evidence that the sidereal zodiac is actually an ancient error that occurred due to the loss of knowledge of precession of the equinox between 00-600 AD. And there's now a trend of Vedic astrologers that use tropical signs and sidereal nakshatras. I'm inclined to believe this after looking into the matter. I think Vedic astrology used to be a lot more accurate when sidereal signs were in close alignment with tropical signs hundreds of years ago. Here's a link to a thread where the reasoning behind this is explained in further detail.Revolutionary Vedic astrologers: Sidereal Nakshatras and Tropical Signs. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/000016.html Part of the idea here is that the 27 Nakshatras are the true sidereal zodiac. The constellations that are named Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and even Ophiuchus, are just labels artificially projected onto star configurations. These labels actually don't symbolize anything intrinsic about these star constellations. The sidereal influence in astrology falls to the nakshatras alone. The zodiac signs Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are not sidereal but tropical. They are created in relation to the earth's rotation around the Sun, and not in relation to constellations. Apparently the signs existed long before the constellations were named after them. Like I said, my link explains this better. If you use this method of interpretation the sign positions in your chart are the same as in western astrology, but you would also take into account the nakshatras of your planets. The nakshatras are sidereal and Vedic astrology has never lost touch with it's accuracy in calculating these. It just made the mistake of making the zodiac signs sidereal as well, when in fact they should be tropical (at least according to various Vedic astrologers, including Ernst Wilhelm). RandallAh, that makes a lot of sense! Thanks, Lotis.UnderworldGloryI respectfully disagree.There is just something about Vedic astrology that resonates with how I feel on the inside. I never identified with my western sign (Cancer), I always felt like a Gemini inside because it explains how I feel along with the house placements. Whenever people would talk about Cancer's I'm like ... What? This isn't me. I'm an extrovert.Yet it's funny how in Western I'm a Leo ascendant but in Vedic I'm actually a Cancer ascendant! Now that's something I strongly identify with- being a Cancer ascendant because publicly I'm so quiet.But being a full blown cancer? Nah.My sun moon Mercury and venus all occupy air signs in vedic.Lotis WhiteYou're free to believe as you wish, but I'm not making this stuff up. This is the work of Vedic astrologers who have looked into the matter.In sidereal I'm a Sag Sun/Asc combo with Cancer Moon... This combo is too flighty, naïve, and emotional to me. In western, I’m a Cap Sun with Sag rising, and Cancer Moon. Makes so much more sense. There’s this part of me that’s realistic and no nonsense like a Cap. Since I was a kid I’ve been able to identify with being a Capricorn, with a bit of Sag idealism and enthusiasm, and some Cancer sensitivity, on the side. My core feels very Cap-like though. Isis71Same with me, I don't find myself like Sagittarius and other planet positions in Vedic, just not me.. GeminiyoungsterI have a mercury and sun Taurus with a Virgo rising and I feel like it resonates with me. I wish somebody would interpret my chart for me, though!RandallPost your chart in Personal Readings.NikiVenus6 quote:Originally posted by Isis71:I was wondering, I saw few articles about new zodiac sign Ophiuchus, if its correct I would be Sagittarius, not Capricorn. In Vedic, I'm also Sagittarius and not Capricorn and a lot of my planets are in sign before my Natal Chart sign. So I'm confused now, in what to believe?Have you analyzed your chart? I believe you will find the Nakshatras to be accurate. Just do with an open mind ------------------Free Information on Love Astrologynikki01for me personally I find vedic accurate. .. I have been looking into it for some yrs. especially with time line events. .. fits perfectly with my natal. There is probably some link to western. MermaidDreamz.Belage quote:Originally posted by Lotis White:There is some evidence that the sidereal zodiac is actually an ancient error that occurred due to the loss of knowledge of precession of the equinox between 00-600 AD. And there's now a trend of Vedic astrologers that use tropical signs and sidereal nakshatras. I'm inclined to believe this after looking into the matter. I think Vedic astrology used to be a lot more accurate when sidereal signs were in close alignment with tropical signs hundreds of years ago. Here's a link to a thread where the reasoning behind this is explained in further detail.Revolutionary Vedic astrologers: Sidereal Nakshatras and Tropical Signs. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/000016.html Part of the idea here is that the 27 Nakshatras are the true sidereal zodiac. The constellations that are named Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and even Ophiuchus, are just labels artificially projected onto star configurations. These labels actually don't symbolize anything intrinsic about these star constellations. The sidereal influence in astrology falls to the nakshatras alone. The zodiac signs Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are not sidereal but tropical. They are created in relation to the earth's rotation around the Sun, and not in relation to constellations. Apparently the signs existed long before the constellations were named after them. Like I said, my link explains this better. If you use this method of interpretation the sign positions in your chart are the same as in western astrology, but you would also take into account the nakshatras of your planets. The nakshatras are sidereal and Vedic astrology has never lost touch with it's accuracy in calculating these. It just made the mistake of making the zodiac signs sidereal as well, when in fact they should be tropical (at least according to various Vedic astrologers, including Ernst Wilhelm). Thank you for the link. It makes a lot of sense to me. Lotis White quote:Originally posted by Belage: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Lotis White:[b]There is some evidence that the sidereal zodiac is actually an ancient error that occurred due to the loss of knowledge of precession of the equinox between 00-600 AD. And there's now a trend of Vedic astrologers that use tropical signs and sidereal nakshatras. I'm inclined to believe this after looking into the matter. I think Vedic astrology used to be a lot more accurate when sidereal signs were in close alignment with tropical signs hundreds of years ago. Here's a link to a thread where the reasoning behind this is explained in further detail.Revolutionary Vedic astrologers: Sidereal Nakshatras and Tropical Signs. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/000016.html Part of the idea here is that the 27 Nakshatras are the true sidereal zodiac. The constellations that are named Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and even Ophiuchus, are just labels artificially projected onto star configurations. These labels actually don't symbolize anything intrinsic about these star constellations. The sidereal influence in astrology falls to the nakshatras alone. The zodiac signs Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are not sidereal but tropical. They are created in relation to the earth's rotation around the Sun, and not in relation to constellations. Apparently the signs existed long before the constellations were named after them. Like I said, my link explains this better. If you use this method of interpretation the sign positions in your chart are the same as in western astrology, but you would also take into account the nakshatras of your planets. The nakshatras are sidereal and Vedic astrology has never lost touch with it's accuracy in calculating these. It just made the mistake of making the zodiac signs sidereal as well, when in fact they should be tropical (at least according to various Vedic astrologers, including Ernst Wilhelm). Thank you for the link. It makes a lot of sense to me. [/B][/QUOTE]It might be a little late, but your welcome!m.bladeA good astrologer will tend to get good interpretations and readings no matter what zodiac he/she uses.Experience is key, also is a good knowledge of astrology and an astrologer whos conducted alot of research into the methods they use.
quote:Originally posted by Randall:In Western Astrology, the precession doesn't change anything, so you would be both. Vedic interpretations for what the Signs mean may be different, but you are a Capricorn in Western Astrology. We are all more than just our Suns anyway (espcially Moon and ASC), so being both is not a stretch.
I'm inclined to believe this after looking into the matter. I think Vedic astrology used to be a lot more accurate when sidereal signs were in close alignment with tropical signs hundreds of years ago.
Here's a link to a thread where the reasoning behind this is explained in further detail.
Revolutionary Vedic astrologers: Sidereal Nakshatras and Tropical Signs. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/000016.html
Part of the idea here is that the 27 Nakshatras are the true sidereal zodiac. The constellations that are named Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and even Ophiuchus, are just labels artificially projected onto star configurations. These labels actually don't symbolize anything intrinsic about these star constellations. The sidereal influence in astrology falls to the nakshatras alone. The zodiac signs Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are not sidereal but tropical. They are created in relation to the earth's rotation around the Sun, and not in relation to constellations. Apparently the signs existed long before the constellations were named after them. Like I said, my link explains this better.
If you use this method of interpretation the sign positions in your chart are the same as in western astrology, but you would also take into account the nakshatras of your planets. The nakshatras are sidereal and Vedic astrology has never lost touch with it's accuracy in calculating these. It just made the mistake of making the zodiac signs sidereal as well, when in fact they should be tropical (at least according to various Vedic astrologers, including Ernst Wilhelm).
There is just something about Vedic astrology that resonates with how I feel on the inside. I never identified with my western sign (Cancer), I always felt like a Gemini inside because it explains how I feel along with the house placements. Whenever people would talk about Cancer's I'm like ... What? This isn't me. I'm an extrovert.
Yet it's funny how in Western I'm a Leo ascendant but in Vedic I'm actually a Cancer ascendant! Now that's something I strongly identify with- being a Cancer ascendant because publicly I'm so quiet.
But being a full blown cancer? Nah.My sun moon Mercury and venus all occupy air signs in vedic.
In sidereal I'm a Sag Sun/Asc combo with Cancer Moon... This combo is too flighty, naïve, and emotional to me. In western, I’m a Cap Sun with Sag rising, and Cancer Moon. Makes so much more sense. There’s this part of me that’s realistic and no nonsense like a Cap. Since I was a kid I’ve been able to identify with being a Capricorn, with a bit of Sag idealism and enthusiasm, and some Cancer sensitivity, on the side. My core feels very Cap-like though.
quote:Originally posted by Isis71:I was wondering, I saw few articles about new zodiac sign Ophiuchus, if its correct I would be Sagittarius, not Capricorn. In Vedic, I'm also Sagittarius and not Capricorn and a lot of my planets are in sign before my Natal Chart sign. So I'm confused now, in what to believe?
Have you analyzed your chart? I believe you will find the Nakshatras to be accurate. Just do with an open mind
------------------Free Information on Love Astrology
quote:Originally posted by Lotis White:There is some evidence that the sidereal zodiac is actually an ancient error that occurred due to the loss of knowledge of precession of the equinox between 00-600 AD. And there's now a trend of Vedic astrologers that use tropical signs and sidereal nakshatras. I'm inclined to believe this after looking into the matter. I think Vedic astrology used to be a lot more accurate when sidereal signs were in close alignment with tropical signs hundreds of years ago. Here's a link to a thread where the reasoning behind this is explained in further detail.Revolutionary Vedic astrologers: Sidereal Nakshatras and Tropical Signs. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/000016.html Part of the idea here is that the 27 Nakshatras are the true sidereal zodiac. The constellations that are named Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and even Ophiuchus, are just labels artificially projected onto star configurations. These labels actually don't symbolize anything intrinsic about these star constellations. The sidereal influence in astrology falls to the nakshatras alone. The zodiac signs Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are not sidereal but tropical. They are created in relation to the earth's rotation around the Sun, and not in relation to constellations. Apparently the signs existed long before the constellations were named after them. Like I said, my link explains this better. If you use this method of interpretation the sign positions in your chart are the same as in western astrology, but you would also take into account the nakshatras of your planets. The nakshatras are sidereal and Vedic astrology has never lost touch with it's accuracy in calculating these. It just made the mistake of making the zodiac signs sidereal as well, when in fact they should be tropical (at least according to various Vedic astrologers, including Ernst Wilhelm).
quote:Originally posted by Belage: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Lotis White:[b]There is some evidence that the sidereal zodiac is actually an ancient error that occurred due to the loss of knowledge of precession of the equinox between 00-600 AD. And there's now a trend of Vedic astrologers that use tropical signs and sidereal nakshatras. I'm inclined to believe this after looking into the matter. I think Vedic astrology used to be a lot more accurate when sidereal signs were in close alignment with tropical signs hundreds of years ago. Here's a link to a thread where the reasoning behind this is explained in further detail.Revolutionary Vedic astrologers: Sidereal Nakshatras and Tropical Signs. http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/000016.html Part of the idea here is that the 27 Nakshatras are the true sidereal zodiac. The constellations that are named Aries, Taurus, Gemini, and even Ophiuchus, are just labels artificially projected onto star configurations. These labels actually don't symbolize anything intrinsic about these star constellations. The sidereal influence in astrology falls to the nakshatras alone. The zodiac signs Aries, Taurus, Gemini, etc are not sidereal but tropical. They are created in relation to the earth's rotation around the Sun, and not in relation to constellations. Apparently the signs existed long before the constellations were named after them. Like I said, my link explains this better. If you use this method of interpretation the sign positions in your chart are the same as in western astrology, but you would also take into account the nakshatras of your planets. The nakshatras are sidereal and Vedic astrology has never lost touch with it's accuracy in calculating these. It just made the mistake of making the zodiac signs sidereal as well, when in fact they should be tropical (at least according to various Vedic astrologers, including Ernst Wilhelm).
It might be a little late, but your welcome!
Experience is key, also is a good knowledge of astrology and an astrologer whos conducted alot of research into the methods they use.
Copyright 2000-2023 Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000 Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.46a
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000 Ultimate Bulletin Board Version 5.46a