Lindaland
  Vedic Astrology
  Is Vedic more accurate?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Is Vedic more accurate?
Isis71
Knowflake

Posts: 40
From:
Registered: Jul 2015

posted August 01, 2015 07:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis71     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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?

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 71125
From: Saturn next to Charmaine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 01, 2015 02:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

IP: Logged

Meatballzzzzzz
Knowflake

Posts: 266
From: Earth
Registered: Jun 2015

posted August 01, 2015 07:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Meatballzzzzzz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

IP: Logged

Lotis White
Moderator

Posts: 2227
From: USA
Registered: Dec 2010

posted August 02, 2015 06:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lotis White     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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).

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 71125
From: Saturn next to Charmaine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 02, 2015 03:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ah, that makes a lot of sense! Thanks, Lotis.

IP: Logged

UnderworldGlory
Knowflake

Posts: 284
From: USA
Registered: Jul 2015

posted August 02, 2015 03:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for UnderworldGlory     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I 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.

IP: Logged

Lotis White
Moderator

Posts: 2227
From: USA
Registered: Dec 2010

posted August 03, 2015 02:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lotis White     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You'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.

IP: Logged

Isis71
Knowflake

Posts: 40
From:
Registered: Jul 2015

posted August 03, 2015 05:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Isis71     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Same with me, I don't find myself like Sagittarius and other planet positions in Vedic, just not me..

IP: Logged

Geminiyoungster
Knowflake

Posts: 541
From:
Registered: Jun 2013

posted August 10, 2015 03:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Geminiyoungster     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I 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!

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 71125
From: Saturn next to Charmaine
Registered: Apr 2009

posted August 14, 2015 10:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Post your chart in Personal Readings.

IP: Logged

NikiVenus6
Knowflake

Posts: 273
From: Mumbai
Registered: May 2015

posted August 21, 2015 11:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for NikiVenus6     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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

IP: Logged

nikki01
Knowflake

Posts: 405
From: 51 Eridani B
Registered: Feb 2012

posted September 11, 2015 02:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for nikki01     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
for 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.

IP: Logged

MermaidDreamz
Knowflake

Posts: 525
From: In the clouds
Registered: Sep 2015

posted September 22, 2015 10:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for MermaidDreamz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
.

IP: Logged

Belage
Knowflake

Posts: 2405
From: USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 01, 2015 09:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Belage     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

IP: Logged

Lotis White
Moderator

Posts: 2227
From: USA
Registered: Dec 2010

posted November 03, 2015 08:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lotis White     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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!

IP: Logged

m.blade
Knowflake

Posts: 968
From:
Registered: Mar 2013

posted November 15, 2015 11:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for m.blade     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A 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.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2016

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a