Author
|
Topic: Is Vedic more accurate?
|
Isis71 Knowflake Posts: 40 From: Registered: Jul 2015
|
posted August 01, 2015 07:03 AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Post your chart in Personal Readings.IP: Logged |
NikiVenus6 Knowflake Posts: 273 From: Mumbai Registered: May 2015
|
posted August 21, 2015 11:40 AM
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
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
.IP: Logged |
Belage Knowflake Posts: 2405 From: USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted October 01, 2015 09:15 PM
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
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
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 |