so here's a question. I just looked up my chart on a vedic generator and I'm a taurus, sun moon and mercury and an aries, venus and mars. with a scorpio rising in western astrology I'm a gemini, sun moon mercury and my venus and mars are in taurus and my rising sign is leo... i'm just curious what the difference is. like because of the collective consciousness of the area would I then take on qualities of the vedic chart or is it something else?
Western astrology uses tropical signs, and Vedic uses sidereal. The difference is that in tropical, the signs get "reset" every spring equinox to 0 degrees Aries. Sidereal signs, also called fixed point, doesn't reset every year. This is based when the Sun appeared 0 degrees the Aries constellation sometime 2000 years ago. Because of the motion of the Earth in the galaxy, the stars gradually appear to move backwards, so now the Sun is actually in the Pisces constellation at the spring equinox. Now one important point... Do not be swayed by what some people say, that sidereal is more accurate. It isn't. First, tropical astrology uses signs which is not the same as the constellations. Many people think they aren't, and this distinction isn't modern. Ptolemy talked about it almost 2000 years ago. Hey the ancients weren't stupid! Plus, both sidereal and tropical don't really reflect what is in the sky. Both systems have an idealized version of the sky where the 12 zodiacal signs are 30 degrees each and neatly in order. In reality the sky is a mess and the constellations are all over the place and different sized. Scorpio is something like 7 degrees not 30. Sidereal works in Vedic and their whole system is built around it. Likewise with tropical. Both work. Vedic in my opinion is better than modern western astrology. It's more similar to the astrology practiced in the west until a couple hundred years ago when western astrology changed drastically. If you can find a good Vedic astrologer go for it - or a good person practicing traditional western which is a bit hard to find but they're out there.
If astrology delineated me as an Aries I'd say it was bull. I originally embraced astrology because the description of Taurus fitted me to a T (and repeated stuff people already called me like stubborn or lazy). Sidereal astrology makes me up to be 4 times Aries :smilielol5:
Keep in mind that Vedic astrology and traditional western won't pay much attention to your Sun sign to delineate very much at all. I think Vedic and some traditional western techniques will pay more attention to your rising sign, and other traditional (and possibly Vedic) techniques get much more complicated. Good modern astrologers take Sun signs with a grain of salt. It's just too vague. I'm learning a medieval technique now where you find the ruling planet of the chart. To do this, you have to construct a table of various points of the birth chart, and then find the most dominant planet from this. This functions in some ways similar to how many people see Sun signs, but it's more detailed and individual. This isn't easy stuff! Again I'm sure a good Vedic astrologer would know what to do.
I think the standard western astrology is already perfect - when one knows how to use it effectively. I have actually shocked my psychologists with the depths of my self-understanding as is based on the understanding of my astrology chart. Gosh, you should have seen their faces. A kodak moment
I actually do traditional western astrology - just not professionally yet. I was just sticking up for Vedic a bit.
I don't consider Vedic when working with astrology. It's too radically different than what I feel comfortable with which is tropical astrology.
i think they go by moon signs instead of sun signs...my friend is from india and he has a loe moon and thats what he says he is, but he has a scorpio sun and hes alot like both..
