I
was writing more in reference to the 13th constellation: Vedic astrology
considers the zodiac as the manifestation of time (Kala Purusha). The 12.3
synodic lunations were mapped into the sky for calculation of time through observation
of celestial placements against the background of the constellations and the
insertion of intercalary months.
In
regards to the difference in zodiacs, I think there is just a big confusion
over English nomenclature. When a tropical astrologer says sign, it does not
mean what a sidereal astrologer says when they say sign. In Sanskrit, there are
names for the first month (masa) after the spring equinox; madhu for the first
month, madhava for the second month- these are season based months. This
differentiates the constellation names (rāśi) where we onserve the planets
placed when we look in the sky. Unfortunately the word rāśi is being translated
as sign, because in English there is not a word to differentiate the months
from VP from the stellar divisions. And the system of Vedic months is not used
anymore in India since British occupation and the replacement by the Gregorian calendar.
If sidereal astrologers said the constellation placement of the Moon and the
tropical astrologers said the ‘seasonal’ (or something like that) placement of
the Moon, then they would both be correct. If both try to use the word sign and
define it differently then there will only be confusion and debate.
I would like to know, why are the sign meanings the same then, in tropical and sidereal? You will probably say that they are different, and find some minor difference here and there, but the essence of them are the same. Signs are just numerology. 1, 2, 3, . . given fancy overlay animals, and such.
ReplyDeleteThe sign meanings are not the same.
ReplyDeleteWestern tropical astrology will make comments such as “Aries is spring-like as new life ‘springs’ forth; Scorpio is autumn-like as vegetation is dying; Capricorn is winter-like as the Earth gets cold and hard…” Vedic literature does not make such statements, but instead focuses on odd-even, hind rising, front rising (sidereal), human-animal-insect (sidereal), planetary lordship, dual-fixed-moveable, elemental nature, constitutional nature, and the micro-divisions of the signs into other signs.
I have seen variation between how the two zodiacs are utilized; how the two different systems put emphasis on different techniques- which also reveals different information. In this way, the signs/sign-usage has different significations. In tropical astrology there is a large emphasis on transits and aspects which remains the same irrelevant of the zodiac being used... The heavy use of the Sun sign takes into account the seasonal nature denoted by the tropical signs. As a Vedic astrologer, I don't give much more weight to the Sun sign than any other house lord. The Ascendant and Moon is way more my focus. And I do take the Sun into account, but not in the way that its sign denotes a personal nature in tropical astrology. House lordship, planetary strengths, planetary relationships are way more my focus. So there is a different emphasis in how they are utilized.