it must be obvious by the charts i post, but - tropical is the answer either way...

james_m wrote:it must be obvious by the charts i post, but - tropical is the answer either way...

I mainly focus on tropical, but I sometimes look at sidereal.
I am kinda the same with house system..I'll jump around placidius, regio, whole sign and Equal (from asc & MC.)

Still a lot for me to learn in astrology.

I am not sure I understand the question. I use western tropical and sometimes sidereal vedic. Do you mean using western interpretations with a sidereal chart? That would be less common. I can understand some people gravitating towards that system if they have a lot of early or late signs and find that the placements fit those signs, I guess.

Vedic interpretations often end up equating to similar things in western via different methods. It seems wishy-washy to try to mash up the two systems. It is like using a tropical chart with vedic interpretations. Astrology is a bit of an art form, though, rather than a science.

Tanit3333 wrote:I am not sure I understand the question. I use western tropical and sometimes sidereal vedic. Do you mean using western interpretations with a sidereal chart? That would be less common. I can understand some people gravitating towards that system if they have a lot of early or late signs and find that the placements fit those signs, I guess.

Vedic interpretations often end up equating to similar things in western via different methods. It seems wishy-washy to try to mash up the two systems. It is like using a tropical chart with vedic interpretations. Astrology is a bit of an art form, though, rather than a science.

I'm not talking about vedic. Vedic (to me) is an astrological approach that just happens to use sidereal. So for anyone who studies and uses vedic astrology, it is understandable to use sidereal since much of all of the "science"/theory is based on studies of charts using sidereal.

Sidereal isn't only used by the vedics historically it was even used in astrology of the "western world" (guess depends on where the western world begins for person who reads this phrase, but referring to middle eastern world and west of that when I use the phrase.) I have met those who use sidereal and have a reasoning behind why they do.

Even in vedic astrology there are different approaches. There is a usage of Placidius mixed with whole sign in delineating what the planets will bring into a person's life. KP astrology I believe it is. (while this isn't a calculation of planet placement by zodiac just a housing system....)

I was really interested in vedic and read quite an amount of books on it. In the end it wasn't the practice I really connected with at the point I am in my life. I think I might know why I didn't really connect with it though.

I don't think it's wish-washy. Everyone has their own specific reasons for using what they use. I am just curious of the numbers of users who use either calculation of planetary position. As you pointed out in a way there are many astrological systems that all of them ended up giving pretty much the same answer about the person.

Chris Brennan talked a bit about tropical vs sidereal. I think he said they were used in conjunction until ptolemy. This division has been present for a long time about what zodiac calculation to use.

I personally like tropical more just because for some reason my mind has an easier manner of understanding it. It may just be because of my surroundings. But at the end of the day whatever period of time of astrology i connect the most with I'll end up using their style of house system and zodiac calculation since the whole practice is based on that system. That is my personal reasoning.

The deeper I get into it the more I realize how much more esoteric, astrology is, than there being one specific right way of doing it but many that all end up being accurate which kinda makes me question how much I believe in astrology. Kinda like the argument on religion....many different approaches on what is beyond this world. I'm still "seeing to believe in it." I'm still exploring the different astrology systems out here.

Anyway, I am just wondering how each person here calculates their zodiac in their astrological practice.

The deeper I get into it the more I realize how much more esoteric, astrology is, than there being one specific right way of doing it but many that all end up being accurate which kinda makes me question how much I believe in astrology. Kinda like the argument on religion....many different approaches on what is beyond this world. I'm still "seeing to believe in it.".

I agree. I threw out my astrology books about 5-6 years ago. I am not sure why it still interests me at all but it is more so a slight interest than something I spend a lot of time on.

Tanit3333 wrote:

The deeper I get into it the more I realize how much more esoteric, astrology is, than there being one specific right way of doing it but many that all end up being accurate which kinda makes me question how much I believe in astrology. Kinda like the argument on religion....many different approaches on what is beyond this world. I'm still "seeing to believe in it.".

I agree. I threw out my astrology books about 5-6 years ago. I am not sure why it still interests me at all but it is more so a slight interest than something I spend a lot of time on.

I like predictive stuff...really enjoy speculating what will occur. I think that is partially why I am interested.

What got me into astrology was I got a reading from someone who likes to give free readings just to practice because I suppose he did it more as a hobby than a career. I got a horary reading from him because I never heard of it before. That peaked my interest because the main stream astrology I was exposed to was very psychological which didn't peak my interest. But, I found out that the astrologers in the past used it more to have an idea of what will occur in someone's life than really to be a psychologist for a person. Then I found out that horary was usually practice before moving onto natal. I found the more I understood horary the better I was able to understand natal.

I still have two more things to incorporate in horary which is antiscia, some accidental dignity and Arabian parts. But I think I might buy a specific book on arabic parts. I don't see myself getting into arabic parts until another year or two. (Only 3 years into my studies.)

When did you start exploring astrology? Seems like you been studying for a long time base on the knowledge I seen you exhibit.

EleanorLouise wrote:

EleanorLouise wrote:

Tanit3333 wrote:I am not sure I understand the question. I use western tropical and sometimes sidereal vedic. Do you mean using western interpretations with a sidereal chart? That would be less common. I can understand some people gravitating towards that system if they have a lot of early or late signs and find that the placements fit those signs, I guess.

Vedic interpretations often end up equating to similar things in western via different methods. It seems wishy-washy to try to mash up the two systems. It is like using a tropical chart with vedic interpretations. Astrology is a bit of an art form, though, rather than a science.

I'm not talking about vedic. Vedic (to me) is an astrological approach that just happens to use sidereal. So for anyone who studies and uses vedic astrology, it is understandable to use sidereal since much of all of the "science"/theory is based on studies of charts using sidereal.

Sidereal isn't only used by the vedics historically it was even used in astrology of the "western world" (guess depends on where the western world begins for person who reads this phrase, but referring to middle eastern world and west of that when I use the phrase.) I have met those who use sidereal and have a reasoning behind why they do.

Even in vedic astrology there are different approaches. There is a usage of Placidius mixed with whole sign in delineating what the planets will bring into a person's life. KP astrology I believe it is. (while this isn't a calculation of planet placement by zodiac just a housing system....)

I was really interested in vedic and read quite an amount of books on it. In the end it wasn't the practice I really connected with at the point I am in my life. I think I might know why I didn't really connect with it though.

I don't think it's wish-washy. Everyone has their own specific reasons for using what they use. I am just curious of the numbers of users who use either calculation of planetary position. As you pointed out in a way there are many astrological systems that all of them ended up giving pretty much the same answer about the person.

Chris Brennan talked a bit about tropical vs sidereal. I think he said they were used in conjunction until ptolemy. This division has been present for a long time about what zodiac calculation to use.

I personally like tropical more just because for some reason my mind has an easier manner of understanding it. It may just be because of my surroundings. But at the end of the day whatever period of time of astrology i connect the most with I'll end up using their style of house system and zodiac calculation since the whole practice is based on that system. That is my personal reasoning.

The deeper I get into it the more I realize how much more esoteric, astrology is, than there being one specific right way of doing it but many that all end up being accurate which kinda makes me question how much I believe in astrology. Kinda like the argument on religion....many different approaches on what is beyond this world. I'm still "seeing to believe in it." I'm still exploring the different astrology systems out here.

Anyway, I am just wondering how each person here calculates their zodiac in their astrological practice.

Until Ptolemy, and still for some time after him, there was not much of an off-set between the tropical and the sidereal zodiac. So nobody considered this an issue in the first place. (Not taking into account that some Hellenistic astrologers - such as Valens - didn't set 0° Aries exactly at the Vernal Point to begin with.)

However, when the discrepancy became obvious, the "Western" astrologers decided to stick with the zodiac's seasonal foundation, whereas the Indian division preferred to use the shifting star constellations as their frame of reference.

And yes, there were modern Western attempts at a sidereal zodiac. The most prominent one being made by Cyril Fagan in the 1950's and 1960's.

Yes, I know about Ptolemy, and that some modern astrologers use sidereal charts for western astrology (again, I think this is rate). I did not understand the question due to how it was worded, but the OP clarified. I don't like to communicate online when Mercury is retrograde or stationary because I think there is a lot of miscommunication.

I voted undecided. I think natal charts have their limitations and various techniques may have information (or not). I have seen a few readers (unsuccessfully) attempt western style horaries with sidereal, but I think tropical works fine.

Michael Sternbach wrote:
Until Ptolemy, and still for some time after him, there was not much of an off-set between the tropical and the sidereal zodiac. So nobody considered this an issue in the first place. (Not taking into account that some Hellenistic astrologers - such as Valens - didn't set 0° Aries exactly at the Vernal Point to begin with.)

However, when the discrepancy became obvious, the "Western" astrologers decided to stick with the zodiac's seasonal foundation, whereas the Indian division preferred to use the shifting star constellations as their frame of reference.

And yes, there were modern Western attempts at a sidereal zodiac. The most prominent one being made by Cyril Fagan in the 1950's and 1960's.

yep, sidereal and tropical weren't much difference during a certain time period.
But, the shifting brought the questioning of this occurrence even in ptolemy's time period. I'm not a historian within astrology (really of anything) so I bow out of this analysis of when it became a major issue and the various arguments historically for sidereal vs tropical.

Tanit3333 wrote:Yes, I know about Ptolemy, and that some modern astrologers use sidereal charts for western astrology (again, I think this is rate). I did not understand the question due to how it was worded, but the OP clarified. I don't like to communicate online when Mercury is retrograde or stationary because I think there is a lot of miscommunication.

I voted undecided. I think natal charts have their limitations and various techniques may have information (or not). I have seen a few readers (unsuccessfully) attempt western style horaries with sidereal, but I think tropical works fine.

I put undecided for myself as well.