Thanks!

16
Therese Hamilton wrote:I'm happy to see you on Skyscript, Rohini! I remember your name from some years ago. I suppose it was on a forum, but I can't remember any details. Perhaps on the ADB forum?
In the meantime, meanwhile -- practicing jyotishis seem to be getting by, just fine, though quietly using their world view and understanding of Jyotish tools!

I think, we all here, like a community if we are a community should encourage diverse approaches and thoughts and patiently observe what our siblings have to share...!

It's true that in their personal practice astrologers manage to use multiple and various divinatory systems to their satisfaction. Does this make them all equally valid? I'd say only within the consciousness of the practitioners can they be called equal. If put to the test these various systems cannot produce equally valid results.

Let's take as an example the exaltation of the Sun in Aries, a standard astrological position of strength for the Sun. Can an Aries Sun produce the same results in two zodiacs? If in Aries in the sidereal zodiac, the Sun will actually be in tropical Taurus. An Aries Sun in tropical Aries will fall in the sidereal Pisces area of the sky. (Except for the 5 or 6 degrees of sign overlap)

As examples, I've been testing Sun positions in ascendant mansions in the sidereal zodiac. http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7562

So for the Sun in Aries mansions (Krishnamurti ayanamsa) we have figures of power and authority. These will fall in the Venus ruled sky area of tropical Taurus. (The exact solar degrees and occupations are listed in the link above.)

Then let's go to the mansion of Rohini, the beautiful and desirable daughter of Brahma. Is it an accident that the Sun in this ascendant mansion produces a collection of people whose emphasis in some way is sexual (a psycho-sexual therapist plus homosexuals of both genders) as well as a group in the entertainment and music area? Isn't Venus said to rule sexual charisma, relationships and music rather than Mercury? All of Rohini's stars fall in tropical Gemini whose lord is Mercury.

Sometimes I check to see if there really seem to be boundaries between sidereal signs. For Pisces, the sign prior to Aries, there are two Reveti Suns in 28-29 degrees of Pisces in my mansion/sign research: A politician-attorney interested in the occult and a comedienne who can imitate 100 persons. A politician might perhaps come under Aries, but what about a comedienne who can produce so many persons from his inner psyche? (Remember that sidereal Aries has the traits of tropical Taurus...which, by the way, are not Venusian.)

I believe that the nuts and bolts of objective research can show us that the various systems don't all come out as equals. This is the scientific side of astrology rather than the divinatory approach which many (perhaps most) astrologers use in practice. The astrology may not be quiet right, but the intuition or psychic facilities of the astrologer smooth over contradictions.

At any rate, welcome to Skyscript, Rohini!

Blessings,
Therese


My dear Therese,

Thanks for the warm welcome, dear friend! Until you reminded me in your welcome message and that got me wondering too, "Where did we meet first in cyber-space or was it related to some cyber magazine or cyber society?"; anyways, whenever and wherever we interacted, to me it had always felt so natural and so never even a question or concern here :-)

I am thrilled to hear that you and hopefully several others are applying scientific rigour to astrologies of all types and I for one applaud you all. After a forty year long (big chunk of life!) and fairly successful career in biological science -- which brought home the bacon and still does in a tangible sense despite retirement (pardon me for the non-veg adage! I mean the 'bacon', not retirement <smile>) spanning research, regulation and so on -- I would be the last one to readily thumb my nose at scientific approach as we know and understand it.

I have great respect for the western astrologers, truth be told, who have made great strides in the global field of astrology in terms of documenting, examining, analysing and publishing and sharing their findings -- far and wide! Michel G. for instance! Even Carl Jung!! And the brilliant examination of Eyesenck and Nias in Astrology Science or Superstition, and I bet there have been dozens more that I might not have even heard of, let alone read!

The level of discussion, that I have seen here in merely glimpsing at the thread and the sustained passion always expressed but without (frankly speaking!) going bananas is very comforting to me personally!

I have always felt, sincerely, that Astrology and Divination is a Huge Mammoth and IT shall never get eaten and digested alone by any one mortal! And the more of different kinds and backgrounds of mortals, some scientists, some linguists, some historians, some psychics, some experienced in managing humans and some statisticians and engineers and many such more is the only way to digest and understand the mammoth!

In doing so, we shall all be truly receiving the Blessings of Ganapathi Who is the ICON ULTIMATE of Divination, by one religion.

In Sedona, Arizona, USA I visited some time ago, one of the energy spots, I was taking in the 'sights' and visited one of the energy spots which is a Christian Church with a history! On the left to its entrance behind you, is a naturally carved sculpture in red sandstone of Mother Mary holding a Child with two nuns in guard! To the right, behind you is a curious presence! Two naturally carved scultures in the same red sandstone carved by Airy Tattwa (Vayu). To the extreme right is the unmistakable and spiritual form of Ganapathi and next to him The Mammoth!

Anyways, thanks again for sharing your wisdom and kindness.

Love and Light,
_________________
MA GIVE US eyes to see, and minds to understand what the eyes see, and hearts beating in unison to keep the eyes and minds alive and ALL OF US engaged in serving YOU FOREVER.

17
Rohiniranjan wrote:
I have always felt, sincerely, that Astrology and Divination is a Huge Mammoth and IT shall never get eaten and digested alone by any one mortal!
Amen to that! The more we work with astrology, the more we see new vistas continuing to open. And the more we realize how little we know. (The on-line chapter cited below, so familiar to Jyotish astrologers, is very interesting reading for all astrologers.)

"Astrology is too vast, both mathematically and philosophically, to be rightly grasped except by men of profound understanding."
Swami Sri Yukteswar in Chapter 16 ("Outwitting the Stars"), Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/chap16.php
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

Tropical Vs Sidereal

18
Hi Guys, My DOB is 10/Jan/1973 , 12 : 37 noon, kottayam. And I communicate with Mr Ernst Wilhem's student , but I firmly stand upon sidereal. I am an Indian. My chart has poorvabhdra in meen rashi in sidereal while utharabhadra in meen in tropical. Both system says correct things. But as per my side real its Ketu- saturn and in tropical it is Venus-Venus , which is terribly and absolutely wrong. I am sure that I am going through Ketu- Saturn and nowhere near my Venus Dsa which I am anxiously looking forward to be in. My star U/Bhadrapada doesnt suit me at all and I am 100% P.Bhadrapda.

I cant say tropical is wrong but I dont think it is as accurate as Sidereal.
a new born astrologer

19
Astrojunkie wrote:
My chart has poorvabhdra in meen rashi in sidereal while utharabhadra in meen in tropical. Both system says correct things. But as per my side real its Ketu- saturn and in tropical it is Venus-Venus , which is terribly and absolutely wrong. I am sure that I am going through Ketu- Saturn and nowhere near my Venus Dsa which I am anxiously looking forward to be in. My star U/Bhadrapada doesnt suit me at all and I am 100% P.Bhadrapda.
Are you discussing the Nakshatras on your Ascendant or Vimshottari Dasha periods?

In either case I am a bit confused why you think these would change for someone using the 12 R??i tropical zodiac? The Nakshatras or their planetary rulers dont change surely? The Vimshottari Dasha periods dont change either as I see it.

The Nakshatras is a purely sidereal system but one can still use a tropical rasi system and use the sidereal Nakshatras.

Mark
Last edited by Mark on Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

Re: Tropical Vs Sidereal

20
astrojunkie wrote:Hi Guys, My DOB is 10/Jan/1973 , 12 : 37 noon, kottayam. And I communicate with Mr Ernst Wilhem's student , but I firmly stand upon sidereal. I am an Indian. My chart has poorvabhdra in meen rashi in sidereal while utharabhadra in meen in tropical. Both system says correct things. But as per my side real its Ketu- saturn and in tropical it is Venus-Venus , which is terribly and absolutely wrong. I am sure that I am going through Ketu- Saturn and nowhere near my Venus Dsa which I am anxiously looking forward to be in. My star U/Bhadrapada doesnt suit me at all and I am 100% P.Bhadrapda.

I cant say tropical is wrong but I dont think it is as accurate as Sidereal.
Astrojunkie, Ernst Wilhelm has devised his own system of astrology using tropical signs, but applying traditional Jyotish principles. My opinion is that he has gone seriously off track, and you are safe remaining with traditional Jyotish Rasis and Dasas. The nakshatras (lunar mansions) are fixed against the stars in the sky and cannot change when tropical signs are used.

Also as I remember, Ernst Wilhelm has decided that the nakshatras should be based on the equator which changes the positions in longitude of some stars in the nakshatras. But anyone who studies a sky map with the ecliptic and equator marked can see that the Indian nakshatras align with the ecliptic. I have a map with the Indian, Arabic and Chinese stars marked, and only the Chinese system used the equator for their mansions. If Ernst Wilhelm places your Moon in Utharabhadra, this may be due to him changing the nakshatra stars from the ecliptic to the equator. I watched one of his videos sometime ago where he was describing the changed positions of stars.

Your Ketu-Saturn dasa/bhukti is correct for the present time.

Ernst Wilhelm talks about his research, but I have never found any of his research on the Internet. He may discuss research in videos, but that may be basically isolated incidents in his own life, and can't be considered valid research based on mathematical calculation.
Last edited by Therese Hamilton on Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

Re: Tropical Vs Sidereal

21
Therese Hamilton wrote:
Ernst Wilhelm talks about his research, but I have never found any of his research on the Internet. He may discuss research in videos, but that may be basically isolated incidents in his own life, and can't be considered valid research based on mathematical calculation.
This simply isn't true, Therese.

Wilhelm spent 10 years translating Jaimini Sutras and delineates over 50 charts of famous people in his Jaimini course.

It works beautifully using tropical signs.

Don?t why you don?t invest just $29 to watch 100?s of hours of the mans research.
If it's not astronomically true, it's not astrologically true.

Re: Tropical Vs Sidereal

22
astrojunkie wrote:Hi Guys, My DOB is 10/Jan/1973 , 12 : 37 noon, kottayam. And I communicate with Mr Ernst Wilhem's student , but I firmly stand upon sidereal. I am an Indian. My chart has poorvabhdra in meen rashi in sidereal while utharabhadra in meen in tropical. Both system says correct things. But as per my side real its Ketu- saturn and in tropical it is Venus-Venus , which is terribly and absolutely wrong. I am sure that I am going through Ketu- Saturn and nowhere near my Venus Dsa which I am anxiously looking forward to be in. My star U/Bhadrapada doesnt suit me at all and I am 100% P.Bhadrapda.

I cant say tropical is wrong but I dont think it is as accurate as Sidereal.
Dear AstroJunkie:

Part of what makes it so difficult to assess these things is the extent to what can be found in a chart. For example, per the dashas, one needs to assess the full function of the planets running by dasha. So we need to know the exact reasons one feels they are in a particular dasha, then we need to know exactly what the planets are doing in the chart. I can understand why one would think they may be in Ketu/Saturn, yet maybe it can be seen through Venus Dasha, because Venus will be doing a lot throughout vargas by avashtas, based on planets position TO Venus. See the descriptions of dashas in chapters 59 and 60 of Brihat Parashara Hora Shastra. You will see how good or bad either dasha works depends on positions in the chart.

Too often I see people say things like, this birth time can't be right, or this dasha can't be right, or this zodiac can't be right, because of this one nakshatra, or this one planet.

The chart has to be looked at wholistically before a true assessment can be made in this regard. Again, that's what makes it so hard to actually assess these differences. Most people just base it off of their gut feeling, or a tradition they feel attached too. As it should be, that's human nature.

I only state this to give some perspective.

Also, Mark is correct that most astrologers using tropical zodiac still use sidereal nakshatras.
www.ashevillevedicastrology.com

23
Satrunhead wrote:
Wilhelm spent 10 years translating Jaimini Sutras and delineates over 50 charts of famous people in his Jaimini course...Why you don?t invest just $29 to watch 100?s of hours of the mans research.
Videos are not research. Also I'm lucky to have one hour to watch videos, not to mention hundreds of hours. When Ernst publishes what he calls his research in hard copy, I'll be happy to read it. (I do have the books Ernst published before he changed his perspective on the zodiacs, and they are quite good.)

I wish there were even as few as five illustrated examples in print on the Internet that would tell us exactly what Ernst is doing with tropical signs. Presumably unless we take a course with hundreds of hours of video, we don't have a clue.
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

24
Ryan Kurczak wrote:
Also, Mark is correct that most astrologers using tropical zodiac still use sidereal nakshatras.
Hello Ryan,

Welcome to Skyscript. Good to see you here!

I think there are differences in where people start the calculation of the sidereal Nakshatras from though. While most Indian astrologers use Ashwini Nakshatra a minority still seem to use Krittka. As I recall from his MP3 Ernst Wilhelm has taken the radical step of advocating Mula as his starting point. I have forgotten the specifics of what his argument was for this from the MP3. Still, I know quite a few Jyotish astrologers favour this ayanamsa. More fundamentally, for calculation of dashas, Wilhelm has calculated the Nakshatras on an equatorial basis. Historically, I think this approach has some validity.

But such a radical stance undeniably leads to divergent boundaries for the Nakshatras and correspondingly leads to different calculation of dasha periods from the conventional use of Nakshatras.

I therefore think Astrojunkie may have been mistaken in thinking the issue is one of the sidereal vs tropical zodiac. He did mention differences with a student of Ernst Wilhelm. So I think the contrasting Nakshatra data Astrojunkie mentions may well reflect the conflicting Nakshatras used by Ernst Wilhelm vs the conventional Nakshatras. The issue is therefore one of two different sidereal approaches to the Nakshatras not the tropical vs sidereal zodiac.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

25
Dear Mark:

Good to see you too.

Yes, the ayanamsha is based on the Middle of Mula Galactic Center. That is what causes the change.

https://ashevillevedicastrology.wordpre ... t-wilhelm/

The article on that site, along with the referenced MP3 from Ernst Wilhelm goes into the details.

Therese:

I saw some of your comments above. I've thought for a long time about this research problem you bring up. I use the tropical zodiac with Parashara Techniques and Jaimini Techniques, and started this about 4 years ago, after I read an article by Mr. Wilhelm. At the time I was totally against it and considered he was a heretic and totally going against an established tradition. However, his logic and reasons stuck with me, and I began to experiment with his calculation settings. After about 6 months of refusing to admit what I was seeing using these different settings I finally had to concede that he was definitely on to something. Since that time I've used Tropical Zodiac with Middle of Mula Galactic Center Ayanamsha and Sidereal Nakshatras because I could not refute my personal results with it compared to the way I had been doing it for about a decade using sidereal zodiac.

Anyway, I'm not saying this to get into an internet debate with you about it. Your points are very clear above, I simply wanted to share with you my brief reasons for switching.

Now, onto the point of research. I'd genuinely like your thoughts on this. There are so many variables to assess even one area of a person's life astrologically. How would you propose to compare the efficacy of the zodiacs. Many people call for research, and say "where is the research, you can't go on your own personal experiences!" Yet when I say, "where is your research? or are you just going off of your own personal experiences? because I would like to model mine after yours." All I hear is crickets.

You statements are very articulate as I imagine your mind is too, so you sincere thoughts on how to approach this would be most welcome.

I'd thought about taking 10 or more charts and hiring a sidereal vedic astrologer and then a tropical vedic astrologer to assess both and then compare the accuracy. However, that could get expensive quick for a single individual to fund. Then I considered that no two astrologers follow a similar system (even if they use the same zodiac!), so that throws a wrench in the research. Then when I personally have compared charts using both settings, its easy to find a reason for why a person experiences one circumstance using either zodiac. For example, one person might highly identify with Leo as ascendant, and maybe in sidereal they are a Leo ascendant. Yet when you switch to tropical, we see their ascendant lord goes INTO Leo, and there Atmakaraka is the Sun! Both of these would give a solar Leonine influence.

My point is, there must be some variable and approach that can be zeroed in on and compared using similar agreed upon Parashara techniques yet comparing one angle of tropical to one of sidereal.

Once I can determine a clean method of delineation I am open to this research. As I've said many times before, I personally do not care which is correct, I care which one gives the best results. I have stuck with tropical since making the switch, because of the increased positive feedback to my accuracy from clients.

Since I know there are sidereal astrologers that have done wonderful work, and tropical astrologers who have done the same, I wonder if there might be something more to all this than just the math and dogmatic sectarianism.

Your thoughts are welcome.
www.ashevillevedicastrology.com

26
Ryan Kurczak wrote:
(...) However, his logic and reasons stuck with me, and I began to experiment with his calculation settings. After about 6 months of refusing to admit what I was seeing using these different settings I finally had to concede that he was definitely on to something. Since that time I've used Tropical Zodiac with Middle of Mula Galactic Center Ayanamsha and Sidereal Nakshatras because I could not refute my personal results with it compared to the way I had been doing it for about a decade using sidereal zodiac.
Thank you for your detailed post, Ryan. Let me begin with a statement that may surprise many siderealists. I do accept that important rhythms are linked to the equinoxes and solstices, but I don?t believe those points should be used to mark zodiac signs for astrological use. I set up equinox and solstice charts myself, but I place those points in the sidereal chart.
Now, onto the point of research. I'd genuinely like your thoughts on this.

For research I?d begin with the basics. Take some charts with known factual histories, and look at the planets in signs: most especially domiciles and exaltations. Compare the sign positions in the two zodiacs. (The ascendant degree is key to important planets in the chart.) Kenneth Bowser and I have our differences, but he made a beginning with this approach on a recent Kepler College webinar. He took the charts of women who are considered to be exceptionally beautiful and compared planets-in-signs in their tropical and sidereal charts. Naturally since this is Kenneth Bowser, the sidereal charts had the well placed planets.

So I can present many similar examples. What are the planetary sign positions for those who are exceptionally successful? Or who are well known in their fields? Or who have had exceptionally tragic lives? For research we have to zero in specifics for starters.
There are so many variables to assess even one area of a person's life astrologically. How would you propose to compare the efficacy of the zodiacs.
Isn?t this up to you to provide a demonstration for even one individual horoscope of how you use techniques? I can provide plenty of research based on planets in domiciles and exaltation. That is beginning at ground zero before advancing to more complex techniques.

Also I have files of planetary and ascendant positions at sign junctions to show the change from one sidereal sign to another. I?m working on this project at the moment, and there seems to be support for Shastiyamsas. The problem is that this research is very time consuming, and there is work piled up now in several areas of my life.
I'd thought about taking 10 or more charts and hiring a sidereal vedic astrologer and then a tropical vedic astrologer to assess both and then compare the accuracy.
That is much too general an approach for astrological research. It would immediately turn into a psychological hodgepodge of useless conclusions.
Then when I personally have compared charts using both settings, its easy to find a reason for why a person experiences one circumstance using either zodiac. For example, one person might highly identify with Leo as ascendant, and maybe in sidereal they are a Leo ascendant. Yet when you switch to tropical, we see their ascendant lord goes INTO Leo, and there Atmakaraka is the Sun! Both of these would give a solar Leonine influence.
This brings up the key problem that signs are not understood correctly in the sidereal zodiac. I?ve explained this on my web site and in posts here on Skyscript. Mostly sign interpretations in the sidereal zodiac have been incorrectly copied from tropical sources. Of course these incorrect interpretations don?t appear in classical texts, but have unfortunately made their may into contemporary Jyotish texts. So sidereal sign interpretation has become a God awful mess for today's students.
My point is, there must be some variable and approach that can be zeroed in on and compared using similar agreed upon Parashara techniques yet comparing one angle of tropical to one of sidereal.
Using Parashara techniques at the onset is jumping the gun. First we have to look at planets-in-signs in relation to known life events as I suggested above. Or analyze the placement of the ascendant lord or some equally precise point of the chart. Then we have to take only one Parashara technique at a time, and examine it in a number of similar charts. (Say, charts of those with AA birth data who have accumulated vast wealth.)
Once I can determine a clean method of delineation I am open to this research. As I've said many times before, I personally do not care which is correct, I care which one gives the best results.
I agree with the concept of being neutral about results. I?ve always chosen techniques and a zodiac that give the most accurate results. Thus I spent ten years as a tropical astrologer, a year or two or three (don't remember) as a western siderealist, then changed to India's astrology. I went through three ayanamsas with testing (Fagan-Allen, Lahiri, and Krishnamurti) and have settled on Krishnamurti as the most accurate for now. Also I don't believe we can fully understand sidereal astrology without a study of recent Hellenistic and Classical translations.
I have stuck with tropical since making the switch, because of the increased positive feedback to my accuracy from clients.
It would be very helpful if you could give an example or two of this accuracy. But it would be necessary to post the birth data of the person for a comparison.

It's good that you use the tropical zodiac because for comparative zodiac research it?s necessary to have astrologers in both camps. I?ve given my thoughts above. Where would you like to start? I think, however, that if you haven?t spent time on my website, it would be helpful to do so in order to understand my perception of sidereal signs. It would be helpful if we exchanged our birth data. If you want to do this, please send a PM.

Thanks,

Therese
http://www.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm

27
Therese Hamilton wrote:Ryan Kurczak wrote:
(...) However, his logic and reasons stuck with me, and I began to experiment with his calculation settings. After about 6 months of refusing to admit what I was seeing using these different settings I finally had to concede that he was definitely on to something. Since that time I've used Tropical Zodiac with Middle of Mula Galactic Center Ayanamsha and Sidereal Nakshatras because I could not refute my personal results with it compared to the way I had been doing it for about a decade using sidereal zodiac.
Thank you for your detailed post, Ryan. Let me begin with a statement that may surprise many siderealists. I do accept that important rhythms are linked to the equinoxes and solstices, but I don?t believe those points should be used to mark zodiac signs for astrological use. I set up equinox and solstice charts myself, but I place those points in the sidereal chart.
Now, onto the point of research. I'd genuinely like your thoughts on this.

For research I?d begin with the basics. Take some charts with known factual histories, and look at the planets in signs: most especially domiciles and exaltations. Compare the sign positions in the two zodiacs. (The ascendant degree is key to important planets in the chart.) Kenneth Bowser and I have our differences, but he made a beginning with this approach on a recent Kepler College webinar. He took the charts of women who are considered to be exceptionally beautiful and compared planets-in-signs in their tropical and sidereal charts. Naturally since this is Kenneth Bowser, the sidereal charts had the well placed planets.

So I can present many similar examples. What are the planetary sign positions for those who are exceptionally successful? Or who are well known in their fields? Or who have had exceptionally tragic lives? For research we have to zero in specifics for starters.
There are so many variables to assess even one area of a person's life astrologically. How would you propose to compare the efficacy of the zodiacs.
Isn?t this up to you to provide a demonstration for even one individual horoscope of how you use techniques? I can provide plenty of research based on planets in domiciles and exaltation. That is beginning at ground zero before advancing to more complex techniques.

Also I have files of planetary and ascendant positions at sign junctions to show the change from one sidereal sign to another. I?m working on this project at the moment, and there seems to be support for Shastiyamsas. The problem is that this research is very time consuming, and there is work piled up now in several areas of my life.
I'd thought about taking 10 or more charts and hiring a sidereal vedic astrologer and then a tropical vedic astrologer to assess both and then compare the accuracy.
That is much too general an approach for astrological research. It would immediately turn into a psychological hodgepodge of useless conclusions.
Then when I personally have compared charts using both settings, its easy to find a reason for why a person experiences one circumstance using either zodiac. For example, one person might highly identify with Leo as ascendant, and maybe in sidereal they are a Leo ascendant. Yet when you switch to tropical, we see their ascendant lord goes INTO Leo, and there Atmakaraka is the Sun! Both of these would give a solar Leonine influence.
This brings up the key problem that signs are not understood correctly in the sidereal zodiac. I?ve explained this on my web site and in posts here on Skyscript. Mostly sign interpretations in the sidereal zodiac have been incorrectly copied from tropical sources. Of course these incorrect interpretations don?t appear in classical texts, but have unfortunately made their may into contemporary Jyotish texts. So sidereal sign interpretation has become a God awful mess for today's students.
My point is, there must be some variable and approach that can be zeroed in on and compared using similar agreed upon Parashara techniques yet comparing one angle of tropical to one of sidereal.
Using Parashara techniques at the onset is jumping the gun. First we have to look at planets-in-signs in relation to known life events as I suggested above. Or analyze the placement of the ascendant lord or some equally precise point of the chart. Then we have to take only one Parashara technique at a time, and examine it in a number of similar charts. (Say, charts of those with AA birth data who have accumulated vast wealth.)
Once I can determine a clean method of delineation I am open to this research. As I've said many times before, I personally do not care which is correct, I care which one gives the best results.
I agree with the concept of being neutral about results. I?ve always chosen techniques and a zodiac that give the most accurate results. Thus I spent ten years as a tropical astrologer, a year or two or three (don't remember) as a western siderealist, then changed to India's astrology. I went through three ayanamsas with testing (Fagan-Allen, Lahiri, and Krishnamurti) and have settled on Krishnamurti as the most accurate for now. Also I don't believe we can fully understand sidereal astrology without a study of recent Hellenistic and Classical translations.
I have stuck with tropical since making the switch, because of the increased positive feedback to my accuracy from clients.
It would be very helpful if you could give an example or two of this accuracy. But it would be necessary to post the birth data of the person for a comparison.

It's good that you use the tropical zodiac because for comparative zodiac research it?s necessary to have astrologers in both camps. I?ve given my thoughts above. Where would you like to start? I think, however, that if you haven?t spent time on my website, it would be helpful to do so in order to understand my perception of sidereal signs. It would be helpful if we exchanged our birth data. If you want to do this, please send a PM.

Thanks,

Therese
Very good information Theresa. These are good ideas to get started. I'll also check out your website as I am interested in your description of how sidereal astrologers might be misunderstanding the rashi indications. It's interesting how astrologers can move through different methods, for example, you starting tropical then going sidereal and others starting sidereal and moving tropical. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
www.ashevillevedicastrology.com