View Full Version : vedic astrology
does anyone study / use / know about vedic astrology or panchang ?? (are they the same ?)
Panchaang is the traditional Hindu calendar - and 'Vedic' is the traditional Indian, practice of Astrology.
I've not really studied Vedic Astrology much - the main difference that I am aware of is that Vedic Astrologers use the sidereal zodiac, rather than the tropial zodiac. In simple terms they have a different starting place, so if you are Cancer Sun sign in the tropical Zodiac (western) you might well be Gemini in the Sidereal zodiac
This site and the associated web-ring might be useful for you:
thanks very much minderwiz - i will check out the link. i have a good basic knowledge of astrology but i gave up learning because i wanted to put more time into my yoga study - this has lead me to wondering about this ........
Vedic astrology utilizes cyclic phases and an extensive array of planetary combinations/signs/houses rules or interpretations that are quite different, on the surface, from many western forms of astrology. You might find yourself learning astrology all over again. But then, there is a great deal to learn within what we call western astrology that much/most conventional astrologers never take time to think of or have the curiosity to explore. You can work without natal charts, you can work without signs or houses, you can work without mid-points, you can do serious astrology without a computer and without doing chart calculations. Its a question of how much mental punishment you want to take on or to avoid. Dave.
Thanks Dave - I find the whole concept of me being a completley different star sign pretty wierd ................ who's right - how can they both be??
I've seen a number of explanations about why both Sidereal and Tropical Zodiacs work - some link it to the difference in societies - the Western society being more 'pacy' than Indian. However, I'm not particularly convinced by that because the Tropical Zodiac was established long before 'Western Society' came into existence.
Traditional Astrology both Eastern and Western gives perhaps less emphasis to signs than the modern 'personifications' do - signs are seen more as combinations of elements and modes. Planets and Houses are more important in a reading. So under both systems you could have the same planets in the same houses (depending on using the same system for houses) but not necessarily in the same signs.
Both Tropical and Sidereal use 12 equal signs of 30 degrees each - so both zodiacs are 'artificial' in the sense that neither corresponds directly with the actual constellations that bear their names. So the issue is more on the lines of having different starting points but basically meaning the same thing. As much of Astrology is the art of reading the indicators in the chart experienced Astrologers using one or other of the systems will probably come to similar conclusions. Remember that 'reality' is not nescessarily what you can see, hear, taste, smell, or touch.
Dave makes a very interesting point about cycles. Western Astrology also used to make considerable use of cycles but now they only seem to come up in Business Astrology or occasionally Mundane Astrology. We seem to have lost one element of our own tradition, which is apparantly, alive and well in Vedic Astrology.
After being active in astrology for some 10 years or so I had reached a point where I was finding that some aspects of conventional practice were not valid, or at least not essentially true most of the time. I listened to, and tried, all types of progressions and forms of prediction, listened to the "experts" pontificate about how to find the exact time when several aspects would best combine to represent an event. Nothing worked 95% or 100% of the time. Then, I discovered Sidereal Astrology. Presto, a big jump in timing accuracy and simplicity of interpretation BUT a ridiculous amount of calculation (this was before computers). Then as I got into that form of astrology down I also discovered its inadequacies.
*** The short form of this story is that you can do great astrology without either Tropical signs or Sidereal signs, that only the angles and the planets there can be used, that calculations don't have to be complex (just have to use the right ones), that even aspects and mid-points can be dropped. Is this really true? Yes. If you pick the tools that work for you (and everyone is different) and throw out everything that truly doesn't work for you -- then you are left with just a few highly dependable tools which you can trust and refine. At that point you have learnt your craft.
*** You have to always maintain a tough self-standard, remain curious, try anything. Intuition will often tell you when to use one tool and ignore another. Some people will not reflect their natal charts in terms of progressions and predictions. Some people are driven (seemingly) by new moon charts. You have to be able to spot what type of patterns seem operative in an individuals chart and to use that as a basis. Dave.
hey guys - i cant contribute much to this thread - but i am enjoying reading ;)
As someone who is only getting into Astrology, its great to hear the experiences of those who have been practising for some time.
I freely admit I don't yet have a consistent approach to things and I do try to use a variety of tools to see how they work and if they can improve my skill (such that it is). I tend to think that we have overblown the signs somewhat by giving them almost personalities of their own - so I can see how placing less emphasis on them can clarify things. I can also see that the Angles are the only truly common element to the large majority of House systems. Traditionally planets in the angular houses were accidentally dignified - so the angles do have a special importance and its helpful to hear the experiences of someone who concentrates on those areas of a chart.
The more I do read and explore the more I tend towards the more traditional approach to Astrology and the more I realise that modern western Astrology has lost its anchorage in the natural scheme of things by divorcing itself from its tradition.
That's not to say that tradition is right and that all Astrology since Coley is rubbish. But undestanding why we do things the way that we do and why they are done differently in Chinese of Vedic Astrology helps us put issues into context.
What if you were born a day earlier or a day later? How would the Moon's position (sign and/or house) or aspects change the dynamics of your chart? Would would be different if you were born an hour earlier? Sometimes you can learn a lot about your chart or astrology in general by seeing how the chart would not fit you. What if you have a loose square aspect -- where did those two planets form their last cyclic conjunction? In that context, what role do you have to play in that cycle given that you were born near the square/quarter-phase of that cycle. Does that question apply to your generation or your yearly cousins? I believe that this form of free inquiry can teach us all a lot about astrology and ourselves. Perhaps we might want to start a "What if you were born earlier or later" thread. Dave.
That's a good idea - I think enough people have the necessary software to generate a chart for the day before they were born but at the same time and place.
How would we be different?
Originally posted by LittleWing
hey guys - i cant contribute much to this thread - but i am enjoying reading ;)
same here LittleWing. ironically, i'm indian myself, yet i know little if not nothing about vedic astrology. this thread has given me motivation to find out more about it.
There is a wealth of tradition in Vedic Astrology, I.m glad the discussion has stimulated you to find out more and I hope you will share some of your discoveries with us in the future.
I rarely check the Astrology forum - I should more often! This is a wonderful discussion.
One of the few threads I started (outside the Historical section of the Forums) was one dealing with precisely issues raised herein (see here (http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4436)).
Personally, and though I but rarely erect, and even more rarely interpret, charts, I still maintain an interest in the subject. A little (unpublished but completed) book I wrote about eight years ago also deals with various house systems and presents what I consider a way of conjoining a sidereal and tropical view - though in ways which few sidereal astrologers would find satisfying (I have actually ultra-succinctly outlined this in the thread linked above).
As well as sidereal and tropical astrology, mention should also be made of two other forms which have arisen and are used by some (though I find these, though conceptually and mathematically highly interesting, just not human-centred enough): a Solar-centred chart erection, and a mid-solar/earth centred chart erection.
This last is quite a charming version, for it depicts the movement of the Earth and the Sun as lemniscating the point from which the 'observation' is made.
Personally, I find that a well formulated tropical zodiac, whilst acknowledging the spiritual forces as provening from the sidereal zodiac, yields wonderful and deeply satisfying charts.
For myself, I also tend to basically disregard the 'transpersonal' trans-Saturnian planets and the asteroids... which so many astrologers find so illuminating (that's right - I do not even chart Cheiron!)
Wonderful discussions... please continue!
Thanks for the observations - given your last point you might be interested in the thread on the trans-Saturns
You should drop in more regularly - I'll keep reminding you now :)
I haven't used the Sidereal Zodiac other than for a couple of comparisons - I have enough trouble with the tropical one LOL
I have not tried heliocentric charts, though my reason for doing this is different. I go along with your point about Astrological charts being human centred. Whether charts are of nativities, or horaries, events or decumbitures, these are events that happen on Earth, and I think what matters is the local space of the event.