Which sunsign should be considered real? Is it the sunsign as per the date of birth or the house where the sun is placed in ones chart?
I know for many the zodiac sign and position of sun in chart might be the same...but not for all.
for eg. myself. As per western system I'm a Taurean but in my horoscope my sun is in Aries.
In this case should I consider myself to be an Arian or a Taurean?

Hi,

Western Sun signs are very precise in predicting general natures quite precisely.

Indian Sun sign should be predicted according to Vedic astrology.

If a native has sayan(western) virgo Sun, and Eastern(Vedic) Sun in virgo, then it it is a confirmation that the native is a confirmed Virgo.

RishiRahul

Dear RishiRahulji

Does it mean that we should read forecasts as per western zodiac and not look at the position of sun? Does it mean I'm a Taurean more although my sun is in aries. Well whenever I watch the rashiphal forecast I always pay attention to the meena rashi as I'm revati nakshatra but I'm confused about the sun sign aspect.

You are right about the preciseness of western astrology. I've noticed that people belonging to the same zodiac sign have many similarities as regards to general behaviour irrelevant of their planetary positions (exceptions set aside).

I really dont understand how these 2 sciences (vedic and western) contradict and yet give similar end results.

Thanks
Dhanya

[quote="dhanyaiyer"]I really dont understand how these 2 sciences (vedic and western) contradict and yet give similar end results.

Thanks
Dhanya[/quote]

Dear Dhanya,

I realize that this was an exchange between you and Rishi and perhaps I should not have butted in! Quite frankly, I have problems with these public, yet private or one-to-one conversations. Problem is too strong a word! I mean a hesitancy, unsurety (in bangla "itostoto") as to should I butt in, would it be proper, etc.

All that aside, now that I have broken the etiquette, why do you automatically assume that there is a 'contradiction'?

I think both views are real and have very real bases and both bases are very earth-based! The confusion arises from using the same names for the signs and the confusion therefrom. Hence the confusion as often if not always is SEMANTIC!

You see, the sidereal (Jyotish) zodiac is visual and based on the alignment of the human eye and the celestial constellations. If we say mars is in capricorn, then we will see it against the capricorn constellation up in the sky! That in itself does not make the sidereal zodiac the only real one or the only game in the town!

The tropical (western) zodiac on the other hand is perceptual and is based on the seasons! The first point of aries is aligned to the vernal equinox! Vernal Equinox is computable and can be calculated with great precision and it can be felt by the warmth particularly in the latitudes far away from the equator as the old man winter goes to sleep and the young ram is born and amazes us with its activity and promise of creation coming alive again with flowers blooming and the greenery returning again to the frozen earth! It is very real -- particularly if you live in northern latitudes!

What caused the semantic/nomenclature confusion was that in Ptolemy's times when tropical astrology began, the two zodiacs were in alignment and the first point of visible zodiac (sidereal) coincided with that of the perceptual zodiac (tropical).

Puristically speaking, the sidereal signs should be called the conventional names, to avoid confusion and the tropical signs or sectors should perhaps be renamed to indicate their consonance with the seasons (vernal one, vernal two ... etc).

But then, what is in a name, the wise remind us!

There is no controversy, just ignorance that there is more just around the corner, if only we would open our minds and look! Or FEEL in this case!!

One takes ayanamsha variance into account and one does not. Astrology is a statistical science. There is no contradiction in the end result, but some difference while viewing it.

RishiRahul