Astro Question Box Answer 1
My personal approach to the zodiac
This is officially my first post answering what found its way digitally into my Astro Question Box.
First off, thanks to everyone who submitted questions. There are a bunch of really great ones I’ll get to over the next couple of weeks.
If anyone would like to submit a question, you can find out how it works in this post or simply send your question here.
Ok, here goes.
Astro Question Box: Question 1
What is your opinion of some Vedic astrologers using the tropical zodiac with sidereal nakshatras? Why do you choose to use the zodiac/ayanamsha that you use?
I’ll answer the second question first.
I study and practice in the Shri Achyutānanda Das lineage. Shri Acyutānanda was a 16th century poet seer and saint from Odisha, India. His teachings were passed down to the Rath family, who in turn taught the tradition to my teachers.
Since this is a traditional Jyotish lineage, we use the sidereal zodiac only (although I believe tropical zodiac is sometimes used to predict weather events). Only the seven visible planets and lunar nodes are used; in other words, no Uranus, Neptune or Pluto. We use both “Parāśara” and “Jamini” techniques – from what I understand, some Vedic astrologers make a distinction between the two and claim to use only one or the other.
Although I follow the teachings of this lineage in my work, this doesn’t mean I think my tradition in the best or the only way to do Vedic astrology right. It simply happens to be the place I landed when I first got into Jyotish, and I felt very much at home from the start. The techniques are very effective and the teachings so complex and vast that I’ll have new things to learn for the rest of my life, which very much appeals to me.
Now, back to your first question.
Since I’ve only studied Vedic astrology in my lineage, I’m only marginally aware of the controversies and disputes in the larger Jyotish world. However, if my experience studying Western astrology taught me one thing, it’s this: Astrologers love nothing more than to squabble amongst themselves.
I studied Western astrology for over 20 years and dabbled in lots of different schools. Each time, the astrologers using one particular approach talked bad about the astrologers using another.
The modern Western astrologers called the traditional astrologers uptight eggheads hell bent on spreading doom and gloom, while the traditional folks called modern astrology flaky, hippie-dippy nonsense that only ever manages to give the vaguest of predictions.
Among the traditional astrologers, some of nastiest fights and junior-high-worthy drama I’ve ever seen in the astro world have been between Hellenistic astrologers, who favor the whole sign house system, and Renaissance astrologers, who swear by the quadrant house system.
Traditional astrological magic is too arcane and occult for more rational Western astrologers to care much about – although I’m sure some frown down on it. However, within the community, there is plenty of name calling, back stabbing, forming rival conferences, etc.
None of this has ever made sense to me. Constantly ripping down the work of other astrologers, schools or approaches – often without listening first – seemed petty and overly ego driven.
True, there is a lot of bad astrology out there, but does it really matter in the end? Most of the world thinks astrology, whether Western or Vedic, is total nonsense. As astrologers, I think we should have standards, but also stay open to new ideas.
So, when it comes to astrologers using the tropical zodiac with sidereal nakshatras, I guess my question would be: have they gotten it to work? In what way? If the answer is yes and their explanations are sound, then I say more power to them. If not, then I still applaud the attempt to try out new things.
That’s how we grow and evolve.
Michelle R. Dean is a Vedic astrologer and writer based in Berlin. To find out more about Michelle, swing by here.