In your opinion, what is the point of using tropical signs if vedic nakshatras are what carry the most significance in a person’s chart?
I don’t really understand the question…
Are you asking, “Since Nakshatras are so significant, why bother with signs at all?”
If so, my reply is that the weight of stone does not change the weight of iron. Maybe one is heavier than the other, but both are heavy. Similarly, the importance of Nakshatras does not make the Zodiac signs unimportant. Nor does the importance of Zodiac signs make the Nakshatras unimportant.
Or are you asking, “Since Nakshatras are so significant, why use TROPICAL signs?”
I don’t see any logical connection between idea a (“nakshatras are important”) and idea b (“tropical signs are not important”), unless you have some misconception that zodiac signs are created by nakshatras.
Zodiac signs are not created by nakshatras, nor are nakshatras created by zodiac signs. Zodiac signs are created by the solstices and equinoxes (Here is a playlist explaining this). Nakshatras are created by stars and star patterns.
My followup question is, if someone is born, let’s say in the next 20 minutes, would that person’s chart reflect the exact position of the planets in the sky at their time of birth?
Yes, of course. Why would it not? What else is a chart, except a map of the positions of things in the sky?
Well that’s exactly my concern. Isn’t it true that only vedic system shows the exact sidereal planetary positions?
You seem to be saying that sidereal positions are “real and accurate” and tropical are “unreal and inaccurate.” This is misinformed. Sidereal and tropical are both real and accurate. The difference between them is their reference point.
Suppose you are standing on a sidewalk, 1 meter left of a tree, and 2 meters right of a mailbox. How might we describe your position?
“1 meter left of the tree”
“2 meters right of the mailbox”
Both are accurate and real.
This is just like the difference between sidereal and tropical. One measures in reference to a “mailbox” (a star) the other in reference to a “tree” (equinoctial points).
The only complicated thing is is that the tree and mailbox are stationary in relation to each other, but the stars and equinoctial points are not.
If something is attached to the mailbox it would move with the mailbox, but not with the tree. If you are tied to the mailbox and I drag the mailbox 3 meters to the left, you remain 2 meters to the right of the mailbox, but now you are 4 meters to the left of the tree.
Visa versa if something is attached to the tree it would move with the tree, but not with the mailbox. If you were tied to the tree, and I dragged it 3 meters to the right you would remain 1 meter left of the tree, but would now be 5 meters to the right of the mailbox.
The stars are all “tied” together. And the zodiac signs are all “tied” together. Hence the spatial relationships within either group do not change, but the between the groups, the relationships do change.
Planets are like pedestrians walking on the sidewalk. We can measure where the pedestrian is using either the mailbox or the tree, whichever we like. But since this cosmic “mailbox” and “tree” are moving around we have to measure in reference to the mailbox when we want to know the pedestrian’s distance from the mailbox, and use the tree when we want to know his relation to the tree.
In other words we use sidereal coordinates when we want to know a planets relation to nakshatras, but tropical coordinates when we want to know its relation to the zodiac signs.
The distance between the “mailbox” and “tree” is called Ayanamsha.
Leave a Reply