I know this is a hot and highly polarizing topic but the truth must be told and accepted. As a tropical astrologer (which has its own failings) I have studied all the arguments of sidereal versus tropical astrology and one fact cannot be escaped; and that is that most sidereal planet in sign positions(about 80 percent) simply do not match the characteristics of the owner. This no more glaring than with the Sun or Ascendant sign positions.

There is a 24 degree difference in the sign positions between the sidereal and tropical zodiacs, so that 0 Aries in tropical is 6 Pisces in sidereal. This 24 degree lag results from the fact that siderealists use the stars or constellations to start their zodiac, most notably the opposite point of the star Spica which is currently (as of March 21st 2023) at 24 degrees 10 minutes of tropical Libra, whereas tropical astrologers use the Sun-based vernal equinox. Both zodiacs or zero points coincided in 285 AD but have since drifted apart nearly one sign because of precession, and the drift will get wider with time.

I am not bashing Vedic or Indian astrology altogether; there are some obvious benefits -such as the way they see aspects(whole sign), the importance of the north node which is the basis for the lunar or draconic zodiac, and their inclusion of the stars in their interpretrations. This is all fine and should be incorporated by Western tropical astrology, but siderealists will not face the fact that their signs are off by 24 degrees and that this is very obvious to those with a good knowledge of sign characteristics.

The aspects or distances between the heavenly bodies are the same in both tropical and sidereal astrology, so there is no conflict there. Mars will always be square when roughly 90 degrees from any other body and the interpretation will be the same. But when the SIGN is to be considered, chances are it will be different and yield different signification or meaning.

The popularity of whole sign houses in tropical astrology in recent years is a positive testimony to the vedic system of houses which is also whole sign. Whole sign aspects are also being considered by western astrology which is obssessed with precision and this is a step in the right direction. Also, I wish Western astrology would bring in the stars again, which it is slowly doing, connecting us to the vaster cosmos beyond our own little planetary system.

Another flaw in vedic, Indian, or sidereal astrology, is the non-inclusion of the modern telescopic planets such as Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, which have proven themselves as legitimate and important as the other visible traditional planets. More and more vedic astrologers, however, are coming around to accepting these bodies which is good. Rulership is another thorn for both tropical and sidereal astrologers who refuse to go beyond Saturn. In my own opinion double rulership renders astrology vague and inprecise. In an increasingly complex and diverse world, we need as many different planets as possible, each with their own sign or group of signs associations.

If vedic or sidereal astrologers would be honest with themselves and do their research they will find that so-called sidereal astrology was once tropical in origin. Ancient vedic texts like the Surya Sidhhanta clearly make use of the tropical zodiac before it was lost around 100 AD when Hipparchus asigned the rasis (30 degree segments) to the constellations.

True or not, the inescapable fact remains that the signs in vedic or sidereal astrology, more often than not, do NOT match the characteristics of the individual in question, like they do in the tropical zodiac.