Claudio,

Thanks for your input.

The universe is not static in Vedic tradition. Isn't the whole idea of astrology that things change? The concept of karma found in the Vedas is one of cause and effect. The cycle of yugas or world ages in that tradition reflects the revolution of our solar system around the galactic center, creating different phases of consciousness on Earth.

As for your other comments, I don't understand all the terms you are using.

The 12-sign zodiac is really just the anatomy of a circle. Signs in Sanskrit are called rashis, and the definition of a rashi is just a 30 degree arc of a circle. So whenever the rishis discussed geometry and circles, they were talking about rashis, even if they weren't talking about astrology. And the 12 rashis were given the names Mesha (Aries), Vrishabha (Taurus), Mithuna (Gemini), etc..

I am one of those rare Vedic astrologers that uses the tropical zodiac, and as you probably know the tropical zodiac has nothing to do with the stars. It's all about the Sun/Earth relationship that creates the seasons. The importance of this cycle is clearly apparent to us earthbound observers. We see specific changes on Earth at the solstices and equinoxes, and at every 12th portion of the year (the Vedas had six seasons, each divided into two portions).

Originally, the Vedas did know about precession, as ancient texts like the Rig Veda talk about the different ages. They talk about the Age of Krittika, a time when the vernal equinox Sun was in the star cluster of Krittika, which corresponds with the Pleaides and sidereal Taurus. As an aside, the very ancient texts when they mention astrology talk mostly about stars (nakshatras) and don't mention the 12-sign zodiac at all.

I agree though that at some point astrologers forgot about precession. It's possible that the zodiac was always meant to be tropical, and the loss of knowledge about precession lead to Vedic astrologers attaching the zodiac to the stars. Previously, the Vedas always had both a tropical and a sidereal astrology.

David

Anyway, thanks for your responses, I will pass them on

Aries does not rise in the east or west. This has been miscalculated some 3000 years ago. It rose at the time of King Arthur, though. www.lulu.com/astrology

The professinal ascendants are 16 in number at the present epoch, according to the Academic Zodiac.