It was adequate for the creators of astrology to choose to use a constantly shifting starting point for their zodiac that is characteristically terrestrial, rather than a fixed point, so that there were now two zodiacs: their movable, imaginary, tropical zodiac, the zodiac of the signs, and the fixed, sidereal zodiac, the zodiac of the constellations. That's not the problem. In the Middle Ages, a person's sign was not the Sun sign, the sign of the movable zodiac where the Sun is located (not the constellation where it is actually located) at the time of birth, but the ascendant, the sign at the eastern horizon at the time of birth, the rising sign. Even worse, in India, where astrology was invented, their interpretation of the planetary "aspects" (the relative positions of the planets) differs greatly from the interpretation that astrologers in the West give. Astrology has always been one big mess, at least in the West, where the original version was discarded. Even back in Roman times not everybody believed that astrology was an accurate guide to all things. A Latin author once said: "If astrology is right, why would anything else have any relevance?". At least in the East they can claim to have the copyright, the registered trademark, so to speak. There they also invented or discovered palmistry, which has remained unchanged. No Westerner has ever dared tamper with the teachings of this other occupation.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram