So yesterday watching the new aditya videos turned out to be a very confusing experience haha. I want people to talk about if thinking about astrology through tropical vs aditya lens is more accurate for different things. I've seen aditya exalted planets people be great at liivng out that planet but not material manifestations of that planet to the highest degree..but maybe that's my misinterpretation. Perhaps the aditya exalted planet is karmicly less binding and entagling than the tropical exalted planet?
I think in one of the second live class Ernst said something related to this. What I remember (which may be faulty) is that he said something like, astrology should be more simple rather than less simple, and the idea of using this zodiac for this and that one for that doesn't really fit with this idea.
As to what you mention about exalted planets, it just seems that planets operate on multiple levels, so what you're seeing is accurate, but you may be able to find a reason using one zodiac, if you consider all the factors...it's shadbala, aspects, LAs, position in the vargas, etc. which could all combine to create the effect you are seeing. An exalted planet doesn't mean it is exalted in everything, because exalted Sun in the 4th will still not have digbala. Exalted Venus combust in the 10th with Saturn and Rahu will have ucca bala but no digbala or chestabala, and be starved and shamed...so probably it wouldn't be correct to say that this Venus is "exalted"; just that it has a high uccabala but has many other issues.
I've seen some of videos of sidereal astrologers who say they use one ayanamsha for "spiritual" people and one for "regular" people, or something that. This never made sense to me; how do you know if a person is actually "spiritual" or not; how you can be sure a personal is really "spiritual" or not by comparing their charts with different ayanamshas? For me, looking at adityas and tropical in a similar way also doesn't really make sense to me.
For myself, I'm actually not all that attached to zodiac signs. I've always been sort of ambivalent about them, probably because of the way people in general ("normal" people, I mean) talk about them, and the way they are used in "pop" astrology. So for me personally, I don't mind not thinking about them and focusing on Adityas.
@josh Makes sense, especially since in the aditya system screen, some divisional charts are changing quite drastically.
One interesting thing I've noticed tho is that Ernst mentioned best signs for a planet to be in as planets which are exalted in the aditya system, even before the making the aditya videoes, like venus in saturn signs (he especially mentioned this in the venus in aquarius video - that was a hint), he's also mentioned merc being best in leo, mars in saggitarius, and there might be more that i can't recall.
For what it's worth, one thing i noticed all planets that are exalted in the aditya system are delighted or neutral in the tropical system. All except Jupiter. I don't know if this is a just a conincidence. Somehow i'm coming to the conclusion as of now, that best planet to be in a sign has to make the cut of being delighted or neutral in both tropical and aditya system