Blood Moon Tetrad… OH NO!!!

bloodmoon1My opinion about this is its common bullshit. People are trying to make the world end. Its a kind of abstract suicide, because life sucks and they can’t figure out how to access its beauty – so they think its supposed to end.

Its not supposed to end. And even when it ends it just restarts. Thats the Vedic / Upanishadic / Puranic view. Time is eternal, it has no beginning or end. What appears to be its beginning is merely a cyclic point.

All this apocalypse stuff is a mid-east cult leftover.

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (Ep 3 and the Whole Thing so Far)

Originally posted on The Enquirer:

I really  want  to love this show, because (a) I love science and space, and (b) I love Carl Sagan and the original Cosmos. But, by Episode 3 I’m starting to feel like its not going to be easy to love this new Cosmos.

Neil-Degrasse-TysonIt’s not because Episode 3 was a little boring (history easily gets boring). And its not because Neil DeGrasse Tyson is less of an orator or narrator than Sagan (he’s not, in fact, maybe he’s even better). It’s because the motive of the show is becoming a bit disagreeable.

With Carl Sagan, the tangible motive was that he had passion to show the world how wonderful and amazing the universe was, and how excellent modern science was in helping us comprehend and appreciate the Cosmos. I like that. That’s uplifting and, more importantly, honest. With Neil DeGrasse Tyson, though, it feels a lot more like the motive…

View original 354 more words

Geocentrism, No Need to be Embarrassed

there is no such thing as absolute motion. All motion is relative. Object A moves in reference to object B. If object A exists in an absolute vacuum, no motion is possible, because there is no other entity for motion to be gauged against. (motion means change in position – so there must be a reference point to determine position).

So, therefore, motion is alway determined by your point of view. If you are sitting in a train, the land appears to be in motion. If you are standing on the land, the train appears to be in motion. A car headed into an intersection appears to be in motion, because the intersection appears to be stationary, because it is connected to the ground on which we, the observer stand. The observers locus is always the fixed point! But if the observer elevates into the clouds or into orbit, will the car still appear to be moving, or won’t they both , intersection and car be seen to be in motion?

So, you can say that the universe spins around Meru, that doesn’t mean that you can’t also say that the earth spins around the Sun, etc. etc. etc. If you are speaking from the point of view experienced at Meru, the universe spins around it. If you are speaking from the point of view of a human, the universe spins around the earth. This is not wrong, geocentric astronomy is not wrong, its just from an old-fashioned point of view – a practical point of view – the point of view that the earth is important because its our home. Heliocentric astronomy is also not wrong, but its from a more abstract, philosophical, impractical point of view – the theoretical view of things as if our center of observation was the sun. If we in the future become still more abstract and sophisticated we may choose another reference point as the best center – perhaps the center of our galaxy or perhaps some understanding of “mt. meru” – then we would see that its pretty provincial to say that the earth revolves around the sun, when both of them are revolving around something much more important.

Like that… motion is relative, so there is more than one correct and accurate way to describe any motion.

So, yes, the sun goes around the earth. And yes, the earth also goes around the sun.

- Vic DiCara

Astrology of Parenting: Terrible Twos

imagesOur first Mars return occurs just a little after our second birthday. Its no coincidence that this is when the “terrible twos” phase begins. Mars is the symbol of independence and willpower - which generates bravery and strength but often results in anger and argument. That’s basically what happens in the terrible twos phase – the child becomes independent, losing their fear and desiring to explore and express their own will.

Thats a great thing, so why is it called “terrible”?

Its because the child hasn’t really learned the complexities of language yet. It takes three mercury returns before the human mind is ready for complex human verbal communication. The third mercury return happens in close coincidence with our third birthday. During the first mercury return the child becomes capable of organized thought and acquires the basic templates of rational intelligence. During the second mercury return the child becomes capable of utilizing words and similar abstract symbols, like numbers. But they can’t yet really put words together in complex sentences and paragraphs. So although a two year old can use words, you can’t explain things to them very easily – it takes a lot of patience from you and the child to explain anything at all. And a child’s life is just too exciting to be patient very often. Its not till the third mercury return that the human mind becomes capable of assembling words ad hoc, on the fly, into complex ideas and streams of thought. In other words its not till we are three that it becomes reasonably easy to explain things to us.

So, between the first Mars return and the third Mercury return – thats the phase called “terrible twos.” The child is old enough to be independent, brave, and self-motivating (via Mars), but not yet old enough to comprehend explanations of why he or she should do this and not that, and so on. After the third Mercury return, unless we (or they) are dysfunctional, our parents can begin explaining things to us, and it won’t seem so unreasonable that we can wait for five minutes for our cookies.

- Vic DiCara

Is it a “Vedic” chart???

They call it a “Vedic” chart, but actually its an “Indian” chart, unless you want to believe that anything Indian is automatically “Vedic.” We have no record in the Veda of ANY birth charts at all. “Veda” particularly means Ṛg, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva, but can also include the Upaniṣads and the Purāṇas. There are a lot of books about astrology written in Sanskrit, but they are not part of any of the above groups. They are written from 1300 AD onward. Brhat Parashara Hora Sastra makes a brief claim to being very, very old, but so do most books written in Sanskrit. In any case everyone knows that the BPHS we have today was assembled only 2 centuries ago after being lost for a very long time. The point is that no authentic Vedic texts state specifically how to use astrology in a natal manner for casting individual charts, So there is nothing but bravado in the claim that someone is a “Vedic astrologer” or practices “Vedic astrology.” An honest person would say they do “Indian astrology.”
An Indian chart tends to use sidereal zodiac measurements – but the irony is that this contradicts the definitions of the zodiac very clearly and directly given in authentic Vedic texts like Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and in very respected Sanskrit astronomical texts like Sūrya Siddhānta. For more information on this, you can see my video and article on
I have to say that there is a lot more to astrology than merely the zodiac, but still those who claim that a chart cast in Tropical zodiac coordinates cannot be considered “Vedic / Indian” are simply delusional.

Authentic Modern Astrology from the Ancient and Classical World


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers

%d bloggers like this: