Q: Do you find tropical signs more reliable in your practice?

Yes, I find tropical signs give a simpler, clearer picture more readily, if used with whole sign houses and sidereal nakshatras.

Q: Do you believe that Jyotish classics as ParasaraBHS, BrighuS and others are meant for tropical signs?

The classic textbooks on Indian Astrology (Jyotish) were written in different time periods. I believe that India has been using sidereal zodiac signs for a very long time – probably about 1800 or so years. Classics written after this time (c. 200 AD) were probably written in reference to the sidereal zodiac. But it is most important to note that about 500 years before and after that key point in history (c. 300 BC – 700 AD) there was practically no difference between tropical and sidereal zodiacs. And even for another 500 years or so on either side (800 BC – 1200 AD) the difference was not very dramatic. Most of the classics were written in this time frame. Therefore even if they were written by authors who had adopted sidereal zodiac signs, the practical difference between tropical and sidereal signs contemporary for those authors was negligible.

The fact that there are no significant “classics” much after this time frame is another evidence that Indian astrology began to lose it’s original potency as the sidereal zodiac became more and more out of phase with the true zodiac signs.

Q: Do the methods given in Jyotish classics work with tropical signs?

Yes, the methods defined in classics work best with tropial signs. In fact some of the methods defined in the classics cannot work at all without tropical signs. A case in point is the shad-bala system for calculating the potency of a planet. One component of this calculation is declination, which cannot be determined outside of tropical system (“declination” means the distance north or south of the equator).

Q: Do the classics not say simply what zodiac we should use?

Most of what we consider classic “astrology” textbooks do not, no. I address this in my paper. Calculation and interpretation are separate branches of Indian astrology. The Surya Siddhanta is the authoritative text on calculations. It does indicate that tropical planetary coordinates should be used. It instructs us to use ayanamsha is a means of converting sidereal calculations to tropical, and not visa versa as is now the fashion. The Srimad Bhagavatam also contains several chapters on astronomical phenomena and unequivocally defines the zodiac signs as tropical, and the nakshatras distinctly as sidereal.

I have addressed this much more completely in my paper.

Q: Are there not any old examples of charts indicating what zodiac system they use?

Classic Indian literature sometimes gives example charts, but not the birth data. For example they describe the planetary configurations for Rama and Krishna – but they do not say what birth data creates those charts. This is because the planetary configurations are themselves the most universal and reliable method of determining a point in time – so the ancient scriptures express the time of an important event such as the birth of an incarnation of God, by describing the planetary configurations.

However, since there is no second reference it is not possible to verify if the classics are describing the configurations in a sidereal or tropical reference. It is also particularly confusing because these configurations refer to points in time that are – by our pygmy modern conceptions and methods – extremely distant in the past and therefore very hard to verify by calculations – since over vast periods of time the speeds and motions of planets and the earth are not at all constant.

An aspect doesn’t have dignity, a planet has dignity. You have to understand that dignity is about the relationship of the guest to the host. The planet is a guest and the owner of the sign the planet is in is the host. Next you have to understand what an aspect is. It is a “dhristi” – it is a line-of-sight, by which a planet can cast a glance upon a different place. The glance is the glance of the host, it is not the host itself. The glance is not received by the host of the sign it lands in, because the glance is not a guest, it is just a glance. If someone looks at your house, it is a hell of a lot different than if they come into your living room. If they look into your house you get affected by that, but if they are actually in your house they are a guest. The aspect is a glance. it is the power of the planet transfered by a glance.

So the dignity of a planet is decided by it’s relationship to the planet who hosts the sign it is in. Therefore the glances that planet casts by aspects carry that dignity with them wherever they land.

I absolutely do believe in reincarnation. It is merely the “Law of Conservation of Energy” applied to the enegy of our souls. For many lifetimes we have used or misused our freedoms, and that’s why we start this life with a certain “destiny” already in place.

The configuration of heaven and earth at the time you start your life reveals the initial destiny for your current lifetime. Why?

I definitely do not think it is because the configuration of planets and stars somehow influences us with rays, gravitons, waves, or whatever. Instead, I believe it is the compassion of our mother, the universe, to communicate to her children via the movements of her body, the stars and planets.

I am not going to mention Ephemeris and Tables of Houses – which we few remaining souls who have enjoyed calculating charts by hand sometimes will remember fondly – because these are just the output of the calculations put into a handy reference format. What i will describe here is actually the way the epemeris and tables of houses are created, in ancient and modern times.

Ancient Method

Let’s talk about how it was done in the old days (and this is the recorded method in Surya Siddhanta).

It was done by looking up at the sky and practically observing how fast and slow the planets move through the stars – when they become erratic and move backward, and how they slow down and speed up. After making such observations carefully for many years ancient scientists developed math which described the motions of the planets reasonably well.

Using that math, from a given point of time as a reference one could extrapolate where the planets would be in reference to the stars at any other given time previous to or after the point of reference. Here is an example to make it easier to grasp.

If you know a car moves north at 20 miles per hour on average, and you know that 3 hours ago it was at the intersection of 4th street and 5th avenue, you can predict reasonably well that 2 hours ago it was 20 miles north of that point. 1 hour ago it was 40 miles north, currently it is 60 miles north. 4 hours ago it was 20 miles south of the reference point. Etc.

The main reference point for calculations, used by Surya Siddhanta is the planetary alignment at the beginning of Kali Yuga (the current Age of the world). Then, knowing how much a given planet moves each day on average, you can estimate where the planet is on any given day before or after the beginning of Kali Yuga.

As you can tell this is a system of estimates only, it is not precise. If you want to be more precise you have to periodically recheck the cars speed and reset the reference points to less remote times. The Surya Siddhata advises to do this – rechecking the planetary motion and resetting the reference point – and calls the reset-values ‘bijam’ or ‘seeds’ which keep the calculations acceptably accurate. This has not been done for a very long time, though, because we stopped using this estimative method a long time and moved to new methods more based on direct observation.

Modern Method

The modern method benefits from centuries of mathematical refinement and improvement in our observational tools. As such it is far more accurate to the fine details. However, it is essentially the same as the old system – based on observing the planetary motions, creating mathematical descriptions of those motions, and using those formulas to know the position of any planet at any point in the future or past. It’s just that the current formulas are very very accurate and not really as much in need of periodic updating as the more general estimations of the Surya Siddhanta were.

Ancient Reference Point

The old calculations were done in reference to the stars themselves, the nakshatra. New calculations are done in reference to a point that is more stable from our vantage point on earth – the location of the Sun at the vernal equinox.

Why the difference?

I don’t really know, of course. But I suggest that maybe ancient methods use stellar (nakshatra) based math because it is so much simpler and more direct to look up at night and make observations relative to the stars. It is much more abstract and complicated to make observations relative to the point the Sun occupied at the vernal equinox. Therefore only in modern times with the benefit of better formulas and tools does it become viable and practical.

The concept of “ayanamsha” – the difference between the sun’s position at the vernal equinox and a certain fixed star, roughly the same as precession of the equinoxes – is something very old, defined in the Surya Siddhanta. Since the old calculations were made in reference to the sidereal stars (nakshatra), Surya Siddhanta told us how to convert those calculations to positions relative to the sun’s position at the vernal equinox.

So the true, original use of ayanamsha is to convert sidereal calculations to tropical ones, which are then used for creating the chart. Only in relatively modern times, when we let go of the old calculation formulas of Surya Siddhanta and adopted (better) modern formulas did the ayanamsha become misapplied as a way of converting tropical calculations to sidereal – because modern calculations are done in reference to a tropical point – the vernal equinox.

Interestingly, the modern conception of precession of the equinoxes is significantly different from the Surya Siddhanta’s conception of it expressed via “ayanamsha.” The modern theory is that the vernal point CONTINUES to precess (move backwards) through the zodiac and will complete a full lap. The ancient Surya Siddhanta concept is that the vernal point differs from its sidereal references in an arc of +/- about 27 degrees or so, and cycles back and forth within that.

How to Figure Out Nakshatra and Rashi Of A Planet

The way to calculate a planet’s nakshatra and rashi is different depending on if you use the ancient or modern formulas. Using the ancient formulas, your math is relative to a certain fixed star – a nakshatra. Using modern formulas, your math is relative to the position of the sun at the vernal equinox.

So if you are using ancient formulas, the initial math itself would give you the sidereal positions of planets (meaning the positions relative to the stars, the nakshatra). You would then need to utilize ayanamsha to get the tropical positions (relative to the vernal point, in the twelve rashis).

If you are using modern formulas, the initial math itself gives you the tropical position in the twelve rashis, so you would need to utilize ayanamsha to get the sidereal positions relative to the 27/28 stars (nakshatras).

Interestingly, you cannot cast a horoscope without tropical calculations – because you have to know the time of Sunrise on a given day in order to find out the ascendant (the focal point of the whole chart). Sunrise changes relative to the Suns position north or south of the equator – i.e. the Sun’s tropical position.

The ancient way to calculate the ascendant is to first calculate the Sun’s position relative to the stars / nakshtra. Then use ayanamsha to make it a tropical position. Then calculate (using other formulas) the time of Sunrise. And you then know that at that time the ascendant was identical to the tropical position of the Sun. After that you just adjust for the time of day you want the chart cast for, using a proportionate ratio.

Modern calculations are the same, except that since they start with tropical coordinates there is no need for ayanamsha, except if you want the sidereal equivalent of the ascendat, which might perhaps be useful for knowing the nakshatra related to the ascendant, for example.

Q: Now that you have integrated a new system into your astrological calculations (27 sidereal nakshatras, 12 tropical rashis – more info), what actually changes in the charts you cast?

What is not changed: All planets are in the same naksatras. Therefore the planetary phases (dasa) are unchanged. Most of the planetary house positions remain the same, including navamsha and divisional houses. The interplanetary aspects are unchanged. The aspects of planets upon houses are unchanged. Transits to planets are also unchanged.

What does change: The rising sign often changes, and thus the signs of the houses and the houses owned by the planets often change. The planets often change the signs they occupy. This in turn affects the dignity of planet, which also has an impact on the potency of the planets.

Q: If your new system is better, does that mean your old readings were wrong?

Considering the previous explanation of what changes and what does not change, you can see that the old system had significant accurate details which remain in the new system. Furthermore I wouldn’t want you to think that improvement makes the past worse. Improvement makes the present and the future better.

Thank you,

Vic DiCara

“Considering the Winter Solstice marks the beginning of the gradual increase of the duration of the day.

That’s right, that’s exactly what the winter solstice is – the shortest day / longest night.

“Scientifically, the shortest day of the year is around December 21-22 after which the days begin to get longer, hence actual Winter Solstice begins on December 21 or December 22 when the tropical sun enters Makara rashi. Hence actual Uttarayana is December 21.

Correct. Uttarayana means “northern course” and refers to the Sun hitting the tropic of Capricorn and beginning to move northward towards the equator. Makra Sankranti is the comencement of Uttarayana (the northern course) and of Makara (Capricorn).

This was the actual date of Makar Sakranti too. But because of the Earth’s tilt of 23.45 degrees and sliding of Equinoxes, Ayanamasha occurs.

The equinoxes do shift in relation to the stars, that is true. But it does not change the dates of the equinoxes and solstices. It changes the star that is closest to the Sun at the equinoxes and solstices! So the date of makara-sankranti and the Sun beginning its northern course does not change. It always occurs when the days stop getting shorter, which is always more or less on December 21st.

This has caused Makara Sankranti to slide further over the ages.

No. What “slides further over the ages” is the star that is near the Sun when makara sankranti (winter solstice) happens.

A thousand years ago, Makar Sankranti was on December 31 and is now on January 14. Five thousand years later, it shall be by the end of February, while in 9000 years it shall come in June.”

No. Precession of equinoxes doesn’t change the date of the equinoxes and solstices, it changes the stars which are associated with the equinoxes and solstices. Makara Sankranti (the winter solstice) is always more or less December 21st. This is not a point of contention, even the Indian government passed this as a law at the same time they ratified Lahiri ayanamsha. The problem is that Indian astrologers wrongly project the rashis into the stars, against not only the judgement of the Indian government but also of astrological logic. To them “Makara” / “Capricorn” is a group of stars in the sky. And they notice that the Sun does not enter that group of stars until mid-January, although two thousand years ago it did so in mid-december. They have become ignorant to the fact that the rashi’s are defined by solstices and equinoxes, not by stars. The nakshatras are the stars, the rashis are not.

Please read this paper for much more information about this.

Thanks,
Vic

www.vicdicara.com

Does God Really Have Form Like Us?.

I would like to thank you for the attention you pay to the articles I post. Recently I posted an important string of five articles on the topic of sidereal and tropical zodiacs. Now I would like to present you with a complete version, in one place, and with more editing and (I hope) clarity. The paper is available as a PDF so you can print it or put it on your e-Reader, or distribute it to your friends or colleagues. Please click the link to read and download the paper.

RECONCILIATION OF THE TROPICAL AND SIDEREAL ZODIACS

Please feel free and encouraged to redistribute this paper without need for any further permission.

Thank you,

Vic DiCara

The us Government makes laws. In that sense they have control over US law. The police and courts enforce the laws, invested with the power of the US Government. Still it is the citizens who either break or obey the laws. The Government or police does not (ldeally, at least) bend the laws to make an innocent person guilty or a guilty person innocent.

Similarly Krsna has made the Purusha. the Purusha makes the universe with all it’s laws. The planets and other devas enforce the laws being invested with the power of the Purusha, who is the conduit for the power of Krishna. So in this sense Krishna has control of all the planets.

But the planets, Purusha and Krishna do not exercise favoritism. They use their control over fate only to ensure that it is enforced impariatially. Just as it is the citizens who control their punishment or reward by deciding if they will contradict or cooperate with the laws – similarly it is only you and I who truly controls our own fates.

who should we worship to ease the negatives of our planets?

Merely the concept of wishing to worship will itself ease the negativities, because most of the negativity arises from refusal to cooperate with higher authorities and powers. Worship ameliorates this rebelliousness, and therefore in and of itself is very efficacious for easing karmic negativity.

Those who still desire to enjoy power and prestige in the temporary world should worship various temporary deities to get their petty desires fulfilled. Those who are lucky and smart will want a permanent solution to suffering and negativity – and they will therefore seek emancipation. Such persons can only worship Vishnu’s category of divinity – for Vishnu is the god of pure clarity (sattva-guna), and therefore he alone can grant emancipation to pure clarity. I discuss this in more detail in my reading of the Bhagavata, here: On God and Gods

also when we die do we go straight to our next life?

No. Time is extremely complex and difficult to grasp. It is not as iron clad as the human mind in this era of human history perceives it to be. Aeons and milliseconds can be equalized by the powers of the universe. So time is a bit irrelevant what considering some questions, such as this one.

Every individual is slightly different. The general process, as far as I understand it, is that some time is spend in disconnecting ones emotions and attachments to the body and identity and life which has just expired. Thereafter, Yamaraja – the ultimate judge of karma – takes sometime to review things. Thereafter one is sent to the next destination. But the next destination is not always a birth in a conventional sense. Sometimes it is a manifestation on higher or lower planes of existence (heavens and hells). So there is a flexible amount of time, could be short or long, between one tangible birth and the next. Also the next tangible birth is (quite often nowadays) in subhuman wombs. Depending on how low down the evolutionary chain the birth is, it can take quite some time before the soul ascends the evolutionary ladder again to have the Human opportunity. Therefore there is absolutely no set time between one human birth and the next.

and why are there so many lower life forms than humans,

The universe was created for souls who dreamed of enjoying Gods varieties. Most of that is done very nicely through the minds and senses of various creatures.

The human form of life is quite sophisticated. The special feature of being a human is having intellect, and therefore the ability to communicate and thus read knowledge that humanity has accumulated. So the true purpose of human life is to elevate oneself and improve one’s fundamental nature, not just to enjoy the varieties of manifestation in Gods creation – but to come into better harmony with that creation, not as an enjoyer of it but as a lover, a giver of love to God through it. So interest in this facility is comparatively quite scarce among all the souls here in this world. Even among those who take human birth, explicit interest in such topics is relatively scarce. Therefore there is little need for zillions of human beings to exist at a time, or for there to be zillions of humanlike species. That said, however, I have heard that the Veda specifies 400,000 subspecies of humanity. Though I have no idea how fine the differentiation has to be to get that many, nor do I think that all 400,000 of them co-exist at the same points in history.

is the human life something that is very hard to get back after this life is over?

Not if you have not wasted your human life. If you have made use of your human facilities, nature will quite happily supply you with another one immediately or quite soon – probably even an improved one. But yes, after wasting a human life by not utilizing its intellect to come into better harmony with creation and God… then it usually takes quite a while, but it depends on how severely one has no interest in the human faculties.