“OK People LOOK…” Vedic Tropical vs Sidereal Madness!

At the beginning of 2012 I finished my research into the actual definition of the zodiac in Sanskrit, Indian classical literature. I came undeniably to the conclusion that a lunar “zodiac” of 27 divisions exists in sidereal space. And that a solar zodiac of 12 divisions coexists in tropical space.

It was not hard to figure this out because the Puranas and Siddhantas I researched were completely clear about it, and there was no contradictory statement to be found anywhere. The hard part was gripping the fact so many centuries of Indian astrologers have mis-represented the solar twelvefold zodiac.

Respecting authority (sastra) over popularity / popular opinion I took the plunge and said, “OK, this is just the way it is and I have to accept that. The 27 nakshatras are sidereal but the 12 signs are tropical.”

Here’s my video, article, and Q & A all about it.

People reacted, and still are, with great confusion and, often, anger. The biggest reaction I get is,

“Who the hell are you to dare to be different?”

My apologies. But may I ask in return, “Who the hell are you to call yourself ‘Vedic’ yet make up your own definitions of things, in defiance of the Surya-Siddhanta and the Puranas, including Vishnu and Bhagavata Purana”?

Conversation usually stops there…

I admit I am not the greatest diplomat.

Among those who aren’t pissed off at me, the next largest group are just baffled and confused by the whole thing:

“You mean I’m a Capricorn now???”

Most of the baffled group are astrological “laypeople” trying to read their own recalculated charts and getting outstandingly confused.

Is this any different than it ever was before, though? The only reason “vedic” astrology fans “like” or “understand” their “vedic chart” is because they’ve wrestled with it for a year or more now to try figure out the sense in it. They take a look at a new version of their chart and are like, “Whoa, Nelly!!!! I just started making progress actually starting to understand the old version – why are you handing me something a bit different all of the sudden???”

Looking at the chart with cross eyes for maybe 5 seconds, to maybe 5 hours… they give up. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

Friends, don’t you realize that all the ladies and gentleman outside of the “vedic” astrological bubble are exactly in the opposite position that you are. They’ve had their tropical charts for 10 years, struggling to beat some sense out of it, and if you hand them a sidereal version of their birth chart they are going to do exactly the same thing you are doing: look at it in bepuzzlement for 5 seconds – 5 hours, and then sigh and say, “this just isn’t for me – there’s no way I’m a Capricorn.”

The layperson’s confusion and inability to correctly read their chart (be it tropical or sidereal) doesn’t say anything about which one is the correct zodiac.  It just shows that laypeople get confused hella easy.

“We Want Proof!!!”

Next up you have the actual practicing astrologers or more learned laypeople who are graciously willing to give me 5 seconds – 5 hours of attention before they too get confused. Their reaction is, “OK, if this is right, show us proof!”

OK guys, can we please be honest here for several minutes:

(a) Since when has astrology of any type been able to scientifically “prove” anything beyond a doubt? Why don’t you ask me to do something feasible. 

(b) Astrology is incredibly complex, and is about a boatload more than just the 12 signs – be they tropical or sidereal. Don’t you realize that you can explain things a million different ways from a single chart? Have you ever seen two astrologers interpret even the same chart in the same way?

If we start debating the sidereal chart vs. the tropical chart we are just going to tire each other out because (i) there is a boatload of stuff that is the same in both, (ii) there are dozens of factors involved, almost always counterbalancing one another out when we switch a chart from sidereal to tropical.

Yes, eventually I am going to publish something showing how it is simpler and clearer to make accurate proclamations and predictions with a tropical 12-fold zodiac. No, I can’t show it to you in 5 minutes, because (a) it takes a gainormous amount of work, especially because (b) the vast majority of you  are so dead-set against it, I am going to have to write it out very carefully.

But,really, something has to be said here, or said again: If you purport to be “Vedic” don’t you realize that means you have implicit faith that the Vedas were written by people with lots more experience, understanding and realization than you or I? If you don’t have that faith please stop capitalizing or fantasizing with the terminology “Vedic”, “Hindu”, “Indian”, etc.

If you do have that faith, don’t you realize that if I establish Vedic Literature (viz. Purana and Siddhanta) unequivocally stating that the 12 signs are tropical, while the 27 nakshatras are sidereal -that is the proof!?!?

By the way, I have done that and no one has offered any refutation except the innane, “you can’t possibly understand it correctly, who the hell are you?” If you are really “Vedic” you are not going to start asking me for “proof” when I have already given you Vedic proof. What you should be doing is trying to find if and where my understanding of the Vedic sastra is flawed. If you can find that, please show me – clearly. Believe me, being the ambassador for the “Tropical Vedic Revolution” is ridiculously tiring and time consuming, and I would welcome a good excuse to give it up.

And this is not really a call to ultra-pure orthodoxy. It’s a practical scientific statement: You and I are confused. Drop the facade, none of us look at a horoscope and see the future with crystal clarity. All of us are confused and try our very best. We shouldn’t expect that our confused opinions are more important than the authorized opinions of our foundations: the Vedic literature.

“Keep Me Out of This Debate! I don’t want to make enemies, and I don’t want to upset my clients”

After the haters and the confused, this is the next group of reactions: neutrality. It might actually be very wise in a practical sense, but it lacks spine. I’m kind of let down by the number of colleagues who just prefer to ignore the importance of this debate. But I can respect it, and at times, I wish I also didn’t elect myself to become some champion of an increadibly underdog cause.

Then, finally there are about 2% of you – the people who “get it.” I just want to say, THANK YOU!

- Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

How Long is Kali Yuga?

I am still in the process of researching this significant question and have not come to a conclusion, but here is some evidence that, at least for now, seems to bear very significant weight in my mind.

Srimad Bhagavatam 1.4.14 says that Vyasa began his work when the Second Age was on the verge of beginning.1.4.20 says that he began by creating the Rg and other three Vedas. 1.4.23 indicates that the further development of literature took place as a combined effort of sages under Vyasa’s leadership over a span of many generations. The remainder of the chapter and beginning of the next makes it clear that after seeing the compilation of so many expansive upanishads and puranas, Vyasa remained dissatisfied and later became inspired by Narada to create the Bhagavatam to remedy his dissatisfaction. So Bhagavatam is the last effort.

We hear elsewhere in the text itself that Bhagavatam was created just after Krishna’s departure from the Earth and the beginning of Kali Yuga.

Astronomically speaking we know with sufficient confidence that the Rg Veda created roughly 5,000 years ago – because it specifies that the “first star” was Krittika (Pleiades) and we can reconstruct the movement of the vernal equinox (the starting point of the celestial circle) to see that it was last in Krttika about 5,000 years ago.

This indicates that 5,000 years ago is when Vyasa began his efforts, not when he completed them by creating the Bhagavatam. So it seems to be a clear indication that 5,000 years ago was the beginning of the Second Age (Dvapara). And that Kali Yuga began several generations of sages after that.

This assessment does not support the long version of yugas as multiples of 1,000 years multiplied by 360. Rather it supports the short version of yugas simply as multiples of 1,000 years.

Please see this addendum correcting a mistaken concept in this post.

- Vic DiCara

http://www.vicdicara.com

Divine Love and Romance in Purva Phalguni

English: Murti of Sri Krishna in an ISKCON temple (can’t remember which however). The original printout was a bit degraded so I had to re-treat it to make it usable. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In modern times, with the rise of extremely dualistic concepts of religion, we tend to conceive of a huge gulf between mater and spirit, god and pleasure, etc. This divisive conception is not embraced by Vedic culture. Certainly dualism has some relevance, for not all things are identical. Selfishness and selflessness, for example, are polar opposites – and thus so are lust and love. However, the Indian concept of divinity neutralizes, harmonizes, and integrates all opposites.

Bhaga is the god of “material” things such as romance, sex and marriage. Bhaga (in the form Bhaga-van) is also the most common classical Sanskrit term for a blessed being. The Purāṇas even define Bhaga-van as a moniker of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Thus the division between material and spiritual transforms.

Bhagavan means, “The possessor of Bhaga.” Sanskrit culture conceives of the Supreme Spirit as Bhagavan: a blissful, attractive, talented and romantic entity.

Parāśara Muni defines the word Bhagavān in Viṣṇu Purāṇa (6.5.79): “To fully possess happiness (bhaga) one must have all majesty, power, fame, beauty, knowledge and detachment.”

Bhaga gives majesty – which means status, influence and wealth. He gives power – which means heroism, bravery and strength. Bhaga also gives fame – which means celebrity and good reputation. He also gives beauty – which attracts others to participate in ones pleasures.

Money, power, fame, beauty… these first four are obvious and well known ingredients of a person who can enjoy great pleasures. Knowledge is a lesser known requirement. We need expertise and skill to really enjoy the pleasures of life. Bhaga, the god of pleasures, also gives detachment – because attachment causes suffering. If we are only attached to enjoying pleasures, we will inevitably suffer. To be detached requires knowledge of what one really is – a spiritual being, not just a collection of senses to please. So in addition to giving money, power, fame, and beauty, Bhaga also gives knowledge and detachment. The complete package of six traits grants supreme pleasure.

The personality of Godhead, especially in the intimate form of Śrī Kṛṣṇa, is recognized by Parāśara and his son Vyāsa as the person most fit to be named Bhagavān.[1]

Pūrva Phālgunī has the special ability to grant pleasures and wealth in a manner that befits a spiritually progressive person. It also can incline one to more deeply appreciate the spiritual pleasures and opulence of Bhagavān Śrī Kṛṣṇa.

---

[1] Parāśara says so in Viṣṇu-Purāṇa. Vyāsa says so in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.3.28

 

- Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

Reply to “Vedic Astrology?”

My article, “Vedic Astrology?” established that the excellent astrological system of modern India is a hybrid of Indian, Greek and Persian astrological culture. I got one interesting reply:

Only one critique I can make is that by dating written literature you are not considering how knowledge was passed down from teacher to the student in verbal form before it got written and codified. Simply by dating the written literature we cannot say that the concepts in that literature are not ancient and Vedic.

This is a good concept, but I think it is blown out of proportion and context very often. We find that knowledge is written down fairly close to whenever it originates. The exception to this is in extremely ancient times when human beings had excellent memories and did not much require writing. The truth of the matter is that the Purana’s explicitly tell us that at the end of the second age and beginning of the third, Vyasadeva took the one Veda and began expanding it. The Purana (I am particularly referring the the Bhagavat Purana) say that over the course of thousands of years he and the people he entrusted developed four schools with libraries (standard texts of the four Veda and their ancillaries). Thus all these works have valid dates. Then Vyasa also developed a fifth school for the Purana and Itihasa. And at the end of all this development he produced the final purana, Bhagavata Purana as the culmination of everything in the Vedas and their ancillaries (especially the Upanishads and Vedanta), the Puranas, and Mahabharata.

Thus all Vedic literature is documented and all of it is placed on a historical timeline. Yes, the concepts within this literature are timeless, but the literature which expressed and expanded those timeless ideas all have a particular place on a historical timeline.

The only writing on this timeline that is historically “ancient” and has to do with astrology is an appendix to the Rg and Yajur Veda called “Jyotisha.” This booklet has a few dozen texts. There is nothing else documented as having been written about astrology, therefore anything written in India on the subject must have been written after the completion of Srimad Bhagavatam.

Astrology itself allows us to accurately date everything, and by astrology we can tell the date at which a book describing the heavens was written. The Surya-Siddhanta that we currently have was written in post-ancient times. All the other books on astrology were written still later.This we know by astrologically dating the stellar observations recorded in the books, and by cross-referencing the historical information given in the books themselves.

Thus we know beyond any reasonable doubt that the astrology of ancient India was extremely different than the astrology of modern India. The astrology currently practiced in India involving planets, signs and houses is not the “Vedic” astrology of ancient India. It is not the science developed by the ancient sages. Rather it is a mixture of that ancient science with similar sciences imported into India during classical times from yavanas (Greeks) and tajjikas (persians).

Vedic astrology was one thing and modern Indian astrology is something else, still distantly related but now dominated by the planets, signs and houses of Greeks and Persians.

In Bṛhatsaṃhitā (2.32) Varāhamihira himself says so: mlecchā hi yavanās teṣu samyak śāstram idaṃ sthitam: “The Yavanas are foreigners. They are the best authority on this [astrology].”

~~~

- Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com