If The Tropical Zodiac Were Right, Everyone Would Be Using It

Follow the Leader

In my new book, 27 Stars, 27 Gods, there is a small section at the beginning explaining that the fixed stars (“nakshatra”) and the zodiac signs (“rashi”) are two different entities without a permanent connection, because the zodiac signs are anchored to solstices and equinoxes, which perpetually drift through the fixed stars.

A prominent astrologer complain to me about this statement. I’ll paraphrase the conversation here.

How did you come up with this opinion? With whom did you study Jyotish?

I replied with the info available here, explaining who my Guru is, and why it is unimportant. The actual importance is in the idea itself. He replied:

This heterodox idea - that the Indian system should use the tropical zodiac – vitiates the traditional jyotish system. It is not accepted by any astrological lineage (“sampradaya”)

I replied: As far as I have seen, there is no such thing as a real “astrological sampradaya.” There are only independent teachers, many of whom may have learned from older independent teachers, a few of whom may have also learned from even older, yet still independent teachers. In any case, even if I am to accept that there is such a thing as a bona-fide “astrological sampradaya” – even bona fide sampradayas gradually become erroneous and distanced from their origin. Hence in Bhagavad Gita (4.7), Krishna acknowledges the need to periodically reform them.

My article clearly shows that fixed stars being distinct from zodiac signs is not “vitiating” the tradition, it IS the tradition, established by the authorized cannons of tradition Surya Siddhanta, Bhagavat-Purana, Vishnu-Purana, etc. If a “lineage of continuous teachings” is out of sync with explicit statements in the texts that they are founded upon, those lineages are in need of reform.

He replied:

The English translations of those texts are flawed. Perhaps your theory is based on a flawed translation.

I explained that I understand Sanskrit and read the texts in their original language.

He finally replied:

If this idea – that the Indian system should use the tropical zodiac – was true, then all the masters of astrology in India would be using it.

I replied that this is a flawed logic, because there is a difference between “tradition” and “custom.” In Indian philosophy they are differentiated as shastra-pramaana (“tradition”) vs loka-pramaana (“custom”).

Tradition is defined by the founders of a school and preserved in its sacred/core textbooks, shastra. In astrology these include Surya-Siddhanta, Vedanga-Jyotisha, and pertinent sections of other Vedic literature like the Puranas, etc. Custom, on the other hand, is merely what happens in the course of time among the masses, loka.

Because the custom has an inherent predilection and momentum to diverge gradually from its original tradition – the guardians of tradition carefully maintain their sacred/core books (shastra) and encourage the intelligent among the masses to refer to them scrupulously. This maintains custom in sync with tradition for as long as possible. When it is no longer possible, a major reform is required – to bring custom back into harmony with tradition.

That is exactly what seems to be happening currently in the Indian astrological world. Custom has diverged from the definitions of its sacred texts, and has adopted a fusion of signs and fixed stars (a “sidereal zodiac”). I am a supporter of the reform movement, clarifying the difference between the fixed stars (nakshatra) and the zodiac signs (rashi).

I require your assistance and support. Please read the articles linked to from this post, do your best to comprehend it, and once you do – please also support this cause and spread this message.

Thank you,

Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

Astounding Evidence that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Used the Tropical Zodiac

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati

In Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava, a biography of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati written by Bhakti Vikasa Swami, there is a chapter dedicated to short biographies of prominent disciples. The section on Sridhar Swami is delightfully long and has one astrologically relevant episode:

The acarya, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati – in his youth a renowned and influential astrologer in Bengal, chanced upon Sridhar Swami’s horoscope lying in an open notebook. He picked it up, examined it, and gave an interpretation. Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava reports the relevant data involved in that interpretation as:

“Rahu in the house of fortune.”

Sridhara Swami

Let’s try to look at the same horoscope!

Sridhar Swami’s horoscope fortunately comes bundled with some commercial astrological software. Mine has his birth data as October 12th, 1895, at 23:38 in Navadvip, India. That birth time “23:38″ seems shockingly “accurate” – it certainly seems like an astrologer has “rectified” it. So I searched for some confirmation of the birth time. A kind soul directed me to Sridhar Swami’s own description of his birth data – from an autobiographical interview done with him.

“I was born at midnight, Saturday 10th October, 1895. Navami tithi [lunar day] under the same sign as Lord Ramchandra. Krsna-paksa [dark moon fortnight]. Sriman Mahaprabhu was also born on a Saturday.”

Well, the first problem is that there was no ”Saturday, October 10th” in 1895. It was a Thursday. Saturday was the 12th, like my software has it. Also, the Navami tithi was on the 12th, not the 10th. So we can assume it was a slip-up in the transcription. We have to assume that Sridhar Swami means Saturday, 12th October, 1895, Navami of Krsna Paksa.

He says he was born at midnight of that day. The chart that comes with my software says about 20 minutes before midnight. Pretty close. Lets work with that range.

Here is the horoscope of B.R. Sridhar Swami:

Seems right… Cancer rises, the same rising and lunar sign of Lord Ramchandra, as Maharaja said. And there is Rahu in the 9th house, the house of fortune. Just like Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava reports Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati observing it.

But here is the really shocking thing, shhhhh….. this is a TROPICAL chart!!!

Well that’s really absurd right?! Everyone knows Bhaktisiddhanta must have used a Sidereal Zodiac… right?

Well, here’s Sridhara Swami’s chart in the Sidereal Zodiac:

It still has Ramchandra’s sign, in fact its a more exact match… but look at Rahu… it’s nowhere near the house of fortune, its more than 10 degrees away from it, in the 8th house, not the 9th.

What do we conclude? Either we have to dismiss the account in Bhaktisiddhanta Vaibhava or else… or else it seems to me that we have to conclude Bhaktisiddhanta read the tropical chart, not the sidereal one. That also means that Sridhar Maharaja had a tropical chart in his notebook, not a sidereal one. Unless Bhaktisiddhanta corrected it to tropical coordinates in his head before interpreting it, which is not at all unlikely for the genius. In fact it does objectively seem likely (because of the tithis and the literal statement that, “my sign is the same as Lord Ramchandra”) that Sridhar Swami thought of his chart as sidereal, but Bhaktisiddhanta interpreted it from a tropical perspective.

This is earth-shattering evidence that Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati used the tropical zodiac.

The system I personally recommend  is that all sign (rashi) related data is computed by tropical coordinates, and all star (nakshatra) related data is computed by sidereal coordinates.

Something Else…

Bhaktivedanta Swami

As a parting note, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati’s most famous disciple, Bhaktivedanta Swami described his own birth data like this [In a letter from Vrindavana on 6 December 1975 to Jaya Krishna Thakura]:

I was born September 1, 1896, Tuesday at about 4:00 in the afternoon. My rasi is Mithuna.

Mithuna, by the way, is the Indian way of saying “Gemini.” Saying, “My rasi is Mithuna” means, “My Moon sign is Gemini.”

Here is the chart of that time (Calcutta):

Sure, Moon in Gemini – just like he said. But guess what… shhhhh… it’s tropical!

If you calculate a sidereal chart for the birth data Bhaktivedanta Swami gives, you wouldn’t get the Moon into Gemini until close to 8pm that day! So guess what… this is also evidence that not only Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati and Sridhar Swami, but also Bhaktivedanta Swami all made use of the tropical zodiac.

Let’s see what kind of pandora’s box this one opens up!

- Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

Response to a paper seeking to establish a Sidereal Indian Zodiac

I published my article explaining that the original Indian zodiac is tropical (not sidereal as is currently in use).

Today a rebuttal was published.

Here is my reply to that rebuttal.

Tale of Two Zodiacs Reply

Dear Antardwipa Dasa and Shyamasundara Dasa,

Respectful thanks a well written and knowledgeable article. I will reply to a few points.

You expressed uncertainty about my phrase “center of space.” I use that phrase to refer to the point at which the ecliptic intersects the equator, providing a “center” for observational space.

The fact that there are not 12 equal-sized constellations among the stars is only one of several observations depreciating the concept that the 12 signs are intrinsically stellar. But even so, you proceeded on with your article without offering any specific counterpoint to this particular observation.

I agree that the rashi system (12 sections of 30 degrees) can be, and often is, abstracted to a mathematical principle of circular geometry, including the measure of sidereal phenomenon. However, the actual rashi themselves are intrinsically tropical (i.e. defined with reference to solstice and equinox) as per Surya Siddhānta 14.7-10 and the Puranas viz. Bhāgavatam 5.21.2-6.

Thus SS 1.28 states that such a system of seconds, degrees, signs, etc. can be used to measure sidereal space. But SS 14.7-10 makes it explicitly clear that the 12 signs themselves (not as mathematical abstractions, but the signs themselves) are tropical. SS 1.28 does not say that the signs are sidereal, merely it states that 12 divisions of 30 degrees is used to measure sidereal space. Thus I agree that both tropical and sidereal space can be measured in 12 30 degree sections. However, the origin of the 30 degree system is tropical – and thus the 12 30 degree signs are inherently tropical, although they have sidereal mathematical application.

I agree with and appreciate your statement that certain calculations (declination, rising signs, etc) are impossible to make without a tropical zodiac.

You make an interesting statement that planetary longitude is not included among the tropical calculations indicated in Surya Siddhānta. My reply:  (a) As you noted, the Siddhānta uses the word “etcetera” (adhikam) in its list of this to be tropically figured. (b) Planetary positions amongst the sidereal nakṣatra is very important, in fact far more important to the original indigenous Vedic astrology, than planetary positions among the 12 signs.

I agree that calculations of planetary revolutions per Surya Siddhānta are done with reference to Revatī, and that these reference points are observably fixed and stable. As you noted, this data is calculated first (in chapter 2), and then the lagna is calculated tropically (in chapter 3). If one wants planetary positions in reference to the nakṣatra, there is no further work to be done. If one wants the sidereal location of the lagna, the ayana must be subtracted from it. If one wants planetary positions in reference to the rashi (not as mathematical sections, but as actual rāśi themselves, divisions of space relative to the equinox), one must add the ayana to the previous calculations.

You quoted Bhāgavatam 5.22.2, but I feel you have misrepresented. It does define the planets moving differently than the signs and nakshatras. However, it does not state that the signs and nakshatras do not move with respect to one another.  This is an implication which you infer, it is not in the text itself.

It is misleading in the extreme to say that 5.22.2 gives a sidereal “definition” of the zodiac signs. A definition has already been given in 5.21.2-6 (and that definition is tropical). Definitions are explicit. They are not analogies. Furthermore, your inference from the analogy certainly does not qualify as a “definition.”

5.22.5 explains that a solar month is equivalent [not identical] to 2.25 nakshatras. Sripad Vijayadhvaj Tirtha is from the 15^th century and explained this according to the prevalent custom of his time.

Varaha Mihira also spoke accurately of the correlation of stars and signs extant at his time. As he pointed out, the size of a navāmśa and the size of a nakṣatra pada are identical, and therefore the size of a rashi equals 9 nakṣatra pada.

I agree that Varaha Mihira was aware of the distinction between the tropical and sidereal chakra. I believe the confusion amongst Indian astrologers gradually arose over the several following centuries.

Your article was well written and researched. Thank you for the excellent effort. In it you have clearly demonstrated that 30 degree units called rashis can also be used to make sidereal measurements. However you failed to counter-argue the fact that rashis by definition are inherently tropical, as presented in my argument (http://vicdicara.com/12-signs-of-the-zodiac-1.php).

If this discussion of the zodiac helps us remember Krishna it is useful. Since you are both, Syamasundar and Antardwipa, dear servant of the servant of Krishna, my hope is that the dust of your feet will always be falling towards my lowered head. Please forgive the academic nature of discussion in which this person speaks up with an equal voice in a spirit of healthy debate.

Hare Krishna.

Your servant,

Vraja Kishor das

Astrological Gurus: A Myth

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the idea that there are astrological “gurus” with bona-fide astrological “parampara” is just a dream, a fantasy. There are people out there who think they have a “guru” – and in a sense they do. But this guru is not divinely ordained by a spiritual parampara. Such a thing simply does not exist in the astrological world.

Varahamihira was a great astronomer and astrologer, but please do not insist that I treat him as a self-realized divine being, whose every word I must literally accept as absolute truth for all time in all places. That is an absurd misappropriation of the concept of Guru Parampara. I greatly revere Varahamihira, Mantreshwara and other greats as great astronomers and astrologers.

Secondly even if I were to accept these ancients as empowered divine messengers – where is the unbroken chain of similarly realized souls representing them today? No friends, this does not exist. The whole thing is fantastic and mythological. There are no “gurus” and “paramparas” of any importance in the astrological world except in the practical sense where any teacher and school is a guru and parampara.

So when people say that I must “follow gurus” and accept that the correct zodiac is sidereal, I have to say, no. They are not following gurus, they are following tradition. If they can’t tell the difference that is sad. A guru is a person who deeply realizes and understands a subject. A tradition is just established by popular repetition.

So let us not run for smoke and mirrors: “You have not asked the question correctly , that’s why we refuse to explain why we are not wrong.” Or “You do not have a guru, that’s why you cannot understand why we are never wrong.”

Let us be practical and honest. All the Purana’s, including Bhagavat, define the 12 signs tropically (ie. anchored to tropical events – the solstices and equinoxes). The Surya Siddhanta also does. None of them do so with any vagueness, all are very direct, straightforward and unequivocal. There is not a sidereal definition of zodiac signs to be found. Therefore where is the “guru” who has the bile to say that it is “Vedic” to use a sidereal zodiac.