Reconciliation of the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs. Part IV.

Authoritative Statements?

So far (see previous parts) I feel confident that about 2,000 years ago we mistakenly projected one zodiac system upon another. And logic has me fairly well convinced that the original system was tropical, and sidereal was the mistaken projection. The logic is that the qualities of the twelve divisions are all rationally derived from tropical phenomena, not sidereal phenomena. What I am really interested in now is what the historical authorities of astrology have to say about this. Do they describe the twelvefold zodiac as tropical or sidereal?

As I mentioned at the outset, my astrology background is Indian (or “Vedic” as they say). So I am mainly concerned with Indian historical authority.

Most historical textbooks on Indian Astrology are entirely concerned with how to interpret the planets, not how to calculate their locations. India traditionally divides astrology into three branches: calculators, interpreters, and omen readers. The experts in one branch are not experts in another, since each branch is so vast. Thus, I will focus my attention of historically authoritative books on Indian astrological calculation.

Sūrya Siddhānta & The Veda

The most authoritative Indian text on astrological / astronomical calculations is without a doubt the Sūrya Siddhānta, a title which declares the book to be “Perfect Conclusions of the Sun.” The 13^th text says that the twelve signs of the zodiac are determined by the months of the year, distinct from sidereal, cival, and lunar clacluations given in the immediately previous words and verses. Thus Sūrya Siddhānta describes the twelvefold zodiac tropically.

The 27^th text says that all calculations of planetary positions should be made in reference to the sidereal nakṣatra, not the twelvefold tropical zodiac. These positions are later converted to tropical coordinates. I will elaborate on that later, but first there is something quite fascinating in this 27^th text.

It states that planets complete their journey through the stars when they come to the end of the constellation Revatī. Sidereal astrologers align the end of Revatī with the end of Pisces. Thus Sūrya Siddhanta says that the planets “begin” their movement at the beginning of the nakṣatra after Revatī: Aśviṇī, a constellation Siderealists say defines the beginning of Aries.

What is really exceedingly fascinating, though, is that the oldest existing Indian texts mentioning constellations extensively (The Yajur Veda (Black) and the Atharva Veda) list Kṛttikā as the starting point, not Aśviṇi! This all makes sense, too! Because due to the precession of the equinox, the start of the tropical zodiac – the vernal equinox – was in Kṛttikā (spaning sidereal Aries and Taurus) when those older Veda were written. And by the time the current version of Sūrya Siddhānta was penned, the precession had moved the equinox to Aśviṇī. So, what we are seeing is that Indian sages of old did consider the equinox to be the true start of the zodiac, and they update their statements regarding which is the “first” sidereal constellation (nakṣatra) depending on where the equinox has precessed to at the time of writing.  

Sūrya Siddhānta itself tells us (in text 9) that it is periodically re-written and updated to keep in sync with various astronomical modulations, precessions, and irregularities. So it is quite loyal to accept that the astronomical texts of India are periodically updated through the centuries.

The difference between the older Vedas and the newer Sūrya Siddhānta regarding which sidereal nakṣatra is considered to align with the start of the zodiac shows that Indian sages accounted for the precession of equinoxes, and that they considered the equinox to be the true start of the zodiac and kept their writing on the cross-reference of tropical and sidereal points up to date.

The 28^th text tells how to divide the zodiac circle into arc-measurements of seconds (vikalā), minutes (kalā), degrees (bhāga), and sign (rāśi). This confirms that the ancient Indian sages did not use actual constellations to measure the zodiac, but rather used mathematic divisions based on the 12:1 ratio of the Moon’s motion relative to the Sun.

Sūrya Sidhhānta then explicitly defines the 28 sidereal constellations: nakṣatra – lunar mansions which any novice of “Vedic astrology” must of course be familiar with. The book then defines the difference between sidereal and tropical locations: ayanāmśa – a term that literally means “distance to the equinox.” The modern technique is to calculate a tropical position and apply ayanāmśa to determine the sidereal equivalent. The Sūrya Siddhānta’s method is opposite. It first calculates planetary positions in reference to sidereal stars (nakṣatra) and then applies ayanāmśa to locate the equinox and the tropical position.

Why bother to locate the tropical position if the zodiac is supposed to be read from a sidereal perspective!? Indeed, Sūrya Siddhānta instructs us to convert sidereal calculations to tropical positions so that we can then figure out the ascendant.

If you know how modern Indian zodiac calculations (and I presume all modern sidereal astrology?) are done, you are now a bit shocked, because it is exactly backwards. Sūrya Siddhānta says to convert sidereal positions to tropical and then figure out the ascendant. Modern astrologers, however, figure out the tropical ascendant and planets first, and then convert them to sidereal positions. Sūrya Siddhānta, however, does not ratify this practice. The Siddhānta never instructs us to convert tropical positions to sidereal ones.

The Ascendant is Inherently Tropical

This brings up an interesting logical point. What is an ascendant? It is the location of the Earth’s eastern horizon. This has nothing to do with a star and everything to do with the Earth and the Sun’s relation to it (Sunrise). Therefore you can not calculate the ascendant without a tropical zodiac. It is literally impossible. That is why Siderealists must start with tropical calculations and convert them.

But isn’t that really excruciatingly intriguing: the ascendant is by nature tropical!? The ascendant is the very foundation of a natal horoscope. If that very foundation is intrinsically a purely tropical entity – what does that tell you about which zodiac should be used for natal astrology?

Returning to the authority of Sūrya Siddhānta I will conclude with a reiteration. The book instructs us to convert sidereal positions to tropical, not visa vera. Once everything is converted to tropical the ascendant can be determined and a horoscope cast. Thus it seems quite convincing that the Sūrya Siddhānta conceives of the twelvefold zodiac in a tropical manner. And although it is a book about calculations, not interpretations, it indirectly indicates that tropical coordinates are to be used for interpretations due to the fact that it never instructs us to convert anything from tropical to sidereal.

Vedānga Jyotiṣa

The Yajur Veda has an appendix called “Jyotish” (the namesake of astrology in India) – but this treatise does not touch at all upon natal astrology or planetary calculations. It concerns itself with correct calendars for religious and cultural events (a sub-branch of calculative astrology). This “Vedānga Jyotiṣa” does however describe that the twelvefold division of the Sun’s paths corresponds directly to the months and seasons determined by the equinoxes and solstices.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam

The Bhāgavata is extremely revered and famous, primarily for its poetic beauty, philosophical completeness, and theological harmony. It is thought of as the full expansion of the Gāyatrī Mantra, a commentary on the philosophical conclusions of Vedānta Sūtra, and the final Pūraṇa representing the full maturity of Indian thought. Right in the middle of the Bhāgavatam, in the 5^th division, there is an elaborate astronomical description of the universe.

5.21.2-6 reveal that the Bhāgavatam considers the twelvefold zodiac to be a tropical entity, not a sidereal one: “Outer space is measured by relation of heaven and earth,” it says. “The Sun is the king of all the planets, in the center of everything, keeping everything together. It moves to the north, crosses the equator, and moves to the south. When it goes north of the equator days get longer. When it crosses the equator days and nights are equal. When it goes south of the equator days become shorter. On this basis the Sun moves through the twelve divisions called Capricorn and so forth.”

Here it is clearly declared that the equinoxes and solstices are the basis for the twelvefold zodiac divisions such as Capricorn and all the rest. In other words the Bhāgavatam declares the zodiac to be tropical. It makes this explicit: “The Sun is at Aries and Libra when the days and nights are equal. Passing through Taurus, etc. the days become longer and then decrease until again equal with the night. Passing through Scorpio, etc. the night becomes longer and then decrease to again become equal with the days.”

It cannot be denied that the Bhāgavatam considers the zodiac to be tropical.

Conclusion

Both by logical rational and reference to authority it is apparent that the correct twelvefold zodiac is tropical. There is another division of the zodiac which has 27 or 28 sidereal constellations (nakṣatra). It coexists with the twelvefold tropical zodiac, yet is independent from it due to precession of the equinox.

~~~

END OF PART IV.

Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

~~~

Reconciliation of the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs. Part III.

Which is the Correct Twelvefold Division of the Zodiac?

The evidence so far convinces me that about 2,000 years ago we made the mistake of projecting one zodiac system onto another. The question remains: which zodiac was original and which was the erroneous projection?

Now I will set out to answer this question.

Some feel that the stellar division of the zodiac is primary. They feel that ancient peoples looked up at the stars in the sky, drew pictures up there by stringing together the patterns, and assigned mythology and meaning to the divisions created by those connections. They say that this mythologically informed “connect-the-dots” is the origin of astrology and of all the meaning of the twelve zodiac signs.

I have come to the conclusion that this is totally wrong. Why?

1. Because the dots of those twelve constellations honestly look nothing at all like what they are supposed to be.
2. Because if the dots of light themselves were meaningful, then the dots themselves would define the borders of the areas of meaning and we would have thirteen (or some other number of) divisions of unequal signs.
3. Most importantly: Because the qualities and nature of the twelve signs is logically and rationally based on the Sun’s relationship to the Earth.

Point 1: The Stars Don’t Even Look Like Their Symbols

If the patterns of stars are themselves the cause of meaning in the twelve signs, then the meanings could be anything. I mean, just go ahead and look at Aries. That is supposed to be a Ram? It’s just a straight line! Cancer is a crab??? It could just as easily be a TV with rabbit ears, it’s just 6 dots! Virgo is a fair maiden? Are you sure it’s not just a complete jumble?

To say that the images in the stars came first and the meanings came later is irrational, because there are no compelling images up there (only dots).

What is logical and reasonable to me is that the zodiac divisions and their rich meanings are created by the clockwork interplay between the motions of Sun, Moon and the Earth. Symbols like rams and crabs and scorpions come later, as a mnemonic aid encapsulating the rich meaning inherent in the zodiac divisions. Pictures of those symbols traced onto lights in the sky come third – an event which probably happened around 2,000 years ago.

On its own, this does not establish that the mathematical and logical nature of the twelvefold zodiac is calculated in reference to a tropical point, but it does significantly weaken one of the arguments in the other direction, that the stellar constellations and therefore the sidereal signs, came first

Point 2: If the Stars Came First, We Should Have Unequal Zodiac Signs

If the stars came first, then the stars should define the borders of the zodiac. They don’t. Even sidereal zodiacs use mathematical divisions, not stellar ones. Again, this does not conclude that the mathematics was originally referenced to a tropical starting point. But it does discredit the opposite opinion.

Point 3: The Twelve Signs Get Their Meanings Based on the Sun’s Relationship to the Earth.

Each zodiac sign derives its meaning from four constituents: the planet who creates and tends it, the elemental material it is created from, the attitude (“mode”) it expresses itself with, and its natural order in the zodiac. How was it declared that a certain sign has a certain ruler, element or mode? By logic and math based on the Sun and its relationship to the Earth, not based on any individual star or stars in the sky.

I will now explain the logic.

Sun-based Planetary Rulers

First, each sign has a planet that “rules” it. This planet is the active principle which transforms the inactive latent energy of the primordial sign into something organized and meaningful – in just the same way as people go into wilderness and transform its resources into civilization.

What logic determines which planet rules which sign? It is all based on the relationship of the planets to the Sun.

The Sun and the Moon are the kings of the sky – they own the whole thing: i.e. their polyrhythmic interplay of 12:1 is what defines the zodiac as having twelve equal divisions in the first place. These two kings retain ownership of their favorite locations, what we now call Cancer and Leo, and lease the remaining ten divisions to the remaining five planets.

Mercury is the closest to the Sun, and so gets the two divisions closest to the Sun and Moon: Gemini, which directly borders Cancer, and Virgo, which directly borders Leo. Venus is the next closest to the Sun, so gets the next closest zodiac divisions: Taurus (bordering Gemini) and Libra (bordering Virgo). The Earth is not an astrological planet, it is the foundation and stage of astrology, so the next closest planet to the Sun is Mars. Mars thus gets the next closest divisions: Aires (bordering Taurus) and Scorpio (bordering Libra). Then Jupiter gets the next: Pisces (bordering Aries) and Sagittarius (bordering Scorpio). Finally Saturn, the furthest planet, gets the signs furthest from the Sun’s: Aquarius (bordering Pisces) and Capricorn (bordering Sagittarius).

The main source of meaning in the signs – the planetary ruler – is thus a Sun-based logic. This suggests that the Sun based starting point for the zodiac is the original twelvefold zodiac. The sun-based starting point is the vernal-equinox, which defines the tropical zodiac.

Sun/Earth-Based Elementals

If the ruling planet is the “person” who creates a culture and civilization out of wild raw materials, the elemental nature of the sign is the raw material itself. What logic decides which sign is made of what element? Logic based on the relation of the Sun to the Earth.

To understand this logic we must first consider the ancient meanings of the Earth’s four cardinal directions. The East is the source of the sunrise and light. Thus it is the direction of dharma – morality which shows the correct path and punishes those who willfully stray. It is therefore the direction of fire, which both illuminates and punishes. The West is the direction of kāma – enjoyment, pleasure and sensation. It is therefore the direction of the carefree, fickle and ever-changing wind or “air.” The South is the direction of artha – accumulation of prosperity and status. It is therefore the direction of the productive, practical and stabilizing earth element. The North is the direction of mokṣa – self-realization. It is therefore the direction of the reflective, inward, deep and contemplative water element.

In ancient zodiac-based astrology there was an intimate correlation between signs and houses. Signs fused with regions of the sky, “houses,” to connect their meanings to a specific time and place on the earth. This is why we have twelve houses, and not some other number. The first division of the zodiac therefore bears an inherent similarity to the first division of the sky, the “first house,”  – and so on. The first house is the eastern zone of the sky. The west is centered in the seventh house. In the northern hemisphere (the home of most human beings) to look upwards at the Sun in the tenth house one must face south. Thus the tenth house represents the south and the fourth house is the opposite, the north. Correlate this to the twelve divisions of the zodiac and we find that Aries is the east, Libra the west, Capricorn the south and Cancer the north (thus the “tropic of Cancer” is north of the equator, and the “tropic of Capricorn” is south of it).

Now we have the background knowledge to understand the logic of the zodiac elements. Aries is the east, which is fire. Libra is the west, which is air. Capricorn is the south, which is earth. Cancer is the north, water.

What about the rest of the signs? Start from the east and proceed in the same manner as the Sun would through the earth’s sky. Stand in the northern hemisphere and watch the Sun through the course of a day. At sunrise you must face east; at noon you must face south; at sunset, west; and, if you could see the Sun below the earth at midnight you would be turned northward. Thus the Sun’s motion around the Earth has the pattern: east, south, west, north.

The first division of the zodiac, Aries, is the east and is therefore a fire sign. The next division, Taurus, represents the Sun’s next direction, south. Thus Taurus is an earth sign – the element of the southern direction. The third division, Gemini, represents the Sun’s third direction, west. Gemini is therefore an airsign – the western element. Fourth we come to Cancer, representing the Sun’s fourth direction, north, and its element: water.

Continue this pattern through the rest of the twelve zodiac divisions. Leo begins the pattern again, representing the east and therefore being a fire sign. Virgo is south, earth. Libra is west, air. Scorpio is north, water. Sagittarius restarts the pattern, being the firey east. Capricorn is south, earth. Aquarius is west, air. Pisces is north, water.

This logically explains how the twelvefold zodiac divisions derive their elemental meaning relative to the Sun’s interaction with the earth. This is another strong point in favoring the conclusion that a twelvefold zodiac anchored to a point defined by the Sun’s relationship to the Earth (the tropical zodiac anchored to the vernal equinox, for example) is the original zodiac, the origin of all the meaning therein.

Sun / Earth Based Modes

There are three modes: Cardinal, Fixed, and Dual. The cardinal mode commits itself to new direction. The fixed mode commits itself to staying on course. The dual mode is non-committal because it needs to prepare for transition from the current direction to a new one.

What determines which signs are endowed with which modes? Logic, based upon the Sun’s relation to the Earth.

There are four major milestones in the progress of the Sun’s relationship to the Earth.

1. It crosses the equator heading north –   the vernal equinox.
2. It hits its most northerly point -                 the summer solstice.
3. It crosses the equator heading south –   the autumnal equinox.
4. It hits its most southerly point –                                 the winter solstice.

At each milestone the Sun begins a new course, a new direction. It becomes “cardinal.” The vernal equinox is the most “easterly” position of the Sun. Once past that point, the Sun commits to a new course northward. The vernal equinox defines the first tropical zodiac division, Aries. Aries is therefore logically a cardinal sign.

Next the Sun must remain committed to and fixed upon its northerly course. Thus the next zodiac division, Taurus, is a fixed sign. Then, it approaches the next milestone and must prepare to complete one course and change to another. Thus the following zodiac division, Gemini, is dual.

This pattern continues. The summer solstice defines the beginning of tropical Cancer. At this milestone the Sun commits to a new direction, westward. Cancer is therefore cardinal – the mode of commitment to new directions. The next division, Leo, is a fixed sign because in it the Sun must remain fixed on the established western course. Then comes Virgo, a dual sign because now the Sun must both complete the western course and make preparations to begin a southern journey.

The pattern continues. The autumnal equinox defines the beginning of tropical Libra. It is a cardinal sign because here the Sun must commit to its new southern direction. Next the Sun is in Scorpio, where is stays fixed on the southern course. In Sagittarius dual energy is required, for the Sun must prepare to transition to a new direction.

The fourth and final repetition of the pattern: The winter solstice defines Capricorn as a cardinal sign wherein the Sun commits to a new eastward direction. It maintains this course while it is in Aquarius, which is therefore fixed. When it arrives in Pisces it needs to begin bridging into a new direction, so Pisces is dual.

The three attitudes of the Sun in its apparent journey around the Earth are the three modes. Much of the meaning in any sign comes from its mode. The sign acquires a mode as a result of the Sun’s relationship to the Earth while in that division of the zodiac. Thus the zodiac which explains the meanings of the twelve signs is the tropical zodiac – based on the relationship of the Sun to the Earth. This again makes it seem that the tropical zodiac is the original and correct one.

Natural Houses

If we consider a fourth source of the meaning in the signs it would be their nature house. Houses are phenomena derived from how the Sun travels through the sky over the course of one day. Thus meaning imparted to the twelve signs by reference to their natural house order is also a Sun/Earth based consideration. It therefore is another factor in favor of the Sun/Earth zodiac, the tropical zodiac, as the original one.

Conclusion so Far

Initially I believed that the twelve signs were originally sidereal. But I have quickly eliminated my logic in that regard because that the constellations themselves are not identical to the sidereal zodiac; and there is no logic in believing that vaguely connected dots of light in the sky are the original source of the rich meaning in the twelve divisions of the zodiac. On the contrary the Sun’s interplay with the Earth is a precise and logical origin for all the meaning in the signs.

Therefore it is becoming fairly doubtless to me that the original twelvefold zodiac pertains to the relationship of the Sun and Earth. That is to say, the original twelvefold zodiac is tropical; and the constellations bearing the same names were stellar projections of this original zodiac. The people who made and adopted this projection about 2,000 years ago seem to have been unaware of the 20 minute difference between the length of tropical and stellar years, a difference which causes “precession of the equinox” and puts the stellar projections wildly in and out of sync with the original divisions as centuries pass.

Next I will want to examine the history of my own Indian school of astrology to search for authoritative historical statements regarding how to calculate the twelvefold zodiac.

~~~

END OF PART III. CONTINUE TO PART IV.

Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

~~~

Reconciliation of the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs. Part II

This is a continuation from Part I.

What is the Sidereal Zodiac?

Since it is not truly an exact representation of the stars themselves, what really is the sidereal zodiac? It is almost the same as the tropical zodiac. Both of them are defined in the same manner:

The zodiac is the relatively narrow band of space through which the Sun and the rest of the planets roam. One complete lap of the Sun through the whole thing is the essential definition of a “year.” During each year, the Moon makes twelve complete laps through the zodiac, each being the essential definition of a “month.” This 12:1 relationship between the motion of the Sun and Moon is the exact reason why we have twelve signs in the zodiac, and is why each sign is the same length.

The zodiac, sidereal too, has twelve equal divisions in spite of there being thirteen unequally sized zodiac constellations, because each division represents the amount of space traversed by the Sun in the amount of time it takes the Moon to make a complete revolution. In the same way, a clock face has twelve numbers on it, marking the distance traveled by the hour hand during each complete revolution of the minute hand. The beautiful clockwork of Mother Nature creates the twelve signs of the zodiac, not some fanciful connect-the-dots game played in the sky.

In both systems, tropical and sidereal, the twelve divisions of the zodiac are mathematical measurements, not the stars themselves. Our language reflects this fact. We call them “signs,” and not “constellations.” OK, sure, English is a sloppy language, but even in Sanskrit – which is anything but a sloppy language – we call them rāśi, and not nakṣatra. The word nakṣatra directly refers to heavenly bodies: stars and planets. The word rāśi on the other hand is an abstract word that has nothing specifically to do with stars, and instead is a mathematical term referring to degrees collected in an angle of arc. Other things in astrology (planets and stars) are called nakṣatra but not the twelve divisions of the zodiac! Instead they are called rāśi. Is this not a very significant tip-off that the original Indian conception of the twelve signs was not stellar or sidereal, but tropical?

What we do know so far is that the sidereal zodiac is not exactly the stars themselves. Therefore we know that the difference between sidereal and tropical zodiacs is not what is commonly held: that one is stellar and the other is not. What then is the difference?

What is the difference between the Sidereal and Tropical Zodiacs?

The only real difference between sidereal and tropical zodiacs is where they choose to start from. Both of them are equal divisions of space based on the twelve months of the year (a.k.a. the twelve lunar cycles in a solar cycle). The only difference is what point in space they pick to start their measurements from.

The tropical zodiac starts wherever the Sun is when it crosses the equator heading northward (the “vernal equinox”).

The sidereal zodiac starts… well… somewhere else. Theoretically it is supposed to start at the beginning of the Aries constellation. But, where is that? Remember, the sidereal zodiac is not exactly the stars themselves. It is twelve equal divisions of space which roughly correspond to twelve constellations we decided to paint in the sky. “Roughly corresponding” is the key here, which makes it difficult and confusing to say where exactly the sidereal zodiac is supposed to start.

There are many opinions, and thus there are about a dozen different popular zodiacs all in the category of sidereal. Each is distinct by specifying a different exact starting point roughly 40° west of the star named Aldebaran in modern terms.

In contrast, there is only one tropical zodiac. But the length of a seasonal year is 20 minutes different than the length of a stellar year. So what happens is that, over centuries, the point the Sun occupies in space at the vernal equinox drifts in relations to the stars of the galaxy. About 2,000 years ago it was aligned with what we now consider the beginning of the constellation we call Aries.

I believe this must be an enormous clue regarding how we came to be confused regarding how to define the zodiac. Siderealists examine this clue one way, tropicalists another. Both agree that when the sidereal and tropical zodiacs were identical 2,000 years ago, it was the beginning of an extremely low point in human sciences and knowledge, and thus a time ripe for producing confusion. They differ in what they define as the confusion.

Siderealists argue that humanity wrongly took the names and qualities of the twelve constellations and ascribed them to the twelve mathematical divisions of the year. Tropicalists, on the other hand, argue that we wrongly took the names and characteristics of the twelve mathematical divisions of the zodiac and ascribed them to stellar constellations.

Which version is correct? Which is the system of twelvefold zodiac that existed before the confusion began roughly 2,000 years ago?

~~~

End of Part II. Continue to PART III

Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

~~~

Reconciliation of the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs. Part I.

The universe is, quite obviously, our mother – “mother nature.” The stars and planets of the heavens are her body. The movements of those planets and stars is the “body language” or “sign language” that our mother uses to help us navigate an understand the destinies we have created for ourselves over countless lifetimes on a great journey towards self-realization.

Like any language, it is quite important to grasp the fundamental grammar. Astrological grammar has three primary divisions:

1)      the planets

2)      the space through which they roam – the “zodiac”

3)      the way this space relates to a given time and place on earth – the “houses”

In this paper (being presented first as a series of posts on my blog) I will address our understanding of the second part of astrological grammar: the zodiac. This topic is in dire need of address because the international community of serious astrologers has not yet agreed upon how to even define it!

Stated basically, there are two opposing ways to define the zodiac: in reference to the stars, or in reference to the Sun’s relationship to the earth. The former is termed a “sidereal zodiac” and the later a “tropical zodiac.” One camp of astrologers believes that the tropical zodiac alone is correct. Another camp believes that the sidereal alone is correct. A few believe that there must be room for both. In this paper I will propose and explore a marriage of the two zodiacs.

My background and roots are in Indian astrology – often given the fairly misleading moniker of “Vedic astrology.” Naturally, then, my exploration of this topic will stem from that vantage point, but am confident that what I discover will be of significant value to the entire international astrological community.

The Sidereal Zodiac is the Stars Themselves?

Initially, the tropical zodiac seemed to me imaginary, a mistake, or perhaps at best theoretical. After all, I could look up in the sky with my own eyes every night and see that Jupiter, for example was literally in Taurus. Thus the sidereal zodiac initially struck me as the obvious, real and accurate one.

But there are a few undeniably weird things about it.

First of all, the actual zodiac constellations are of all different sizes; some very large and others very short. The sidereal zodiac does not reflect this at all. Like the tropical zodiac, it defines all the signs as being of identical size.

Actually, what I see with my eyes is not twelve but thirteen constellations within zodiac space – the thirteenth being the recently made famous Ophiuchus.

So I have to admit, after all, that the sidereal zodiac really is not the actual stars in space. And this leads to the question, “What exactly is it?” The answer caused me to realize that the sidereal zodiac is not as different from the tropical as it initially seemed.

~~~

End of Part I – Continued in PART II

Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

~~~