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

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

Origin of the Sidereal Zodiac

The stars of sidereal space are a valid and important astrological entity. India (and almost all cultures) has a valid system of dividing sidereal space with the Moon as the focal point, not the Sun as in tropical space. This system has 27 divisions, not 12, because there are that many sunrises during the time it takes the Moon to complete a full circuit of the heavens.

The idea of 12 sidereal signs comes from wrongly assuming that the correlation between the stars and signs is permanent. In fact, there is no permanent correlation between the two, the signs eternally and very gradually drift backwards through the stars – a phenomena commonly known as “precession of the equinox.”

There is a valid need to correlate the signs and stars because their relationship is important for defining very long periods of time (“ages”) and for knowing how and when to keep solar and lunar calendar systems synchronized.

Babylonians measured the correlation of their autumnal equinox with the heliacal rising of stars they called The Scales. Greeks measured the discrepancy of tropical Aries against a stellar counterpart bearing the same name. Ancient and Classical Indians measured the heliacal position of the equinox in reference to their fixed stars. For example, the Ṛg Veda notes Kṛttikā as the “first” star and the beginning of the celestial circle, because in Ṛg Vedic times, four to five thousand years ago, Kṛttikā heliacally rose with the Vernal Equinox. Later Indian works from nearly two thousand years ago note Aśvinī as the first star, because at that time Aśvinī was the star heliacally rising with the equinox.

Projecting the 12 zodiac divisions into space, based on the then-current position of the vernal equinox was useful for mathematics but opened a door for people to think of the signs as stellar entities. It is an easy mistake to make considering that for centuries there was almost no significant difference between the signs and their homonymic sidereal namesakes.

“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