“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

Sidereal Zodiac is not Authentic

David Frawley says: ”Because the tropical system is a Solar-based system the commonly held opinion is that the tropical system is better at describing the personality and psychological patterns. The Vedic system is often considered to be better at describing the soul nature and predicting actual events because it’s tied to the actual fixed constellations.”

The “actual fixed constellations” are 13 in number and all of them are of unequal size. Therefore please explain how the sidereal zodiac (12 equal size signs) is a high-fidelity representation of the “actual constellations.”

The signs are not constellations to begin with. They are mathematical divisions of the Sun’s yearly apparent path. The constellations bearing their names are approximate namesakes.

Furthermore, the Sun represents the soul. The Moon represents the mind.  Even if we accept the wrong statement that the tropical zodiac is “more solar-based” why would this describe mental character like personality and psychology, that is the Moon’s affair. And why would it not describe “soul nature” which is the Sun’s domain? The logic presented in this quote is exceedingly sloppy on every level.

David Frawley writes in his book, The Astrology of the Seers, that “The sidereal zodiac is probably the original zodiac historically, as it is the observable zodiac. The tropical, which is an abstract zodiac, must have been derived from it, as all abstractions are usually based on underlying observable things.”

The observable stars consists of 13 constellations on the ecliptic and each one is a different size. What is the resemblance of this observation to a “sidereal zodiac” of 12 equal signs? It is certainly only an approximate resemblance.

Furthermore the 12 signs exist as a division of the Sun’s path intersected by the Moons – there being 12 lunar cycles through the zodiac during the Sun’s single cycle. Thus the signs are based upon the Sun’s movement. Stars cannot be seen / observed at all when the Sun is out. Rather what is observed is the length of the day and night. Thus equinoxes and solstices are the observable phenomenon relative to the Sun’s motion through the year, not stars.

The lunar “zodiac” is stellar and sidereal, because we observe stars when the Moon is out at night. Thus the lunar division of 27 / 28 star-clusters (nakshatra) is surely sidereal.

“But I have been working with sidereal zodiac for years, and…”

I am not saying that the sidereal zodiac makes an astrological chart completely bogus. I am saying that the tropical zodiac makes it clearer and simpler. Furthermore I am not concerned with so-and-so’s “experience” or “interpretation” if it contradicts the clear statements of Sastra. Western people may not understand this epistemology, but at least those of you who purport to be “Vedic” and “Indian” should know the validity of this outlook. The Shastra - Srimad Bhagavatam, Surya Siddhanta and all others –  define the zodiac as a tropical entity. Therefore the case is closed. Please see my article and video for full details on this: http://vicdicara.com/12-signs-of-the-zodiac-1.php

- Vic DiCara

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

Steamy Romantic Blessings of Bhaga and Purva Phalguni

This is an excerpt from my forthcoming book on the 27 Vedic Stars, the chapter on the star called Purva-Phalguni, whose deity is Bhaga, the god of romance and love.

Bhaga’s Family

The names of the wife, sons and daughters of Bhaga reveal the ways Bhaga bestows romantic happiness to us.

Bhaga’s three sons are named Mahiman (which means greatness, majesty and hugeness),Vibhu (meaning solid, penetrating, and effective), and Prabhu (meaning powerful, capable, and everlasting). These names reveal the traits a male must possess to fully enjoy romantic happiness. He must have sufficient size (Mahiman), which is literal but also indicates size of character: nobility and morality. He must have stability (Vibhu), which also indicates the ability to be solid and penetrating and effective in intercourse. Finally, he must be capable (Prabhu), which grants the ability to lead, initiate and have sufficient sexual endurance.

Bhaga’s three daughters are named Suvratā (meaning dedication, virtue and compliance), Varāroha (meaning mounting, riding and refers to attractive hips), and Āśīs (meaning desires, wishes and fulfillment).  These three names reveal the essential traits a female must bring to the romantic partnership. She must be dedicated (Suvratā), indicating virtue, patience and receptivity towards the male. She must have attractive hips (Varāroha), which indicates excellence for participation in sexual intercourse. Finally, she must be desirable (Āśīs), which indicates that she has an appetite for romance and that she is therefore capable of fulfilling the romantic wishes of a male.

Bhaga’s wife is named Siddhi, meaning perfection, unusual skill and dexterity. This name reveals what both genders must bring to the partnership: remarkable dexterity in the above mentioned and implied arts. When the powers of all the sons and daughters and the wife are present, Bhaga fully manifests and a human being enjoys a god-like wealth of romantic and erotic bliss.

Pūrva Phālgunī allows one to develop dexterity and skill in these talents, arts, and character traits so as to enjoy a fulfilling and satisfying sensual and romantic life.

- Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com