“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

In my time of need…

It is a Vedic tradition that teachers, philosophers, students, reseaerchers, and so on would go to other members of society to humbly beg support for their sustinence. I have come to circumstances that require me to stand humbly at your doorstep with folded palms, asking for your donation and support, “bhiksham dehi.” If you would kindly donate whatever you can in lieu of my efforts to research and produce books, videos, articles, and posts of substance and service to humanity and divinity, it would be a great favor to this soul and surely would earn you great karmic merit as a pious and noble deed.

My begging bowl is extended to you here:www.vicdicara.com/donate.php

And you can donate in lieu of specific readings here: www.vicdicara.com

With great respect and appreciation,
Vic DiCara
a.k.a. Vraja Kishor das

Sidereal Zodiac Signs in Rg Veda???

In response to my most recent video, someone sent me this article by G.K.GOEL of Vihar, New Delhi, asking for my comments…

Zodiac signs were visualized by ancient sages in the sky, along the path of the earth around the Sun.

Or is it the path of the Sun around the Earth? It’s not terribly important to the topic at hand – but ancient / classical astrology and the astronomy that it is built on is geocentric.

It is difficult to fix the era, when signs were named by Vedic sages,

If the signs were ever named by “Vedic sages” (Meaning Indian scientists of 3 to 4,000 years ago), why are these names not listed in any Vedic book (Meaning the 4 Vedas – Rg, Sama, Yajur, Atharva)?

but there are many references of sidereal signs based on Star formation in the in sky even in Rigveda .

Where? I have not seen a single definite reference to 12 zodiac signs in Rg Veda – the best I have seen is that the 360 days of the year are split (among other ways) into 12 divisions. There are no names of these divisions that I am aware of, and certainly no assertion that the divisions are not anchored to equinoxes.

They were become very popular and being extensively used in Indian Astrology at least before 2000 B.C.( since 4000 thousand years back).

If this is so why is there no mention of the 12 signs in the astrological text that still survives from arguably semi-Vedic antiquity – the Vedanga Jyotisha?

Rigveda says (6-55-3):
Rayoa dhara asi aaghrne vaso rashi ajaashv , dheevtodheevatah sakha.
This means: 0h Aja and ASHWA, YOU ARE A STREAM OF WEALTH, A SCINTILLATING HEAP OF GEMS YOU ARE FRIENDS OF WISE AND INTELLIGENT.

Is this supposed to have anything to do with 12 sidereal zodiac signs? Rg 6-55-3 is part of a prayer to Pushan. There is no evident astrological relevance whatsoever.

Rigveda richca 4-33-7 read with richa’s 3-9-4(referring to Leo), 3-39-3(referring to Gemini), 5-83-3 (again referring Leo), 6-47-5, 8-93-1, 7-55-7, 1-181-6
(referring Taurus) clearly indicated the change in seasonal cycles on the ingress of Sun in a particular sign in different era(s).

I am almost a little aggravated that the author doesn’t quote these texts and asks me to hunt them down.

4-33-7 is part of a prayer to the Ribhus. It says that they were the guests of “he who is never hidden” for twelve days, and during that time they constructed fields and irrigated them.

Am I supposed to believe that any mention of the number “12″ refers to 12 sidereal zodiac signs?

3-9-4 is part of a prayer to Agni (fire), saying that even in water he is hidden, “like a lion in his lair.” Am I supposed to believe that any mention of a lion refers to “leo” and that this means the Vedic people had 12 sidereal sign?

3-39-3 is part of a prayer to Indra that mentions twins. So anytime the Veda mentions a twin it proves that they had 12 zodiac signs, sidereal, mind you, and that one of them was Gemini????

It’s too rediculous to continue. I’m starting to get irritated at the author for presenting such preposterous support for his claim.

These and similar other richa(s) should have been introduced in Rigveda in different eras, but it was much before the era of Ramayana and Mahabharata.Rigveda contains many references of sidereal signs along with star formations.

Really? Where are those references? Where does the Rg Veda define 12 zodiac divisions and tie them to stars? To the best of my knowledge this is a boldface lie.

Sign Aries should commence from the initial point of Nakshatra Aswani is the ancient Vedic concept. Zodiac signs were fixed and have permanent relationship with Nakshatras in sky (and also identified with physical constellations present in the sky).

If such a concept is in fact an “ancient Vedic” concept – where is the ancient Vedic text stating it??? Is it in the previous mentions of lions and twins spread here and there around the Rg Veda with no astrological context whatsoever?

This statement has no supporting evidence whatsoever. It is simply the authors favorite idea.

It was a late development, when Tropical signs were visualized to commence from
V.E.point, and given the same names as Sidereal signs. In ancient Vedic period only sidereal signs were referred.

If there is any reference to signs at all in the Vedic period, the author has failed to prove it. Much less has he proved that those signs are sidereal and not tropical.

The truth as best I understand it is that in the ancient Vedic period only sidereal NAKSHATRAS were conceived of. There is no record of them utilizing 12 divisions (rashi). Instead there is record of them utilizing 28 and 27 divisions (nakshatras)

No doubt, the days of Equinoxes ad Solstice were considered very auspicious for regulating seasonal/yearly cycles. But Makar Sankranti was always celebrated on the ingress of Sun in Sidereal Capricorn.

Says who?

Makar Sankranti and winter Solstice were falling on different days and were having different significance. In distance past, there was no possibility to name tropical signs after the name of constellations, as tropical signs have no relationship with stars.

This is meaningless.

Stars are in sky and season cycle is only specific to Sun and revolution of earth round the Sun. In ancient past, it was not possible to pin point the location of V.E. point in the Zodiac and its presence on the Zodiac was recognized by full moon and new moon coinciding with the nearest day on which day and night were equal.

This is a preposterous statement and contradicts Surya Siddhanta (see my video). One goes to an area near the equator and places a long pole into the ground, at a 90 degree angle. The day when the shadow of the pole completely dissapears is an equinox. In that day, the last star visible before the Sun rose is the approximate location of the heliacal equinox (“V.E. point.”).

As such, the concept of sidereal signs exists in the sky and synonym to the various shapes and configurations formed in the constellations, whereas Tropical signs are visualized on the path of earth around the Sun.

OK, if you say so…

As the longitudes and location of planets and stars are measured from the centre of earth, it is now convenient to measure Tropical co-ordinates. These are also required to formulate seasonal cycle , for introducing civil calendars and navigation purposes

OK

From time immemorial, Indians were using their festivals and astrological predictions based on sidereal zodiac which was initially and originally observed by VEDIC SAGES in ancient past.

Really? Has the author ever read the most ancient text on Vedic astrology? It fixes festivals on sidereal nakshatra, not a “sidereal zodiac.”

If ancient Vedic literature is scanned, the seasons were identified by ingress of Sun in different sidereal signs and were occurring in different signs in different eras. This also helps to fix time frame for different eras in distance-past as seasons were not permanently linked with sidereal signs.

A most absurd statement, as it would cause the “frozen” season to be the hottest time of the year about 12,000 years ago. As far as my study of Vedic literature, I have not seen any reference to how to define seasons. I find it clearly defined in later Indian literature: Surya-Siddhanta and the Puranas (viz. Srimad Bhagavatam) and in those it is clearly and explicitly said to be equinotical (tropical) in nature. Please see my video for more information.

CONCLUSION :
a) There are references of Stars, Nakshatras and Sidereal signs in ancient Vedic literature.

The ancient Vedic literature references the stars (nakshatra), not the signs, and certainly not the sidereal signs.

b) Vishwamitra (third)-He gave tangible method to identify ingress of
V.E.point in constellations based on his observations during the period of 2382-2352 B.C. THIS PAVED THE way FOR NAMING THE TROPICAL SIGNS. These signs were named after sidereal signs prevalent and in use India.

The author provided no source material whatsoever to prove this. A claim as contentious as this, which would revolutionize the current scientific opinion of who discovered the precession of equinoxes certainly requires a reference to source material.

c) True longitudes of lunar nodes should be used. In ancient times, it was the tradition to use mean Rah, as it was not possible to calculate true RAHU. Now the longitudes of True Rahu are available, there is urgent necessity to replace the use of mean with True Rahu.

This has nothing at all to do with anything presented in the article. I happen to agree that true nodes are preferable to mean nodes, but not that it is “urgent” and certainly not that it has any relevance to the topic of the article.

d) True Citra Pakchha Ayanamsa should be adopted based on Tropical longitude of Star Citra. Sidereal longitude of Citra should always be 180 deg. This will help in checking the correctness of Ayanamsa.

This is another statement that is completely irrelevant to the main topic of the article. This statement itself is also meaningless. “180 degrees” from what?

e) Geocentric longitudes should always be used based on the measurements and observations of modern Astronomy. In fact Siddhantic principles paved the way for more
accurate observations in the modern era with the help of improved methods and instruments. Modern Astronomy provides improvement in Siddhantic parameters, it does not reject them.

Another statement that has nothing at all to do with the article’s main topic. I happen to agree that modern calculations are preferable to the classical ones.

Thought for the Day
WERE REFERENCES OF SIDREAL SIGNS and Planetary Positions IN Valmiki Ramayan regarding the birth of Lord Shri Rama introduced at a later date?

The answer is “absolutely not.”

Why? The fact that the lunar phase does not correlate with the location of Sun and Moon on the birth of Sri Rama as recorded in Ramayana at the date that it seems to have been written is “smoking gun” evidence that the statement was a later interpolation into the original text. Another “smoking gun” is that the reference only exists in the North Indian version of Ramayana. Probably this interpolation was made by an astrologer seeking to inflate the religious significance of astrology.

Sidereal signs were known even in early Rigvedic era.

The author claims that sidereal signs were known in Rg Veda, but he does not prove it to us. His best effort is to cite references scattered here and there in the Veda that talk about a lion, or a bull, or twins outside of any astrological context. The author failed to show that the Rg Veda even conceives of 12 signs, what to speak of establishing that they had a sidereal conception of those signs.

MY CONCLUSION:

This author is speaking about topics that he does not clearly understand.

Time Travel & Time Zones in the Universe

The simplest truth about time is that it is not what we commonly think it is.

We think of it as being a constant flow; like a drum-beat against which the song of the universe plays. But really it is a dancer moving to create the rhythms required by the universes’ song.

Ontology of Time

What is time? It is a byproduct of motion.

When one object moves relative to another, we can perceive time. If no objects move in any way, there is no perception of time. The universe itself has safeguards built in to protect against time stopping: the Sun constantly moves, at a fairly steady rate, relative to the Earth – and the non-stop motions of the Moon and 5 or 6 other heavenly objects add poly-rhythmic richness to the time flow built into fabric of the universe. Thus the Vedas, Puranas, Siddhantas et.al (and equivalent works from every human, including our modern civilization) measure time relative to the movements of the Sun, Moon, etc. The movements of the Sun and planets actually create our perception of time.

What is movement? It is change.

Why is there change? Because there is karma (destiny).

Why is there karma? Because there is independent will.

Why is there independent will? Because there is ignorance.

Why is there ignorance? Because there is freewill.

Why is there freewill? It is free, self-creating, lot dependent on another cause.

Time is a byproduct of freewill. Time as we experience it in the universe is a byproduct of freewill in an ignorant condition, operating quasi-independently from the fountainhead of freewill: Godhead. Such independence means independent responsibility, the agent of which is karma (destiny). Changes occur (and thus time is perceived) as the universe moves to fulfill the conditions required by destiny.

Time is therefore pushed forward by the collective desires of living entities, forcing the universe to move into shapes and conditions according to their desires.

Elasticity of Time

Time is not entirely rigid or constant.

Einstein believed that the speed of light creates a constant time-clock for the universe. This is really a brilliant conception because light is a form of the Sun, and the speed of light is a measure of the movement of that form of the sun relative to an observer. Einstein noted & demonstrated that the observer’s motion relative to light changes the perception of time itself.

Movements of the Sun (including the speed of light) create rigidity and consistency in universal time. But these are not absolute or insurmountable.

This is why different beings who have different relationships to the movement of the Sun / light have different conceptions of time. Time thus flows differently in different “lokas” (lokations).

Various “Time-Zones” in the Universe

Earth-Standard-Time

The Sun creates a day by moving around the earth once… because it spends half the time above it creating a bright period and the other half below it creating a dark period. So we observe a change between day and night. The change created by this motion allows us to perceive a certain duration of existence as a “day.”

Nether-Standard-Time

This is true for us humans, from our point of view. But other beings live at a locus (called a loka in Sanskrit) that doesn’t relate to this movement. In the netherworld called “Yamaloka,” for example, they relate to the Moon’s movement relative to the Earth and Sun. When the Moon is on one side of the Sun (waxing) it creates a bright period, and on the other side it creates a dark period (waning). These beings experience a ‘day’ to have as much raw time as our locus grants us within an entire month! 

Paradise-Standard-Time

Still other beings have yet another relationship to the Sun and light. In paradise, the “Sura” (gods) relate most directly to the Sun’s movement through the stars (which we translate to the Sun’s movement relative to earth’s equator). When the Sun is among stars equivalent to being northward of our equator, a bright period occurs (uttarayana). When it is among stars equivalent to it being southward of our equator, a dark period occurs (dakshinayana). These beings have in just one day all the span of time that is  available to us in an entire year!

Brahma-Standard-Time

There are still longer periods for higher demigods, culminating in the extremely vast timescale of Brahmaloka – the highest locus available within a universe – at which a single “day” has within it all the moments that are available to our human mind only in the course of more than 8.6 trillion years!

This timescale is not relative to the movement of the Sun at all, so much as to its existence and destruction!

Vishnu-Standard-Time

The ultimate generator of timeflow is the prana (“breath”) moving in and out of Mahavishnu. The inhalation is like “night” and the exhalation is like “daytime.” This period of time is transcendental to the Sun and light. It continues to allow change even when Brahma’s locus disintegrates and the universe dissolves.

Going Back in Time

Time is flexible but not completely. In all cases, it flows forward. It flows at flexible rates, but always in the same direction. This is the verdict of human culture, the Vedic records, and Einstein also demonstrated it in his equations pertaining to the relativity of time. Time can slow to almost a standstill, but it never flows backwards.

Still, “forwards” and “backwards” becomes a little bit irrelevant when you are talking about cycles. For example, winter comes after spring but also comes before it. Or another example: a chicken comes before an egg, but an egg comes before a chicken. These conundrums are simple truths because time flows forward in a circular motion.

It is not possible to move backwards in time, but if you move far enough forwards you eventually come to very, very similar conditions as existed in the past.

It is for this reason that some mystics say “past” and “future” are misleading concepts.

Multiple Realms in Multiple Universes

The Puranas describe Mahavishnu as lying in an ocean of causality, exhaling egg-like bubbles which each develop into an independent universe. Each universe has its own timeline, that mirrors the others but is not identical to it.

Within each universe there are many “dimensions” or “parallel realities” that are somewhat related and have intersections and access points at various locations under various conditions. Thus there are parallel realities transpiring within each parallel universe. 

“It is always noon somewhere on earth.” Similarly there is always a certain point in history extant somewhere among the universes. But we cannot hop skip and jump between universes, we are confined by what we perceive as the vast, vast distances between them.

Each universe is a closed system in which there are souls (jiva) with independent will creating destiny and motion. A particle cannot leave a system while it is still in motion within that system. Souls in a universe remain there until it is dissolved or until they dissolve their independent will, end their destiny, and become eligible for liberation (moksha).

~~~

Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com