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

No Really, It’s NOT Sidereal

This is an excerpt from a continuing, but increasingly productive and scholarly, debate on the sidereal vs tropical zodiac IN Indian Astrology. If you are new to this debate, please first read this introduction.

Some people wish to discount my argument on the basis of  Sanskrit declinations, saying that SB 5.21.3-5 cannot be a “definition” of the rāśi because the declination used there is locative, but that SS 1.28 is a “definition” of the rasis because the declination used there is nominative.

First, is there a grammatical rule or principle that nominative case must be used in a definition and locative case cannot? If so, what if we are defining a location – how shall we word the definition? The rashi’s are locations through which the planets move. Naturally when being defined the locative case must be used.

Honestly, let’s compare the statements up for election as the definition of “rāśi”…

SS 14.7-10 says they are tropical:

“It is well-known that the circle of signs is split by two diameters. One is the line from equinox to equinox. The other is the line from solstice to solstice. Between each solstice and equinox are two other markers. Each solstice /equinox and the two following markers represent the three strides of Vishnu.

“The Sun has entered Capricorn when it begins moving north for six months. It has entered Cancer when it begins moving south for six months. Seasons last for two signs each, beginning from Capricorn with the frozen season. The twelve signs named Aries, etc. are the months which altogether comprise the year.”

SB 5.21.3-5 (mirroring Viṣṇu, Matsya and perhaps other Puranas) says they are tropical:

“Outer space is measured by relation of heaven and earth. 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 get shorter. On this basis the Sun moves through the twelve divisions called Capricorn and so forth.

“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.”

I think these are very explicit and straightforward definitions of what the rāśi are. You want to dismiss these are being secondary to SS 1.28:

“60 seconds (vikāla) make a minute. 60 minutes (kāla) make a degree. 30 degrees (bhaga) make a sign. 12 signs (rāśi) complete the circle/orbit (bhagaṇa).”

This is obviously a lot less explicit and complete a definition than the previous two statements. But even if we accept this as another definition of rāśi, I find nothing in it stipulating that the seconds, minutes and degrees of the rāśi are relative to a specific star [sidereal] and not to the equinoxes and solstices [tropical].

Some argue that the previous text (27) sets a sidereal context. I do not see why, unless we only read the Enlgish – which uses the name “Revatī.”  Even there Danavir Goswami’s version has a footnote admitting that “Revatī” is not literally in the text itself, and Burgess’ version has an elaborate comment which recognizes the same. The text itself only says, “antebhagaṇa” – the end of the orbit / circle.

It seems straightforward that SS 1.28 shows how to measure the speed of the planets by dividing their orbit into units of seconds, minutes, degrees,  and “groups” / rāśi. This is the context set by the verses immediately preceding and following 1.28. Thus there is nothing inherently sidereal or tropical about SS 1.28, except that it demonstrates that rāśi are mathematical constructs, not literal stars or constellations; which detracts from the motivation to consider the rāśi stellar phenomena.

On to another topic:

If one wants to insist that the rasi and naskhatra are fixed to one another how will you avoid contradicting the principle of ayanāṁśa based on SS 3.9: “In one age (yuga) the circle of stars lags behind 600 revolutions towards the east.”?

- Vic DiCara

www.vicdicara.com

Is the Zodiac Northern Hemisphere Biased?

It’s a complete misconception that the seasons have anything to do with the signs. Erase that misconception.

There is the equator and the ecliptic. The ecliptic is the path of the Sun, and the equator is the center of the Earth. The equator is the “horizon” of space. The Sun spends half of the year above it and the other half below it. When it crosses the equator coming upwards that represents “sunrise” on a cosmic-yearly scale (and is therefore the “beginning” of the zodiac). When it crosses the equator coming downwards, that represents “sunset.”

The elements and modes which give meaning to the signs do so with reference to their relation to these celestial (not northern or southern hemisphere specific) directions: celestial East, West, North and South. You can find out about this in detail if you download this class: Understanding the 12 Signs

The main portion of the character of the signs comes from their planetary ruler, anyway, not the elements and modes. And this is determined by speed / distance from the Sun – again nothing to do with anything northern or southern hemisphere specific.

I hope this clarifies