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