Sidereal vs. Tropical Debate, by Vaughn Paul Manley
First I want to express my appreciation for Vaughn Paul as a good and helpful person.
This article is better than most articles on the subject, IMO. But there are a few things I disagree with, only since you are asking. Vaughn Paul presents the idea that both zodiac systems are good. In practice, I agree that good astrology can be done using either zodiac. My video explains why I feel this way: because the zodiac is only one of several important points that make up an astrological system. Although I practically agree that good astrology can be done with either zodiac, I do believe that one zodiac system is correct and the other incorrect.
A few other points from this article:
An astonishing thing to contemplate is that the ancient Vedic rishis were aware of the fact that the earth changes its tilt or “wobbles” on its axis. Many centuries before the Europeans were debating over whether the earth was flat, the Vedic rishis were figuring out exactly what effect the Earth’s wobble would have on the calculations of their ephemeris’s!
Where is the proof of this? He offers none. It is a very controversial statement, so he should have given proof. If his proof is that precession is hinted at in Surya Siddhanta we have to ask what date he assumes the Siddhanta was written? It is not thought of as an ancient work. It has been analyzed by historians as classical, not ancient. Further, the Siddhanta does not come out and perfectly describe the precession in clear language. It gives a principle stating that the equinoxes and stars drift in relationship to one another. I quoted this verse in my video.
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.”
In that case the most ancient literature should show twelve divisions of stars on the ecliptic. As I show in my video, they don’t. The babylonians had 18 ecliptical constellations. The Indians had 27 (a 28th is north of the ecliptic).
The stars are only observable at night. That is why the sidereal / stellar zodiac is not the solar / tropical zodiac. It is a zodiac of “lunar mansions” / nakshatra.
As my video shows, the 12 zodiac signs were originally an abstract mathematical concept based on how time passes on earth as a result of the interplay between the rhythms of the Sun and Moon.
The 12 signs never had anything to do with the stars, and the 27 nakshatras always had everything to do with the stars. my video briefly explains why the equinoxes and signs are referenced against stellar counterparts.
Cyber Witchcraft: Sidereal vs. Tropical
This article is based on the assumption that the constellations of stars are the true signs. my video pretty thoroughly explains that this is not the case. In short: if the constellations are the true signs, we much use 13 signs, each over very unequal size (because that’s what the actual stars on the ecliptic really look like, according to our current way of mapping them). But the sidereal zodiac, like the tropical uses 12 signs each of equal length. So neither the sidereal nor tropical zodiac is defined by constellations. As I explain in my video they are defined by the interplay of rhythms of the Sun and Moon.
For the Sidereal Zodiac, by Kenneth Bowser
The main point is the author’s statement essentially that “it’s obvious” that the Babylonian’s used a sidereal zodiac.
My reply is – yes, but it is not a 12-fold zodiac. It has 18 divisions. On the other hand their records clearly document that they have a year with 12 months based on solstices and equinoxes, and that they observe sidereal helical phenomenon to keep their solar year synchronized with sidereal, lunar time. I explain this in my video.
In my video I also address the authors contention that Ptolemy may have changed the Greek conception to a tropical one. In short: Ptolemy is the first author after the Greeks became aware that precession exists. Thus he is the first author to have a conscious choice between tropical and sidereal zodiacs, and expressly chose tropical – that the equinox is the definitive starting point of the zodiac.
These are the foundational points of his article. Without a foundation the rest is does not stand for trial.