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