Where I do and do not Differ from Mainstream Indian Astrology

Where I do and do not Differ from Mainstream Indian Astrology

I should explain where I differ, and more importantly, where I do not differ from what has become the mainstream in Indian astrology.

I do not differ from:

  1. Definitions of the planets, houses, and signs.
  2. Definitions of the symbolism of the planets, houses, and signs.
  3. Definition of the imports of combinations of planets, houses and signs (yogas).
  4. Calculations of the houses
  5. Methods of evaluating the strength and positivity of the planets and houses.
  6. Calculation of planetary aspects.
  7. Calculation of zodiac divisions.
  8. Definitions and calculations of the fixed stars (nakṣatra)
  9. Calculation of timing systems (daśā) [although I define the length of the year a little bit differently than most]
  10. Etc. (Many other calculations, definitions, and analysis systems)

I do differ on one point:

  1. The location of the fixed stars with respect to the 12 divisions of the ecliptic (the “zodiac”).

Mainstream Indian astrology considers the fixed stars to have an unchanging relationship to the 12 divisions of the ecliptic. Although this has probably been the vogue for at least 5 or 6 centuries, it is not in perfect accordance with the definitions given in the more original, more authoritative texts — most notably the Sūrya Siddhānta, but also the Purāṇas like Viṣṇu and Bhāgavata. I have an article and video with the details on this.

You can see that what I have in common greatly outweighs what I don’t have in common with Indian astrology, so, there is no need to think that one of us must be reading from completely erroneous data and the other from completely accurate data. Nonetheless, because my system is more squarely based on the original astrological texts themselves, I am confident that it produces accurate results more easily.

Astrology is an extremely sophisticated and complex science. The same outcome can be generated in any number of ways. The qualities of Mercury in Virgo, for example, can be attained without having Mercury in Virgo, but having certain yogas, and certain conditions pertaining to the 5th, 9th and 3rd houses, etc.

Furthermore, simply looking at the obvious sign of a planet is not a complete analysis of its zodiac position. According to the various subdivisions of the zodiac (aṁśa) Mercury at a certain degree in Virgo might actually have a lower dignity overall (by varga-viṁśottari calculation) than Mercury at a certain degree of Pisces. So we shouldn’t allow ourselves to say, “Oh Mercury in Virgo matches me but Mercury in Libra doesn’t.” That type of astrology is far to simple to validate or invalidate an astrological calculation.

The best bet, in my opinion, is to carefully and faithfully study and comprehend the ācāryas who helped to found the science. It will lead to improved clarity and accuracy in the long run. My zodiac calculation is based much more directly and obviously on Sūrya-Siddhānta, Viṣṇu and Bhāgavata-Purāṇa, I therefore place my confidence in it, rejecting the mainstream concept of how the 12 ecliptic divisions align with the fixed stars.

Vic DiCara