Examining Charts with Tropical and Sidereal Zodaics

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Therese,

Thank you for your post, which is very helpful. Let me see if I understand you correctly:

Many Vedic astrologers have chosen to use the sidereal chart even though they were aware that the early Sanskrit texts clearly point out that the tropical is what they used – way back then.

As an astrologer, I well know that we test out the techniques we use on our own charts, those of our family, friends, and any other charts that we key on. In that regard, it is very personal. At the same time, we often ask other astrologers to give us reasons beyond a simple “it works best for me.”

In the case of the sidereal vs. tropical discussion, this has been going on around me for most of my astrological life. I had the temerity to invite a number of siderealists to come and live at our center (Heart Center), often for years at a time. We had Sanskrit scholars, Hare Krishna scholars, Swamis, and even a western siderealist – none other than Gary Duncan.

In general, my experience in this environment of siderealists was that they were passionate and even quite aggressive about their belief in the sidereal system. Not one of them ever pointed out to me that the roots of Vedic astrology were in the tropical zodiac or that at some point in history practitioners decided to go sidereal, based on their personal use and research.

I presume they knew about this; they just never brought it up with me, so this is all news. The tropical system has always made a lot of sense to me, astronomically, when we are speaking of the Sun, Earth, and our solar system. Yet, I am very familiar with the fixed stars and, in fact, all of the known and recently discovered deep-space objects, so I have made it a point of noting where all of these various objects occur in space.

I am not sure what we can even expect from this discussion, except that the uninitiated folks like me probably need to know that behind current Vedic sidereal ayanamsas stand the tropical positions, historically speaking.

Is this generally known and agreed upon by Vedic astrologers?

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Dear Michael,
your last post made me think of one other very pertinant thing about the zodiac being thought of as sidereal in light of their being nakshatras and fixes stars. The astrological texts of India do give importance to the exact conjunction of a planet to a star - these stars are called Nakshatras, or Tara, both which mean star. These are true sidereal conjunctions of a planetary body to a star and were used in mundane predictions. SIderealists believe that a group of stars somehow comes together to energetically form a sign - yet these groups of stars are never 30 degrees in extent, they are always more or less. The ancient tradition of the Nakshatras is to consider exact conjunctions to these nakshatra stars and does not think of them as being a group of stars. Chitra, for instance, is a particular star. So stars were treated very much as planetary bodies.

IN respect to the nakshtras of 13:20 that are used extensively in Vedic Astrology, the conjunction stars after which these nakshatras fall in are not always the same. In fact, there is no way to put all the conjunction stars in all thier nakshatras portions of 13:20 no matter what ayanamsa is being used and no matter what time period is used - it simply does not work. This means that the nakshatra stars are not exactly the same as the nakshatras themselves.

While we de refer to stars as fixed, that is only relevantly true, the stars themselves, as most know, have thier own motions, though slight. The one thing that can be fixed in our galaxy is the galactic center and the galactic center actually falls in the middle of Nakshatra Mula, Mula meaing Root, beginnings and commenment. In fact, Mula is the beginning Nakshatra as shown by several Nakshatra techniques. The 13:20 minute arcs of the nakshatras are actually founded on the position of the galactic center, not the positions of the stars and thier effect is based on thier position from the galactic center, not on the stars found in the nakshatras. In fact, conjunctions to the stars themselves do not have things in common with the Nakshatra portions of 13:20.

Best Regards,
Ernst

[Therese_Hamilton]

Hi Michael,

I'll reply to your post in conversation mode. I think it will be easier to follow that way.

[Michael:] Let me see if I understand you correctly:...Many Vedic astrologers have chosen to use the sidereal chart even though they were aware that the early Sanskrit texts clearly point out that the tropical is what they used – way back then.

[Therese:] No, that isn't the way it is. Jyotish astrologers aren't aware that some principles of India's astrology are transplanted from the west. They'll probably never believe, for example, that the concepts of cardinal, fixed and mutable signs are straight out of Ptolemy and are directly related to the change of seasons. (I have an article on this on my web site.) http://users.snowcrest.net/sunrise/LostZodiac.htm (The Lost Zodiac, Part 5)

Jyotish astrologers also follow the zodiac that has been used in India for centuries. Just like in the west where astrologers haven't been aware that the earliest western astrologers used a sidereal zodiac. It hasn't occurred to either group of astrologers (east or west) that there's another zodiac out there that might be worth investigating.

(It's true that in recent times a few astrologers in India are looking at the tropical zodiac, but this isn't traditional. Similarly in the west some tropical astrologers are looking at the sidereal due to the work of Jyotish groups.) This is all new and exciting, isn't it?! We're having a tropical- sidereal dialog which was unheard of a few short years ago.

[Michael:] As an astrologer, I well know that we test out the techniques we use on our own charts, those of our family, friends, and any other charts that we key on. In that regard, it is very personal. At the same time, we often ask other astrologers to give us reasons beyond a simple "it works best for me."

[Therese:] Yes, that's the way it is exactly! With astrological computer databases we've finally reached the time where we can do some mathematical testing of zodiacs.

[Michael:]In the case of the sidereal vs. tropical discussion, this has been going on around me for most of my astrological life. I had the temerity to invite a number of siderealists to come and live at our center (Heart Center), often for years at a time. We had Sanskrit scholars, Hare Krishna scholars, Swamis, and even a western siderealist – none other than Gary Duncan.

In general, my experience in this environment of siderealists was that they were passionate and even quite aggressive about their belief in the sidereal system.

[Therese:] Yes!! No one could get alone with western siderealists, who based their sidereal conviction on solar and lunar return charts and planet angularity. After my ten years as a tropical astrologer, I joined that group for a short time, then changed to India's astrology. (Which I don't call "Vedic" because horoscopic astrology didn't exist in Vedic times. Robert Hand and others agree that the term "Vedic" isn't really correct for India's astrology, but it's a lost cause because "Vedic" became the official western term when the ACVA was formed. India never used the term "Vedic" for its astrology before the California conferences in the early 90s where "Vedic" was coined. I was there. I saw it happen. I was a founding member of the ACVA but dropped out because of what I perceived as a rigidity that I wasn't comfortable with. It's like the "fix" was already in.)

[Michael:] Not one of them ever pointed out to me that the roots of Vedic astrology were in the tropical zodiac or that at some point in history practitioners decided to go sidereal, based on their personal use and research.

[Therese:] That isn't quite correct. Astrologers were using the sidereal zodiac in Ptolemy's time. His concepts were adopted by astronomers, and made their way into the literature, but astrologers themselves continued with a sidereal zodiac. As a matter of fact, it was a western astrologer who discovered the early use of the sidereal zodiac--Nick Kellerstrom.

There was no sure way of knowing this early history until the recent translations by the three Roberts (Schmidt, Hand, Zoller) in the 90s. We also have the academic scholars: Pingree, Neugebaurer, Rochberg, etc. There's no doubt that early western horoscopic planetary placements are sidereal. (I have some of those horoscopes on my web site.)

The main point is that when all the Hellenistic texts were written, India eagerly adopted those texts. At that time there was no tropical-sidereal controversy. Astrologers didn't know what zodiac they were using. They simply continued with the zodiac inherited from Mesopotamia (whch was star based.) Zero Aries tended to move around, and several different sidereal zodaics were used, but they weren't tied to the equinoxes and solstices. There was no astrological tropical zodiac before Ptolemy. The solstices and equinoxes were astronomical, but not astrological. These two are confused in Jyotish literature, but quite clear in the ancient Hellenistic translations.

[Michael:] I am not sure what we can even expect from this discussion, except that the uninitiated folks like me probably need to know that behind current Vedic sidereal ayanamsas stand the tropical positions, historically speaking.

[Therese:] The discussion is valuable in that we're seeing the different sides of a knotty problem. We're not anywhere near a resolution, but as astrologers we can continue with the challenge. It will keep our minds young! As moderns we can continue to test the zodiacs in various ways and (I suppose) continue to argue for a correct zodiac.

The difference between Ernst and myself is that (if I'm reading him correctly) Ernst has faith in the antiquity and truth of India's texts. Because I've studied the western Hellenistic translations and compared them to Indian texts, I've observed that India's texts are a grand collection of eastern and western ideas including much material from Ptolemy--who invented the concept of an astrological tropical zodiac. Because of my education I've been trained in scientific thinking, so I had to be as objective as possible. As I said, I had to give up my faith based belief in the superiority of India's texts.

I'd say that I've been a scholar (specializing in astrology) for most of my .life, and Ernst has been an astrologer with a deep reverence for what he sees as Indian wisdom. This is the old science/faith dichotomy that has probably been around since human beings have peopled the earth. But we're fortunate that today with the internet we can openly discuss and test astrological principles. It's an exciting time to be alive.

Sincerely,
Therese

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Ernst,

I don't have a lot of time right now, but let me make a few brief comments.

For one, the Galactic Center is subject to precession as are all celestial objects. I am assuming you know that.

I am not an expert in Vedic astrology, but I do know a little about Chinese astronomy and astrology. What you describe with the Nakshatras, the stars themselves, are very similar to what the Chinese call the Xiu (Hsiu), which are 28 divisions of the sky that are similar to lunar lodges or mansions, and they are oriented or based around the pole star, the axis of the earth. The Xiu sections are not evenly divided like the 13-deg 20' of the evenly-spaced version of the Nakshatras. Some are only a few degrees wide, while others are more than 30 degrees. They were used (mostly) to measure the motion of the moon, the sidereal month.

The unevenness of the 28 Xiu arises from the fact that each of the Xiu is measured from a particular major star.

It would be a good question: did the Nakshatras stem from the Xiu or vice versa, although Chinese astronomy is very ancient. For those interested, I calculated the right Ascension (Epoch 1950.0) of the 28 stars that mark the beginning of each Xiu, although like with ayanamsas, there is not total agreement on this.

28 Xiu Right A. Declination Epoch 1950.0

01=Alpha Virgo 200 00 00 -09 22 00
02=Kappa Virgo 212 33 33 -10 02 31
03=Alpha Libra 222 01 38 -15 50 07
04=PI Scorpio 238 57 20 -25 58 18
05=Omicron Scorpio 244 32 10 -25 28 29
06=Mu Scorpio 252 07 11 -37 57 49
07=Gamma Sagittarius270 38 56 -30 25 36
08=Phi Sagittarius 299 07 16 -35 24 48
09=Beta Capricorn 304 33 03 -14 56 27
10=Epsilon Aquarius 311 14 33 -09 40 48
11=Beta Aquarius 322 13 54 -05 47 32
12=Alpha Aquarius 330 48 14 -01 26 11
13=Alpha Pegasus 345 34 01 +14 56 09
14=Gamma Pegasus 002 39 51 +14 54 20
15=Eta Andromeda 013 37 58 -23 08 53
16=Beta Aries 027 58 05 +20 33 52
17=41 Aries 041 45 32 +27 03 20
18=Eta Taurus 056 07 36 +23 57 08
19=Epsilon Taurus 066 25 24 +19 04 16
20=Lamda’ Orion 083 05 43 +09 54 08
21=Zeta Orion 084 33 32 -01 58 03
22=Mu Gemini 094 59 02 +22 32 28
23=Theta Cancer 127 11 12 +18 15 53
24=Delta Hydra 128 45 09 +05 52 45
25=Alpha Hydra 141 16 57 -08 26 27
26=Mu Hydra 155 55 03 -16 34 50
27=Alpha Crater 164 20 03 -18 01 56
28=Gamma Corvus 183 18 29 -17 15 52

[Michael Erlewine]

Dear Therese,

You are mixing Vedic with Hellenistic with Western sidereal methods. I have no problem with your doing that, but I want to make clear that all of my questions were about the Vedic system ONLY. When you start mixing them, I need to reach for an aspirin and a set aside a day or so. <G>

I am interested in why the Indian astrologers had the temerity to turn away from their own ancient sources and strike out in a new direction, i.e. sidereal.

As for the name “Vedic?”

When I had the first conferences on this subject, I called our conferences “Hindu Astrology Conferences.” I had two of them in the 1980s, and some of the best Hindu astrologers attended. Thanks for telling me the word “Vedic” came later. That makes my day, because I have been getting nothing but flak from these folks for my ever calling it “Hindu Astrology.” I see now that I did not have the access to the word ‘Vedic’ at the time.

Again, I am not going to try to get involved in the discussion that mixes Indian, Greek, Medieval, astrology although we are about to feature a special three-panelist panel on just that topic – sorting it all out. It should be a hot one.

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Hi Therese,
If you read what I have said about Indian ancient texts is that they are full of errors, I have pointed several of them out. The modern texts have even more errors, so relevant to the modern texts they are better, but not without errors. The truth is, the old texts from any country do not give an unarguable position on any zodiac. So it is a matter of determining what is logical and what works, and they should be the same. No doubt, all ancient cultures had a star based system, the chaldeans, the hindus, the chinese, but these were never 12 fold division of equal 30 degrees, named aries, etc.. We are talking about a 12 fold division of 30 degrees and there is only evidence of those having been tropical. Just becuase there have been various systems of steller astrology does not mean that the zodiac is a steller system. It is not. The steller systems are steller and the zodiac is tropical. They are not the same things. Anyway, I will be posting an exmaple chart here a little later, but first I have to finish something else up.

Michael,
yes, the Chinese stars could have been related to the nakshatras at some time, there are actually 27 nakshatras of 13:20 but 28 Stars, but I have not tried to relate the chinese stars to the Hindu nakshatras. Also, the Chinese I have been told measaured thier stars according to RA, not ecliptic longitudes. The Indians did something similiar with the nakshatras and measured them in respect to polar longitudes.

Ernst

[Michael Erlewine]

Ernst,

The list of the Xiu I gave above are in Right Ascension and Declination, which is what the Chinese used, to align with the meridians of the earth.

I will look forward to you, Robert Schmidt, and Ben Dykes digging into this whole tangle on the featured panel form.

We might want to have another on the tropical sidereal question, as well, although we are looking at it here and I have not seen that many Vedic astrologers around. If "Vedic" is a new term, what is the old term for Hindu astrology, please?

[Therese_Hamilton]

Michael wrote:
"You are mixing Vedic with Hellenistic with Western sidereal methods.

Dear Michael,

No, I'm only pointing out that some of the material in Jyotish texts had its origin in western astrology texts. (I don't think I mentioned western sidereal methods in relation to the translations.)

"I have no problem with your doing that, but I want to make clear that all of my questions were about the Vedic system ONLY."

This is very difficult because early on the material was apparently mixed. I guess that's the debate: Were India's texts wholly Indian or did they contain concepts from the west? (And there's fire on both sides of that question.)

"I am interested in why the Indian astrologers had the temerity to turn away from their own ancient sources and strike out in a new direction, i.e. sidereal."

Many would say they didn't do that. They were not at first tropical. I know that Ernst has interpreted the texts that way, but many would disagree on the dating of the texts he mentions. So we have two views of what happened with no resolution for now.

"Thanks for telling me the word “Vedic” came later. That makes my day, because I have been getting nothing but flak from these folks for my ever calling it “Hindu Astrology.” I see now that I did not have the access to the word ‘Vedic’ at the time."

Yes, you're in the right on that one. B.V. Raman's books call India's astrology "Hindu." Only later when "My Experiments With Astrology" was revised and enlarged, he followed the term invented in the west (He was the featured speaker at the first California conference...) and called his book "The Autobiography of a Vedic Astrologer!" (That book was publsihed in 1996.)

"...although we are about to feature a special three-panelist panel on just that topic – sorting it all out. It should be a hot one."

Will we have access to this panel--will it be held on-line? Yes, it should be very inteesting. I hope that eventally we'll have a transcript of the discussion.

Thanks for taking the time for this discussion, Michael.
Therese

[Ernst_Wilhelm]

Take the horoscope of a woman born April 24th 1976 at 17:59 Jaipur India.

Tropically: Lagna is scorpio, scorpio is said to be small and slender by the hindu texts. She is that, 95 lbs and 5 foot 1, a full 4 inches shorter than her mother and other members of her extended family. They have average height and size for thier culture, she is much smaller. The Lagna lord Mars is in Cancer, a medium sized though bulky and wet sign - as a result she has soft thick watery skin, does no show veins, etc. as she would had her lagna lord been in a more dry sign. Scorpio is supposed to be hairy according to hindu texts, and she does have much more than the average density of body hair. Saturn increases hair as well when joined with the lagna lord and her body hair is thus much more than is normal for her race. Any rasi that saturn and mars join in will suffer physically. Cancer represents the Pericardium meridian and the breasts. The pericardiaum meridian's primary role is to protect the heart - her heart has not been well protected and she suffers from heart palpitations and a more severe heart disorder which is life threatening in potential. The heart problem is an infections problem and it is mars who indicates infections.

Sidereally, Lagna is libra, a medium sized sign, with lagna lord Venus in Pisces, a medium sized size. She is not medium sized. Saturn is in Cancer, which of course could indicate some health troubles as above, but Mars is not in cancer with Saturn and so the severity would not be as great nor would it be an infections problem without mars joining Saturn. Additionally, there is no indication of having excessive body hair.

Tropically, she has her Sun, Moon adn Ascendant all in even signs and she is born during the night, which is mahabhagya or great fortune yoga when found in the horoscope of a woman. She has been very fortunate and while growing up in a 500 square foot house she now lives in 4,000 square foot house. More importantly, all these even signs make her a idol of female strength and demure courage - which he is. Everyone likes her as she is completly non-threatening, yet she is never moved into directions that she does not feel good about. She is feeling centered, yet solid as a rock - all the qualities of Mahabhagya Yoga.

Sidereally, she has her lagna in a male sign, her moon in a male sign and her sun in a male sign, Aries - is she is agressive and initiative as are the nature of male signs, not at all. Is she a hard and strong moon in aquarius with sun in Aries, not at all.

The considerations of build and body type need also to be examed in the trimsamsa, for one woudl not expect everyone to be born what that lagna on that day to appear the same. In the tropical trimsamsa she has her lagna in taurus, a long sign, with lagna lord in short and small scorpio once again. So these two cancel each outer out and to not increase nor decrease hight as determined in the Rasi chart. SHe does, hoever, have long limbs, though being short. Taurus is long, but not large in girth and mass. So the trimsamsa helps to keep her at 95 lbs even though her lagna lord is in cancer in the rasi chart. Which by itself would have bumped her up a few lbs and helped her to gain weight.

In the sidereal trimsamsa taurus is the langa, a long sign which increases height, so she should be a bit taller than average for her culture, she soudl be 5.5 or so, she is not. LAgna lord is in sag, a medium sized sign. No short signs at all. Rather, large Jupiter is in the lagna which shoudl increase her weight and size, not so, she is diminutive and light. The sidereal chart belongs to a strong, independent person who is a bit taller than average and well built and with average body hair with an average consitution. The woman in question is tiny, sweet, but with firm staying power and a strong femenine spirit, and hairy with a heart disorder.

Ernst

[Therese_Hamilton]

Ernst wrote:

"The truth is, the old texts from any country do not give an unarguable position on any zodiac."

Ernst, this is true in most cases. All we have to work with are the recorded horoscope positions of planets in signs with degrees if they're available. Do any of these exist in India? There are a number of old horoscopes from Mesopotamia and Greece. (But this is a Vedic forum.)

A Vedic priest-astrologer once gleefully showed me a diagram of an ancient circular horoscope in a Sanskrit text. It was the same diagram that's in Neugebaurer's "Greek Horoscopes." Michael, I don't think we can draw a sharp dividing line betwen India's astrology and everyone else's, and that's a *big* problem.

[Ernst wrote:] "We are talking about a 12 fold division of 30 degrees and there is only evidence of those having been tropical."

Perhaps this is true in India, but there are horoscopes from Mesopotamia and Hellenistic sources that are clearly sidereal. This is why I mentioned these sources in previous posts. Would you say then that those ancient charts are in error? They're dated from the first century B.C.E.

Looking forward to the panel discussion if it will be available to us!

Sincerely,
Therese