Sidereal and Tropical Zodiac Divorce

The Marriage and Divorce of Two Zodiacs

      Occasionally, I get engaged in various discussions, with different opinions that take up the sidereal or tropical zodiac as better or more correct as well as the impact of precession on Hindu festivals. I have my own very different perspective on these two zodiacs and their future, one that accepts and loves both.   

I have been asked by a few organizations to put my perspective in writing and I have a stack of books and papers about three feet high for references to support my perspective, but a scholarly piece will have to wait till my kids finish college. Here I just list out the concepts I work with and took some quotes from some previous writings. This is far from a cleaned up and ready for press piece, but thanks for blogs, it gets the point across. I will continue to add to this thread: first post- 19Sep2015, last update 30Oct2015. A simplified version for non astrological researchers is in Sutra Journal.

I call this the ‘divorce theory’, or the divorce of the two zodiacs. The basic premise of my perspective is that humans have always looked to the sky and gave the stars meaning and myth. Humans have always given the weather, seasons, and natural phenomena it’s on myth and meaning as well. Humans love myths. During a period of great integration during the last few centuries before the Common Era, the myth and meaning of the seasons and the stars got married. Concepts that had applied to each individually came together and overlapped. Sciences were expanding and huge government resources went into developing this marriage. Now, the stars have moved and lost touch with the seasons, and a divorce is underway. And as any divorce, shared property is in dispute. Astrologers and calendar-makers fight for possession of what once belonged to both parents (sometimes getting personally invested in those possessions). In the end, both zodiacs have to lose something, and both will find wholeness in themselves.    

What was Before

            When we look through the Sanskrit literature, the Babylonian writings, and some Egyptian material we get a glimpse of what came before the married zodiacs. We see myth about the seasons, and we see star lore. These ancient societies had star clocks that kept the time during the night based on the movement of the stars through the sky- and different deities related to these stars giving them meaning. In cultures all over the world, we see stars having specific names and myth associated with stars or star clusters. In the Egyptian, Babylonian and Vedic culture we see the association of the gods, sages, heroes, and spirit animals with the stars. Later Greek mythology also associated its gods and heroes with myth in the sky. There is even speculation that some myths were created to describe the names of the stars in the sky.  

            The Egyptians had 36 signs/constellations of 10 degrees each. The Vedic culture had 27 signs/constellations. These 27 signs went through various evolutions of unequal width and fixed width and 27 and 28 variations: there was an evolution and different schools that had different interpretations. The 27 signs have been incorporated into ancient Chinese astrology. We see lists in the Atharvaveda of these signs, the gods who ruled them, and some indications of their meaning. In the Vedanga Jyotisha (astronomically dated to about 1900 BCE), we see an elaborate systematic use of these 27 signs and a soli-lunar calendrical system.

In the Vedas we also see the calculation of the solstices and equinoxes (called ayana). We see rituals for these specific time periods. The Sanskrit name for the tropical zodiac literally means “with the solstice” (sāyana). In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (XII.1.4.2), the spring Equinox is called Mahāviṣuva and is the head of the personified year. The Ṛgveda (Ṛgveda I.155.6) talks about the tropical zodiac (Viṣṇu Cakra) and says “with four times ninety marks, Viṣṇu sets in motion moving forces like a turning wheel.” The equinox and solstices divided the year into 4 portions of 90 degrees each.

            In other Ṛg veda verses, we see a deep concern and respect for the concept of Time and change, both in its calculation and in verses that praise its existential aspects. In the Vedic Samhitas and Brahmanas we see the use of 7, 8 and 12 forms of the Sun (Ādityas) which parallel some of the Babylonian data of the original astronomical division systems where they experimented with various numbers of signs. Each of the Ādityas had meaning associated with them that can be correlated to the modern signs of the zodiac.


There is evidence of interaction between the Indus civilization and the rest of the ancient world from the archaeobotanical study of plants.[1a] There is archaeological evidence of interaction from the trade of beads, the geology of beads, and cultural elements existing in both Indus valley and Mesopotamian cultures starting from the third millennium.[1b] There is archaeological and historical evidence of interaction from incense/perfume trade routes.[1c] There is continued evidence for interaction between Indian and Mesopotamian cultures during the Assyrian Period seen by similarities between statements in the Mul Apin clay tablets and Vedic texts.[1d]

            A point to make clear- Vedic culture in the ancient world was spread from Iran to Burma. There are Iranian Brahmins (of which Varahamihira is the most famous) and Sumerian and Babylonian culture interacted regularly. We can see the tight connection between the Zoroastrian Avesta and the Vedic Samhitas which attests to the proximity of these cultures, and the cultures they were each close to. Trade in the ancient world was taking place between the Chinese and the Middle East, the south Indians and the Syrians and much much more than the modern-centric view generally expresses. There is a large amount of anthropological literature that many scholars often ignore, even though it is much more factual than our speculations from the books that have survived. There is great fault in past literature researchers who have ignored archaeological facts.

   

            Persians migrated to northwest India during the fifth century BCE, bringing Babylonian astronomy, astrology, and omenology. We still have texts like Varahamihira’s Bṛhat Saṁhitā which has portions similar to the Enuma Anu Enlil.   

            The Brahmana literature (between 3000-1000 BCE depending on different views) anthropomorphize the cycle of the year and call the Spring Equinox the head of the year. They have some beautiful analogies there, but the important point is that we see in some later literature the association of the Pleiades (Kṛttika nakṣatra) being given the signification of the head and the significations of the rest of the body given to the stars from that point. This indicates both the age of this system as well as the fact that body correlations were being given to the stars around 3000-2000 BCE, long before the well-known twelve sign zodiac.

            We see in the Mahabharata that the planets are being listed within the 27 star system (nakṣatras) when a date or birth is mentioned. There is a huge amount of literature of aspects, significations and other charts used for this 27 star system, which has not been explored in any western literature (a large amount is untranslated, but that’s because no English source is  utilizing it). There are many different Āgamic texts that mention calendrical data. Some of them list the date based on this 27 star system (nakṣatras). Other use a system that has 12 months based on the solstices and equinoxes, often called the ‘madhu, madhava, etc’ system. [1e] This system was a seasonal calendar which required it to be based on the equinoxes and solstices. Some Āgamas used the signs of the zodiac.

          Without going more deeply into the Egyptian and Babylonian past, we see that these three ancient civilizations had both a system for tracking the stars and their meaning as well as a system for the seasons.

Some people discuss the huge stone structures of the past as being the need of a calendar that calculates the length of the day and the exact solstices and equinoxes. I think these are people who have not used a proper sundial. With a sundial that calculates analemma not only is the time of day clear, but also the day of the year. [2a] These sundials could be made with a bamboo stick in the ground and a few small rocks or even just marks in the ground. The angle of the Sun and the Moon to calculate the 30 lunar phases could also be done with a simple angle. There is no reason to build such megalithic structures unless you are also integrating stellar information, within all these. Places like Stonehenge indicate an ancient astrology that we have lost. 

 The luni-solar calendar utilizes tropical points to delineate lunations which are named according to the sidereal background. A lunation is not tropical or sidereal in itself. This soli-lunar calendar was used for thousands of years across the ancient world before Alexander.    

The Marriage

            Alexander the Great conquered Greece, Egypt, the Middle East and parts of northern India. After Alexander’s India campaign, he came back to Babylon and the astrologer’s told him it was not a good time (muhurta) to enter the city, and to wait a few days. Alexander consulted his Greek consul, and their reply was that- they did not use the stars like the Chaldean (Babylonian) fortune tellers, they used the direction of the flying birds and the entrails after sacrifice. [2b]They told Alexander to ignore the Babylonian astrologers and enter anyway. He took the Greek consul and never left alive again. This verse in the official history of Alexander makes it very clear that stellar astrology had no place in Greece before the Eastern invasions and integration. The best thing about the post-Alexander world was the wide spread use of the Greek language which allowed scholars to communication and information to be shared more easily.

Alexandria in Egypt became the center of the post-Alexander world for learning and the exchange of ideas. Greek astrology texts, speak of going to Egypt to learn astrology. Archaeological remnants indicate observatories on the roof of the temples, as well as temples and pyramids being built to be in alignment with stars. There was a special chamber on the back right side of the temples to worship the goddess Nut (mother of the night sky and stars) where divination was done. Tombs also have stellar lore painting in them. Greek references mention that Indians, Bactrians, and Buddhists were all present in the courts of Alexandria, indicating that everyone as far East as India was fully participating in this ancient world.

            An important thing to understand: The English colonized India after 400 years of Muslim invasions and genocide. The English government led a program to degrade the Indian sciences and replace them with English sciences. The English taught that high culture was from Greece/Europe and everything of Indian origin was deficient. This white supremist practice was done in India till 1948 and in South Africa till the end of Apartheid. People often forget that it was the same country and policies controlling both these areas. I do not use the term white supremist lightly, it is important to not forget that slave-owners and colonizers held certain beliefs about the people they enslaved and realize the impact this has had on our perception. The English history of India denigrated Indian culture and research based off these older ideologies are filled with biases, to the extent that many people have no clue about the civilizations in the areas of what is now Afganistan, Pakistan and India (they aren’t completely wrong but they are biased and wrong in certain areas). There were schools of Buddhism in the area of Alexandria before the Common Era which influenced Greek thought, which is left out of Eurocentric histories. In the Bactrian Kingdom, which is now the area of Afghanistan and Pakistan, there were huge Universities and many Sanskrit scholarly works are associated with this area both before and after Alexander. There are references to the astrology of the kings of Bactria, and it was a melting pot of Greek, Babylonian, and Indian culture. Between Bactria and Alexandria, the systems of Egypt, Babylon and India came together (with Greek as the common tongue among them) to create the present system of astrology that exists in India and existed in ancient Greece.

            Cleaning up leftover Eurocentric theories, we next have to throw out a another idea that has already been discredited, but that many people still reference since it is widely referenced. David Pingree was a scholar who says Indian astrology came from Greece. His theory on this was his university dissertation. It was in vogue in the universities of Pingree’s youth to prove anything India had was of European origin (as I mention above), and so his theory suffers from a severe bias. Pingree’s two main points are a few Greek terms in the Sanskrit language and a single text he says started all of Asia’s fascination with astrology.  

  There are a few Greek terms in some astrological texts- and this is Pingree’s first proof that all astrology came from Greece. Some Hindutva try to prove they aren’t Greek terms, but Sanskrit scholars agree they are Greek- and to me it is not surprising that some Greek terms came into the system when Greek was the language which the melting pot spoke during the big integration. As mentioned above, the Greeks weren’t doing astrology, so the concept came from another of the primary civilizations through the Greek language.

  Pingree’s second argument is a text is called the Yavana Jataka which he says was translated from Greek to Sanskrit, because of the name. The text’s author had a name that was a combination of Greek and Sanskrit, something that was common in the area of Bactria which spoke Greek, Sanskrit (in Brahmi script), and Aramaic. The meaning of Yavana has been linked to Ionian which indicates a Greek- but this is disputed. Many believe that Yavana could also mean the people of the area of Bactria or just mean foreigner (and lots of other theories too, which are important to look at). Pingree’s research goes through the Yavana Jataka and finds many differences from Greek astrology and its statements; he references every place they are the same (and where they are different-absolutely great notes). There is a systematic difference which makes it clearly not a Greek astrology text (though his comments are perfect to show the difference between the two systems which I estimate were separated by at least a century or two based on the level of Egyptian-Babylonian-Vedic integration and the large differences/additions in the system). There is no Greek version of the book Pingree says was translated from Greek. Pingree says the original Greek must have been lost yet believes that no previous Sanskrit books could have been lost- that his book had to be the first. We see in the Amarakosha (Sanskrit thesaurus) that there are many names given to an astrologer- many that reflect the Indian system more than the Greek system, but this didn’t fit the goal of Pingree’s dissertation. Pingree believes that no Sanskrit astrology books could have existed previously, even though a completely Indian system of 12 sign astrology is presented within the text with Ayurveda integrated and core differences from the Greek system. He promoted that it was the first time India was exposed to 12 sign astrology (transmission), as if they had no connection to the Greek world. Pingree’s theories have been either enlarged by his students (to show multiple sharing of information, not just one transmission) [3a] or just completely discredited- please research if you have not seen these other opinions and still believe Pingree’s Euro-source of everything theory.

Certain elements of Indian geometry predate Babylonian and Greek, but this is again, just what has survived to us through books and tablets that have lasted through the millennium. There are some Eurocentric scholars who believe that Indians created advanced geometry to be able to do rituals, which to me is absurd. Geometry was born for architecture and astronomy, and only later was that geometry incorporated into ritual as the nature of the universe and the divine laws that are to be propitiated. 

            So with Pingree's theory aside, we have an ancient world, where Buddhists are teaching in Egypt, Greeks are trading all over India, Jews have huge maritime trading posts in South India. There are big universities in the regions of present-day Afghanistan- which was a great center of learning and civilization for centuries. Egyptian and Babylonian secret wisdom is more available. We have a world where things are developing as a mixing pot that now had a common language to have academic discourse. They had already been a mixing pot as seen by the fact that some scholars say that the mythology of Venus in Mesopotamian and Greek mythology is predated by Vedic texts, but this time period opened communication even more. [3b]

Note: Some fundamentalists argue that the present system of astrology was in the Vedic Samhitas. They are primarily rebutting the view that Indian astrology was a European science that came from Greece. These arguments use the fact that the numbers 12, 30, 360 and 720 appear in the Samhitas and are associated with time. This could refer to tropical or sidereal or lunations, and doesn’t actually prove that the present system existed before the Greeks. When we remove the Eurocentric ideology, the evolution of astrology and India’s gifts and influence is a far more beautiful thing to explore. And what we do know is that when the ‘first’ astrology texts showed up, they referenced past teachers and indicated a system that was old at the time of their redaction.  

There are myths from Egypt about the beginning of written language- it was seen as a negative thing to write information down. Previous to this people would memorize a book or myth or poem, and then others would gather to hear them recite it. Writing changed the shape of the world. Hellenization made writing and books mainstream. In India, we see books on drama, medicine, grammar and such all being put into a written format during this time period (things that were oral tradition became written texts). And the first astrology books show up. So many of these books were destroyed by the Christians in the library of Alexandria and by the Muslims in the Universities of Afghanistan and central India (which had hundreds of thousands of books burnt according to recorded accounts of the libraries).

In the honeymoon time period, where the world spoke Greek and before the Christian and then Muslim destruction of knowledge took place, a great system of astrology was being practiced from Greece, to Egypt, Israel, Babylon, Bactria-area and India. And this system contains a synthesis of the knowledge of all of them previously.

Note: One thing to remember though, is that India continued to use its 27 star systems of astrology. The other systems coincided for hundred of years- as we can see in the Sanskrit literature. I would think the Egyptian and Babylonia astrology also remained until the Christian and Muslim destruction removed it fully. There are always many systems and we should be aware of the differences or multi-referentiality and not try to collapse or force a single system out of the ancient world.

 

 When all these systems converged, the tropical and sidereal zodiac came together. Myth from each was woven together. Techniques from various systems were overlapped. It was a beautiful marriage. And I wish I could only praise the genius of this marriage. But one thing was wrong with the union; the long term impact of the procession of the zodiac was not properly accounted for- that was left for centuries ahead to deal with.

  In the earliest Hellenistic astrology text, the Astronomica, we see a belief in the constancy of the star positons and their movement. Manilius says, “Everything born to a mortal existence is subject to change... However, the vault of heaven, retaining all its parts, remains intact, neither increased with length of time nor diminished by old age; it is neither the least bit warped by its motion nor wearied by its speed: it will remain the same forever, since the same has it always been. No different heaven did our fathers see, no different heaven will our posterity behold. It is God, and changes not in time.” (1.520-523) [4]

            With this understanding that there is no change happening in stellar motion; ignoring procession. Manilius says, “There are two circles, placed crosswise to each other, which are drawn from one pole and received by the other... They mark the seasons of the year and the division of heaven along the zodiac into four portions of equal months.” (1.603-609) He then describes the stars this line goes through. Then says, “These circles the season have fixed in a permanent abode; their paths through the signs do not change, and their position remains the same for ever.”(1.631-633)

            Manilius doesn’t fully understand the procession of the zodiac, and so he draws a seasonal line through the stars and merges them.[5] This means he merges the tropical lines with the sidereal zodiac. This misunderstanding was a shared experience of the twelves sign zodiac at the turn of the first millennium that we see reach its fullness in Ptolemy.

Ptolemy in the Tetrabiblos (I.9) elaborates on ancient star positions with detailed descriptions of the stars of each constellation on the ecliptic as well as those that are north and south of it. For example, the planetary nature of the stars of Aries are described: The stars in the head of Aries (Aṣvinī nakṣatra) have the mixed power of Mars and Saturn; those in the mouth of the ram have the power of Mercury, the stars in the hind feet have the power of Mars; and the stars in the tail (Bharāni nakṣatra) have the power of Venus. Then, in the chapter on seasons (I.10), Ptolemy discusses the qualities of the seasons. Unlike Manilius who utilizes the nature of the constellations to give the signs meaning, Ptolemy gives the indications of the signs based on ‘his scientific’ theory of the temperature and dry or moistness of the seasons seen from the equinox and solstice points.[6]

Ptolemy uses the vernal equinox to begin the sign of Aries and his meanings were primarily related to the seasons. This makes it the foundation for understanding the tropical zodiac.[7] Ptolemy (I.25) clarifies that his system is based on signs with seasonal meanings and he is unsure of how it would work if it was not a tropical system.[8]

Some anti-siderealists [9] have stated that the meaning of the signs only come from a seasonal correlation, but this is only Ptolemy’s tropical system. The stars and constellations clearly have meaning indicated by the descriptions given of the signs by Manilius in the first Hellenistic astrology text,[10] as well as Ptolemy’s (I.9) own mention of them. In Astronomica, book two, Manilius uses both sidereal nature and tropical nature to indicate sign significations.[11] In Indian sidereal astrology (Vedic Astrology) the significations of the signs are indicated by guṇa, element, sign lord, and stellar symbology. But since the ancient world was well connected, India also adapted the merged zodiac. We see this in the mythological literature such as the Viṣṇu Puraṇa (a text put into codified form about the same time period… when everything was being ‘written’) as well as the Tāntrik literature such as Tantrāloka (VI.114-116). These texts follow Ptolemy’s line of thought and define the confines of the signs according to the solstices and equinoxes indicating the marriage of the two zodiacs happened all over the ancient world.

            During the marriage, Egyptian, Babylonian and Vedic wisdom were merged. I personally believe it had to have happened in either Alexandria or Bactria, just because that was the seat of learning and mixing back then. Our issue arises that the Egyptian, Babylonian and Indian astronomers had previously been using a sidereal zodiac (utilizing the stellar positions) with a luni-solar calendar system. The Hellenist astrologers came from a culture using the tropical Julian calendar. The twelve season zodiac based on equinoxes and solstices integrated all the old systems and overlapped the sidereal zodiac; married it without the clarity that it would not stay together. Hence the marriage of the tropical and sidereal zodiac was not made to last forever.  

The Divorce

The precession is the movement of the stars away from the seasons; it is what made the marriage doomed from the beginning. It takes 72 years for the precession (ayanāṁśa) to move one degree of the zodiac. It takes 2,160 years for the ayanāṁśa to move through one sign. It takes 4,320 years for the precession to make it through two signs (or one Vedic season/Ṛtu). It takes approximately 25,920 years for the Vernal equinox to make a complete revolution. These time phases will shift the sidereal zodiac (the stars in the sky) from the seasons (tropical zodiac), and need various corrections in the calendar.

  

The Eurocentric view is that Hipparchus was the first to discover the procession in 130 BCE. Yet, in India we see references to when the Equinox was in the Pleiades. As mentioned before the head of the 27 star system (nakṣtras) is based on when the Equinox was in this position- meaning that some significations of the signs were present long before Aries was in the Equinox. Some also consider that since the star in the beginning of Gemini (Aldabaran) is lorded by the Creator god, that it was probably given its rulership when that star was on the Equinox, as the year is directly associated with the creator (prajapati/Brahma) in the Brahmana texts. There are also references to the equinox/beginning of the year in the end of Gemini (Orionis), which are in some ancient dictionary texts- which were just copied and not updated to match the actual astrological indications. What this indicates, is that there was an awareness that what star was on the horizon at the Equinox was changing- meaning that the educated class knew about procession (but for their sidereal system, it didn’t matter that there was a precession). Some say the Indians didn’t know about precession till the eleventh century, because that is the earliest astronomical text to mention it (that has been translated into English- even though there are thousands of untranslated texts). Just because we don’t have a text that gives the exact calculation of the procession previous to this eleventh century text, doesn’t mean that there was not awareness, especially since they were actually changing the calendar, which indicates they were aware.

One author who was trying to disprove the sidereal zodiac’s credibility said, that Hipparchus discovered the procession in 130 BCE and the Indians never found out because it was only written about in Greek. He misses that Indians were in Alexandria and Greeks were in India and the educated people in North India knew Greek as it was the international language for hundreds of years (like English is presently). Indians had a sidereal astrological system/zodiac that had been married to a tropical zodiac, and they had no desire to drop their thousands of years of sidereal astrology for the seasonal zodiac. When they adopted the marriage, many used its tropical calculations for some time, but it did not last.       

The Babylonian Mul.Apin indicates, the equinox and solstice points were falling in the middle of their corresponding constellations at the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE. But after Babylon came under Hellenic rule, the spring equinox had drifted to about 8-10 degrees Aries. And when Hipparchus noticed the precession in 130 BCE, it had shifted to about 4-5 degrees Aries. In the second century CE, when Ptolemy wrote his Tetrabiblos, the spring equinox was almost at zero degree of Aries, and he set forth a tropical zodiac in his exposition which influenced much of the world at that time. Though not everyone used the tropical zodiac, as there were still huge observatories in Egypt and Babylon still during this time period.   

In Europe many people used the sidereal zodiac till about 150 years ago, and there are still some sidereal traditions. In India, the tropical zodiac was almost completely abandoned between the 10^th to 11^th centuries, though there are still some who use the tropical zodiac. Because of this, it is important to call them the sidereal and tropical zodiacs, not the Vedic and Western zodiacs. Sidereal means stars, and tropical means seasons. One is based on the stars, the other on the seasons.

Now we come to the issues of the divorce. I personally think that what people are arguing about, is the wrong issue. Most are arguing about which zodiac is correct, so we discuss that first. Many people get very upset and act without dignity to defend their version of the zodiac. I accept both zodiacs, so have no argument- just a perspective on how to use each.

The major argument of the tropical astrologers (against the sidereal zodiac) is that the signs got their meaning from the seasons. I agree that some meanings came from the seasons. Tropical astrologers heavily use the seasonal significations to define the sign meanings. There are whole books on this point and they dig up all such past seasonal references in ancient texts, the issue is that just because some significations come from the seasons, not all do. If we read Book 2 of Manilius in the Astronomica, we see in his sign descriptions have a huge amount of sidereal interpretation. He also has tropical interpretation, as mentioned above, he did not distinguish between these zodiacs as he was unaware of the procession. The key is that there is more stellar indications than season in his description. Those learning tropical astrology don’t talk about the stellar significations as it doesn’t fit anymore. Modern tropical astrologers focus primarily on the seasons and other tropical indications. Modern tropical astrologers also focus less on house indications but put heavy emphasis on the planetary relationships which are irrelevant of zodiac. Someone using the planet aspects/conjunctions, planet progressions, planet transits within a system that interprets that planets to be within a seasonal indication (tropical sign) don’t need the stellar signs, and they have a wealth of valid information based on these indicators.

Some sidereal astrologers argue that tropical astrologers are not using the right system because it doesn’t line up to the stars which they value as having the laws of destiny within. Traditional sidereal astrologers rarely discuss significations coming from the seasons, and put more emphasis on the shape of the stars, their myths, and other stellar indications. Sidereal astrologers heavily utilize the houses from the ascendant that the stars are positioned in and the planetary relationships (aspects/conjunctions). They get a huge amount of valid information.

We can read the tea leaves after a glass of tea if we understand how things fall into place and what it means. So as long as each system uses the indications of the signs according to the way they see their nature (seasonal for tropical, and stellar for sidereal) then both will work. It’s like having the right type of screw driver for the right type of screw. An astrologer from either system that bashes the other, is living in a box. There is no reason the two divorced parents can’t live in separate places and live happy and effective lives. So I ask those trying to disprove the sidereal or the tropical zodiac to step up, be more mature and learn to love and respect the other.  

As time goes each zodiac will develop different lives and what is best to utilize in each will become clearer. This next level of differentiation I am sharing here is absolutely a crucial break that needs to be taken into account as the two systems separate: The tropical/season zodiac indicates the earth’s relationship to the Sun (called bhuvar loka in Sanskrit). This seasonal information impacts emotions, agriculture and the seasonal/hormonal routines of our life. The sidereal zodiac indicates the earth’s relationship to the stars (called svarga loka in Sanskrit). The stars indicate the frame of reference we see things through- the lense of how we see that which manifests and how we will make meaning of it. This can be taken much deeper, they are two very different aspects of the human being.
 

Side note: planet relationships (aspects/conjunctions), and transits will remain the same in either system (so these techniques will remain the same and both systems can cross reference each other’s use and research here). The meaning of the signs will not remain the same, and the house meanings will also shift eventually- in both systems. As they are not remaining together- significations that came together need to be pulled apart.

Side note 2: If someone tries to prove, according to ancient sources, that the zodiac is tropical, they can, if they try to prove its sidereal they also can. So biased views that are trying to prove only one correct will sound accurate, with lots of correct points, but just be at odds with the opposite proof. Therefore, trying to prove one zodiac accurate is a lost cause- and instead, they key for the future is research to prove which zodiac indicates what information. Yet, people with a strong view often ignore and twist what is in front of them to try to prove their point of view.

Issues and Possible Solutions

There are unresolvable issues that require transformation. Big ones, that can slip by for a bit more, but will need to be resolved soon. The good thing is that they are primarily a nomenclature issue- at least for the tropical astrologers, but a religious issue for Hindu sidereal astrologers.  

Tropical Pains

The tropical nomenclature of the signs (Aries, Taurus, etc) relates to the stellar positions, but the tropical meaning relates to the seasonal nature. The sidereal signs relate directly to the stellar positions. NASA has taken the Greek names for the signs, as they were in texts two thousand years ago. So the stellar/sidereal astrologer and NASA agree on where a sign is placed- which stars are where and what their name is.

Tropical astrology doesn’t indicate stellar position. When the tropical astrologer says that your Mars is in Aries and the Sun is in Cancer, it is scientifically inaccurate. There was a big TV host who said astrologers were all wrong because the signs have changed. The issue is that tropical astrologers have named it wrong, but the interpretation they are giving is correct. If the tropical astrologer had said, that your Mars was in the just-after-spring-Equinox sign and the Sun was in the summer-solstice-sign, and they gave you the meaning of which they normally do- they would be straight and accurate. I think that a new nomenclature would also open up the doorway to develop the seasonal impact more deeply as well.  

In India, there is a system called madhu, madhava, etc., which is a system that is tropical months connected with the seasons/weather. I think tropical Vedic astrologers could use these names for their tropical signs instead of stellar names and then not only will it make the difference clear, but it will also further the development of the two systems down a path to their own fullness. The issue with the West is that tropical astrologers and there followers are very attached to the stellar nomenclature, even though it is completely inaccurate. One argument against my suggestion is that the meaning they use for the signs came from the seasons, but that does not substantiate using the star names instead of a season name. The future will need new names for the seasonal sign divisions that indicate their nature, especially the farther the constellations move away from the space being called by their name. Once this is done, there will be no argument between whose astrology is right, because the interpretation for someone born in Aries and someone born in Madhu will be clearly differentiated.

Sidereal Pains

A similar pain exists in the sidereal system in India (those not celebrating Hindu festivals don’t actually have an issue- just the slow release of season meanings). The Hindu festival calendar has linked the ancient seasonal madhu, madhava, etc calendar months to the sidereal calendar-making them precess with the zodiac. Certain texts that were written down during the beginning of the marriage link these time periods, similar to how Manilius linked the sidereal and tropical divisions. The Āgamic literature sometimes mentions the seasonal month for a festival and other times mentions the sidereal constellation. The Indian government is presently using the system that links the two together, which is creating the situation where certain seasonal festivals have lost connection to the right time of year- similar to the Julian calendar before Pope Gregor’s correction. AK Kaul, has been one of the main advocates for a change, but unfortunately he wants to turn the whole calendar into a tropical one. His theory does not take into account that there were two separate zodiacs that were married and then got divorced (which does not differentiate the Vedic and Hindu calendrical data).[12]  He basically is picking one side in the divorce, as many astrologers have done. In this way, his recommendations lack taking into account the way the ancients dealt with the sidereal calendars. We have to see the importance of both zodiacs and their relationship. 

What is important is that India starts accepting the divorce. Presently Makara Sanskranti is a holiday that celebrates both the Sun correctly entering sidereal Capricorn and incorrectly the winter solstice. The first step in rectifying this is to celebrate both the winter solstice (December 21) AND the Sun entering Capricorn (January 15). In this way, both zodiacs are acknowledged. Furthermore, the seasonal madhu, madhava, etc months need to be divorced from the sidereal signs. The agricultural festivals need to align with the proper time for planting and harvesting the crops which rely on the seasons. For many fundamentalist Hindu’s this will take much difficulty, but there is ample evidence in the Sanskrit literature to support the changing of the nakṣatra on the spring equinox was accounted for (and not by making everything go to a tropical zodiac as AK Kaul suggests, but by divorcing the sidereal from the tropical months). Both tropical and sidereal zodiacs have a reality with meaning and purpose.

I have seen very little actual research. One study I found interesting is a comparison by Adam Smith between similar looking people who have the same tropical rising sign but different sidereal rising sign. 

Here, I have stated the love story of two zodiacs and been a counsellor for a tough divorce. Both zodiacs are beautiful people with much to give, so there is no reason to need to take one side over another. At the same time, the Tropical zodiac is going to have to find some new accurate nomenclature, while the Sidereal is going to need to let go of some festivals… the ex gets them. It’s important that two people in a divorce make decisions about who gets possession of shared items. For the future, we just have to look at who the nature of the item truly belongs to, and then help the other to get over their loss. Nobody wins in a divorce, truly, it’s a loss for everyone. But the future has two zodiacs and lots to learn and share.      

---

[1a] The archaeobotanical study of plants shows an exchange of grains between the four major civilizations in the third millennium. See http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/ESCA13.pdf

[1b] Jonathan Mark Kenoyer is an American archaeologist and Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and is considered one of the world's leading experts on the Ancient Indus Valley Civilization. His research shows the trade of beads, shells and even culture in the third millennium between the Indus Valley civilization and Mesopotamia. There are scholars that say that the Indus Valley civilization does not relate to later India, but there is no proof the did not relate except that recent archaeology makes many Eurocentric theories outdated and incorrect. https://youtu.be/8zcGLlLEbmI 

[1c] Incense and perfume trade existed in the Indus Valley from the 3300 BCE. The earliest Vedic medical texts (charaka Saṁhitā and Śuśruta Saṁhitā) mention the extraction of essential oils. Incense trade routes (also called perfume trade) show how the ancient civilizations interacted.

[1d] North, J. (1995) The Norton History of Astronomy and Cosmology. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.  

[1e] Taittirīya Saṁhitā (4.4.11) lists the seasons composed of two months as:

                Spring season- Madhu and Madhava

                Summer season- Śukra and Suchi

                Rainy season- Nabhas and Nabhasya
                Winter season- Isha and Urja

                Cold (hemanta) season- Sahas and Sahasya

                Cool season (śiśira)- tapas and tapasya
[2a] My sundial has a gnome of 30mm (1.18 inches) and I can read hours, equinoxes, tropical months, and sidereal months, but it is a bit small to see exact days of the month. If it was a little bigger I would have room for it to give me the day of the year. The traditional gnomon according to Āgamic texts is 12 aṇgula (about 210mm or 8.25 inches), which gives room for the two minute accuracy requested in Sanskrit astronomical literature. The gnomon was 12 aṇgula above ground and 12 below symbolic of the day and night hours. 
[2b]We see the same mention in the Astronomica (4.911-914) where Manilius asks for the same faith (fidem) given to the stars as is given to omens from birds and the reading of entrails of animals which need to be sacrificed

[3b] Kanas, Nick (2009) Star Maps: History, Artistry and Cartography. Praxis Publishing: Chichester, UK, p.40.
[4] Translated by G.P. Goold, Manilius Astronomica (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977) 
[5]Manilius has different sources that he pulls from to create the Astronomica. In Book One and Two, we see the calculation of a tropical zodiac (1.631 and maybe 2.178). In Book Three, we see the calculation of a sidereal zodiac (3.257; 3.278-293; 3.625-628; 3.637-645). In one place, Manilius mentions the degree of the winter solstice: “And when, moved to the South in chill winter-tide, it shines in the eighth degree of two-formed Capricorn” (3.255-257). He even mentions the variation between different textual opinions about the place of the Solstice/Equinoxes being either 8°, 10° or 1° (3.680-682); and also mentions that the solstice is in the first decan of Capricorn, not mentioning anything specific (4.323-327); similar neutral statements at 4.162-164, 203, 252-255. Some commentators attached to a tropical zodiac have interpreted 3.278-482 as tropical, but the statements make no clear differentiation: “First you must measure in hours the shortest day and the longest night spent by Capricorn” (3.449), which could be any degree that Manilius mentioned. This clearly is indicating that there was more than one opinion about the sidereal and tropical nature of the zodiac at the time of Manilius.  

[6] Ptolemy is not giving the name of the astronomical constellation to the season, he just didn’t differentiate it. The nomenclature relates to the stars. Ptolemy’s explanation of the sign’s qualities based on the seasons (in 150 BCE) does not validate the use of the sign names for the seasonal months- particularly after he gave such a detailed stellar description.

[7] Ptolemy uses the nature of the seasons to define the signs, ignoring any stellar information to give them their significations. Having listed the constellations, he does not integrate the concept of the precession (even if he was aware of it). In the chapter on Seasons (I.10), Ptolemy says that there is no beginning of the zodiac, since it is a circle. But that ‘they’ assume that the sign which begins the vernal equinox, which is Aries [in his time], is the starting of the zodiac. I believe Ptolemy (≈150 CE) was promoting a tropical school of thought which was in alignment with the Julian calendar (used since 46 BCE), but was still integrating information from a sidereal system. He may have been aware of the precession, but his system does not integrate it and therefore it has a limited shelf life.

[8] Ptolemy (I.25) states that the beginning of the signs and their divisions are to be taken from the equinoctial and solstice points as indicated by his understanding that their nature originates from the seasons. He then says that if other beginnings were allowed then their meaning [that he gives them] could no longer be used for predictive purposes, or there would be error using them, and the spaces which give them influence would be broken up. We can infer that Ptolemy is referring to the fact that there was debate about where the equinox was. He was using the equinox to define zero degrees of the equinoctial sign (Aries). If the equinox is seen in something like 8 degrees Aries (as Manilius noted some believed) then the sign would be broken in upon and invading another tropical division, and Ptolemy wants a perfect division. This need for the perfect circle was one of the biggest limitations with Greek thought and astronomy. It is why it took until Kepler to realize the planetary paths were not divine circles. Greek astronomy focused on trying to project perfect geometry into the planetary movements [as noted by Clemency Montell, Chasing Shadows (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011)]. Here we see Ptolemy needing to have the signs also be a perfect division.

[9] Perry, Glen, Toward an Understanding of Two Zodiacs.

[10] Rochberg states that the signs ceased to have any relation to the constellations once they were defined by longitude, but this is only an opinion and is seen to be incorrect with the statements throughout the Astronomica of Manilius. Rochberg, Francesca (2007). The Heavenly Writing: Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture (New York: Cambridge University Press), 128. His line of thought also contradicts the longitudes used by the Egyptian sidereal decans and the Indian sidereal nakṣatras or the Babylonian astrolabe and the three levels of the sky. We see Manilius declare that those born under Taurus walk funny because it is a constellation that rises hind first. We also see an entire section on extra-zodiacal stars associated with professions based on their nature: In 26° Libra, the constellation of Lyra (the lyre) rises and makes musicians (5.324-338); in 30° Sagittarius, the constellation of Cycnus (the swan) rises it gives those who handle birds (5.364-388); the rising of Ophiuchus (the serant-holder) in Capricorn makes a snakes handler (5.389-393); in 12° of Aquarius  is Aquilius (the Eagle) who hovers over its prey and makes plunderers (5.486-503); etc. 

[11] Gavin White (Babylonian Star-Lore (London: Solaria Publications, 2008, p.23.) makes the statement that the significations of the signs are defined by the ‘all-important defining points’ of the solstices and equinoxes. But in Manilius we see him defining signs based on the nature of the constellations, such as those rising hind first or front first, or the hands of the Scorpion falling in Libra, or the Bull’s legs in Taurus.

[12] AK Kaul believes he is saving the Vedic calendar. My first argument to him is that none of these festivals are listed in the Vedic Samhitas or Brahmanas. They are listed in religious texts called Āgamas which means they are Hindu festivals (not Vedic festivals). Both the Shankacharaya and modern academics make a distinction between these practices. Second, AK Kaul’s main argument for reformation is that the Sun signs, named as Mesha, Vṛṣaba, etc., do not exist in the Vedic Samhitas, but also the festivals don’t exist in the Samhitas, thereby making this argument irrelevant. The festivals are listed in texts that are utilizing the married zodiacs. Third, as stated above, the Vedic literature indicates that the precession was shown in Vedic literature by changing the star at the head of the year (Spring Equinox), which means that Vedic tradtiona acknowledges precession and the nakṣatras are sidereal. Much of the Āgamic literature was written down during the marriage of the two zodiacs. Some texts lists the seasonal months for festivals, which is clear. Others lists the date of festivals based on the stars (nakṣatra). Kaul wants to make the entire calendar tropical; even the nakṣatras in order to keep these texts accurate. This is an attachment to the texts instead of the information they were indicating. By making nakṣatras tropical he saves the Hindu calendar and murders the Vedic calendar. Only by separating the two zodiacs can we preserve both calendars. There are many other intricacies that need special attention, which converting to a tropical zodiac oversimplifies. My interaction with Mr.Kaul can be found in the ‘HinduCalendar’ yahoo group on March 1, 2012 and March 7, 2012. 

T.V. Sivaram wrote me at the Sutra Journal Version of this article:He said, "Please visit www.reformedsanathancalendar.in and give me your views."

My reply to him:  "I have a major issue with this reform, as it creates another error trying to fix one. As I stated to Frank above, a large part is relative to terminology and the time period a particluar text was written. I have voiced my opinion in forums related to this reform, and my statements were not met with any direct answer, but avoidance of the issues I raised. I will repeat my line of thinking as I stated there:

The ritu based calendar IS the Vedic calendar. That is clear. The reform is based on this argument. But, when we look at the Veda and Brahmana texts, we see a system of ritual based around ayana and lunar cycles.

The "Hindu" festivals, such as Shiva Ratri, Navaratri, Ganesh Chaturthi, Hanuman Jayanti, etc are NOT mentioned in the Veda Samhita or Brahmana texts. They are mentioned in later texts which use a zodiac aligned with both season and stars. Festivals are sometimes listed according to season, sometimes to rashi, sometimes to nakshatra... or to a lunar month named after a nakshatra, depending on the text. Some believe these festivals are eternal and always there and always practiced, and I am sure they were always there in some form, but they were codified into a coherent system at a particular time when the stars and seasons correlated a particualr way. They are not in the Veda Samhita and Brahmanas. What is practiced in India today is actually a blend of a few different systems from Agamic and Tantric texts.

By substantiating the "Vedic" calendar, the reform does not answer our question about festivals being sidereal or tropical. So the major foundation of the argument is nullified.

The change in calendar is much more complex then SMKAP reform actually corrects, and this reform actually adds in other errors in order to correct the moving festivals. [Julius Ceasar misaligned cultural celebration by switching to a tropical calendar and making the New Year date (jan 1st) as the first New Moon after the Solstice on the year he changed it (instead of being actually aligned tropical for a calendar that would last this long). Pope Gregor further distorted the calendar when he reformed the Julian calendar and stuck Christmas four days after the Solstice (which was originally on Solstice in the original Julian calendar. These mistakes in our now international civil calendar are from lack of understanding and forsight.]

Just because there is a verse that correlates the soli-lunar nakshatra masa to a season (during a particular century) does not mean we throw out the science of Ganita and all the rules used to calculate the heavenly movements- which are Vedanga.

Nakshatra are sidereal and relate to the stars, and the months calculated from them should remain as observable by the naked eye- sidereal. Reform that uses a tropical zodiac must be willing to let go of nakshatra terminology in texts written during a particular astronomically dated time period and instead use a seasonal terminology.

There is a soli-lunar nakshatra masa Ganesh chaturthi and an ayana based ritu masa Ganesh Chaturthi. Which is correct is the discussion, which needs to be had based on the rules of Ganita, Shastra, and understanding the reasons for the festivals and their intention. The SMKAP reform does not address this, and conflates soli-lunar nakshatra masa and ayana based ritu masa.

The sidereal astrologers don't want to let go of the holidays, and the tropical calendar makers don't want to let go of the terminology (that's why I call it a divorce of two zodiacs in the longer article of this."

“Mahākāla destroys everything- even the beloved time keeping calendar, the calendar that we have is being torn apart, two sides argue that each half is whole, but in the end both will have to let go of an attachment to the yantra of time whose only promise is to always change.”