tropical signs

[Guest guest]

> > Another point to remember is that while the Bhagavatam does make mention

> > of astronomy, astrology, ayurveda and numerous other subjects it is not

> > a text devoted to these subjects. Rather its specialty is the science of

> > Godhead. Other Vedic texts on jyotish, ayurveda etc may mention Bhagavan

> > in passing but one could hardly become expert in the science of Krsna by

> > studing those texts because that is not their aim or subject. Similarly

> > since the stated aim of Bhagavatam is not anything other than Lord Krsna

> > we should not expect that it will give detailed or expert knowledge in

> > other subjects which is not its focus.

>

> It's obvious that Bhagavatam is not an astrology schoolbook, but we still

> expect the little information Bhagavatam gives about astrology to be

> correct, right?

 

Unless it is superceded by a higher Vedic authority on that particular

mundane subject. There is a system of levels of pramana according to

mimamsa. For example if a smriti texts contradicts a sruti text then the

sruti texts gets preference. Sort of like CSS if you know about webpage

design.

 

 

>

> That's intriguing because I don't know any instances where the sidereal

> zodiac is clearly defined in the Vedas.

 

Which texts have you studied on this matter? And again, just like the

Bhagavatam the Vedas are not about astronomy or astrology so why should the

Vedas be giving definitions on the topic of Astrology? That is the province

of specialized science in this case jyotish.

 

 

> If there would be clear sastric

> definition, there wouldn't be so many competing ayanamsas and disagreement

> between vedic astrologers, right?

 

You do not know why there is disagreement on ayanamasa. One thing is that

you will not get anyone to agree on anything for any subject. You will

always get some one who disgrees. For example in the Vedas the subject

matter is the Absolute truth but is there agrreement on this? No. Otherwise

Advaitists would not exist.

 

Specifically regarding astronomy has to do with the yogataras that make up

the principle stars of each Nakshatra. The stars in Revati at the end of the

sidereal zodiac are very faint to the naked eye. So it is hard to use them.

The ayanamsa is found out by the fact that Siddhantas like Surya Siddhanta

give the positions of various prominent yoga taras. The most important being

that of Citra whose yogatara was marked as being exactly 180 from the first

point of Aries.

 

So taking into account the "proper motion" of the stars over the course of

millenia that is how the current "citrapaksha" ayanamasa that was agreed

upon by the Indian Government came about. The Citrapaksa (based on the

yogatara of Citra) is more commonly known as the Lahiri ayanamsa as he was a

strong promoter of this ayanamsa.

 

Others have argued differently but mostly falling on deaf ears as Citrapaksa

ayanamsa is by far the most prominent and popular in India. But you will get

experts who disagree. One very fammous one was Dr B V Raman who had his own

ayanamsa. His arguments are based on the coordinate system used and involve

a lot of sperical astronomy. Still despite the fact that he was a widely

admired astrologer very very few people use this ayanamsa opting for

Citrapaksa ayanamsa.

 

 

>

> Does anyone know a clear definition of the sidereal zodiac given in the

> Vedas?

 

Again why would the Vedas have such a definition? They are not astronomical

texts?

 

 

And regarding your original enquiry about the

 

 

> When the sun passes through Mesa [Aries] and Tula [Libra], the durations

> of day and night are equal. When it passes through the five signs headed

> by Vrsabha [Taurus], the duration of the days increases [until Cancer],

> and then it gradually decreases by half an hour each month, until day and

> night again become equal [in Libra].

>

> >>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 5.21.5

>

>

> This verse speaks clearly about the Tropical (western) Zodiac and not

> about the sidereal (based on stars) Zodiac. The durations of day and night

> are equal when Sun enters Tropical Aries or Libra.

>

> But when Sun enters sidereal or Vedic Aries, then day is already longer

> than night.

>

> 5000 years ago when Bhagavatam was written, things were even more shifted.

> When Sun entered sidereal or Vedic Aries back then, day was just on the

> half way from its shortest duration to equal duration with night. But

> according to Tropical Zodiac this verse works in every century or age.

>

> I am wondering if Bhagavatam speaks always about Tropical signs and not

> about the Sidereal sign? If not, then how to discriminate when it speaks

> about the Tropical signs and when about the Sidereal Signs?

>

>

> Your servant,

> Abhirama das

 

 

We mentioned about how the Surya Siddhanta describes the phenomena known as

"Trepidation of the Equinoxes" and that this explains your question above

did you get that text?