|From 'A Delegate’s REPORT on the First National Panchanga Ganitam Conference'|
'The 12 constellations are of varying size and position. Aries for example is very small and occupies less than 30 degrees of the ecliptic. Pisces is huge and occupies much more than 30 degrees of the ecliptic.' - Robert E. Wilkinson
I am welcoming in the Spring Equinox and entrance into the sign of Aries by posting two excerpts from Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet's recent 'A Message for Astrologers' regarding the error of using the uneven constellations, a.k.a. sidereal zodiac, as a guide or framework for measuring the twelve 30° signs of the zodiac, as is the widespread practice of modern day 'Vedic' astrologers. To read the message in full (which I recommend) CLICK HERE.
'... the Nirayana system uses the distant sidereal circle of the heavens to construct a horoscope or to determine the time for rituals. In my experience while discussing this aberration I have come to realise that I stand perhaps alone in realising this simple digression from the Vedic path: measurements are done in the wrong circle, thereby throwing the entire exercise off its Vedic moorings. It may be that the confusion arose some centuries ago when astronomy decided to name the constellations the same as the signs of the tropical zodiac. Be that as it may, the fact stands that the tropical/solar wheel has been set aside in favour of the very distant constellations (of the same name unfortunately). My main protest in this regard is that the measure the Earth offers to the system is completely ignored and rendered irrelevant.'
'... In the distant past, when astronomy separated from astrology, astronomers gave an imaginative twist to the zodiac. They projected the twelve signs onto the constellations of fixed stars in a fanciful exercise that is totally arbitrary. Astronomy used the stars as dots with which to draw the zodiacal figures in the heavens, similar to the children’s game of ‘joining the dots’, but far less real. Naturally any such image is non-existent; but the fact remains that in so doing these contrived figures when completed do exceed the even 30 degrees of the traditional signs of the tropical zodiac, or fall far short. This excess or shortcoming is sought to be corrected by the ‘true Vedic astrologers’. '