Ophiuchus?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: SARDONICPILLOW

what's the deal with this? does it change everything? are all star signs off, and why isn't something done about it?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Jenfucius

I never heard of it can you elaborate more about it.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: SARDONICPILLOW

this site pretty much sums it up:
http://www.altergray.50megs.com/the_13t ... _sign.html


so it should be like this:

Astronomical Constellations of the Zodiac

Constellation Dates

Capricornus January 19 to February 15
Aquarius February 16 to March 11
Pisces March 12 to April 18
Aries April 19 to May 13
Taurus May 14 to June 19
Gemini June 20 to July 20
Cancer July 21 to August 9
Leo August 10 to September 15
Virgo September 16 to October 30
Libra October 31 to November 22
Scorpius November 23 to November 29
Ophiuchus November 30 to December 17
Sagittarius December 18 to January 18

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: punxzen

while sidereal astrology follows the actual stars, most tropical astrologers do not.

in conventional western astrology, it is not the stars that denote the signs, but rather the equinox and solstice dates which mark the beginnings of the cardinal signs. which is why aries always starts on the spring equinox even though the sun is still in the constellation of pisces at the time.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: beesting42

good i dont wanna be a gemini

hehe

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dracophoenix

The astrologers I know do not acknowledge it as anything more than a constellation.

Beesting I think geminis are cool

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: dreaminglife

vedic astrology (that is, from India) is based on a sidereal zodiac and its worth checking out. It is very different from western tropical astrology but it is extremely informative and interesting.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: beesting42

Dracophoenix... me too! I just wouldnt wanna bee one. hehe

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: insert_name_here

I remember Aleister Crowley had a confusing word on Opiuchus in his Book of Thoth. -apperently Lon Milo clarified things a bit in his tarot book.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: Dracophoenix

Vedic astrology is fun and something I only learned about with in the past few years and since learning about it reading up on it as much as I can. It's a very facinating and beautifully worded system

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IconoAnthysta

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I am curious about Ophiuchus as well, and the fact that the zodiac used is not astronomically current or accurate.

Can any astrologers here help me?

Here's some links with more information:

The Ophiuchus Zodiac

Ophiuchus-- The 13th Astrological Sign

Astrology and Ophiuchus, WikiPedia

Solar Zodiac, Ophiuchus

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: punxzen

IconoAnthysta,

Western astrologers do not utilize constellations the way Vedic astrologers do.

Western astrology is based upon the planets (including the luminaries, sol and luna) and their relations to the seasons and each other.

In western astrology, 0* Aries always falls on the position of the sun at the exact moment of the spring equinox. So the zodiac used is seasonally current and accurate, if not 'astronomically' current and accurate.

There are many forms of astrology, and the issue of which to use often comes down to what an individual feels comfy with. I personally find western astrology more approachable and fitting with the direction my life is taking me, but I have not ruled out the viability of vedic or chinese or tibetan or judaic or any other culture's astrology.

The third link you provided has a lucid explanation similar to mine, whereas the other links offer up their ignorance of the tropical zodiac's uses... rather clearly summed up with this:

So why isn't Ophiuchus a member of the standard astrological zodiac - the Tropical Zodiac?
Good question! Ophiuchus is a Sun-sign. The Moon and planets all are seen against the stars of Ophiuchus. Unfortunately, the answer to the question is that Ophiuchus isn't in the Tropical Zodiac not because there is something wrong with Ophiuchus but because there is something wrong with the Tropical Zodiac. The Tropical Zodiac is an inaccurate oversimplification of the heavens dating from a time when we did not have telescopes or computers. Follow the Zodiac Wheels link for a description of the history of the Zodiacs.

The italicized bit makes me wonder if the author truly understands the utility of the tropical zodiac and is simply playing off of the uninformed sensibilities of his audience in order to promote an agenda of his own, or whether he is just genuinely ignorant of the potential uses of the tropical zodiac.

The tropical zodiac is a tool to be used for whatever use you can find for it. If you are unable to find a use for it, perhaps you will feel more comfy with the sidereal zodiac. These authors remind me of children who, being unable to make sense of something, lay the blame on that which they cannot understand rather than on their own ignorance.

Does that help to clarify?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IconoAnthysta

Does that help to clarify?

Um, I'm sorry, but not really.

I mean, the Earth's orbit and axis-wobble has changed where the sun actually is in respect to the constellations. I mean, it's been more than 2000 years since the wetsern zodiac was formulated, right? That makes a big difference.


From the first link:

So the constellations have stayed in the same direction, but the signs have drifted to the west (relative to the fixed stars), and they no longer coincide. If you were born during the first two weeks of May 2600 years ago, you were born when the sun was in both the sign and constellation of Taurus. Now during those weeks the sun is in Aries. Astrologically speaking, you are still a Taurus; astronomically speaking you are an Aries. Likewise, most Libras are really Virgos, and so on. (And to add insult to injury, most Sagittarians are really Ophiuchi.) Of the 366 possible birthdates, the sign astrologers use corresponds to the astronomical constellation 14 percent of the time. The astrological sign is off by one constellation for 84 percent and by two constellations for the other 2 percent.

The authors of these links are astronomers for the most part, highly schooled in the stars but not in astrology. The one you quoted is an experienced astrologer though-- Shepherd Simpson, an astrological historian.

These people are so knowledgable about the stars, planets, and constellations, how can I (or anyone) ignore what they say?

Obviously the astronomers would be somewhat ignorant of astrology. But astrologers are usually somewhat ignorant of astronomy. Isn't it better to listen to both?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: punxzen

I mean, the Earth's orbit and axis-wobble has changed where the sun actually is in respect to the constellations.

The tropical zodiac does not take this into account as it is not at all based upon the stars.

Sidereal astrology does actually follow the constellations.

mean, it's been more than 2000 years since the wetsern zodiac was formulated, right? That makes a big difference.

It makes no difference for tropical zodiac astrologers, as the seasons never change. Aries (NOT THE CONSTELLATION, but the western sign(a 12th of the ecliptic)) will always begin with the moment that day and night are equal in length. The fact that the constellation of pisces provides the backdrop for the sun makes no difference to tropical astrologers since they are only concerned with the zodiac as it relates to the seasons and not the stars.

You may respect what they have to say about the stars, but tropical astrology has no relation to the stars. I find it hard to believe that Shepherd Simpson has any experience with the tropical zodiac as his main point revolves around some imagined relationship between the zodiac and the stars.

The quotes that we have provided both make the point that the tropical zodiac is out of sync with the constellations, and the point that I am trying to make is that tropical astrology never claims that the signs and the constellations are related in any way.

Does that make sense?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IconoAnthysta

OK, thanks. But if the tropical zodiac, which seems like you're saying is the one most people use, isn't based on the stars, why does it use names of constellations? Why is the phrase "Sun in Pisces" used when the sun really isn't in Pisces, but somewhere else? Is it just a term used that's become outdated?

I'm sorry I don't get what you're saying completely, but I'm trying, I assure you.

And do other zodiacs use these constellations? If so, do other types of astrology need to adjust their systems?

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: punxzen

if the tropical zodiac, which seems like you're saying is the one most people use, isn't based on the stars, why does it use names of constellations? Why is the phrase "Sun in Pisces" used when the sun really isn't in Pisces, but somewhere else? Is it just a term used that's become outdated?

Yes, it is just a convention, but no its not the one most people use. Most western astrologers use it, but there are far more vedic astrologers (who use the sidereal zodiac) than there are western astrologers.

I'm sorry I don't get what you're saying completely, but I'm trying, I assure you.

Keep trying, and feel free to mine me for answers and clarification

And do other zodiacs use these constellations? If so, do other types of astrology need to adjust their systems?

Sidereal zodiacs follow the constellations, and yes they do have to adjust their systems.

There are western astrologers who use the sidereal zodiac, but usually you mostly only find vedic astrologers using it.

[Occult Forum Archive]

Original post: IconoAnthysta

OK... I think I get it now. Thanks.