I heard on local and national news that the zodiac dates have changed (have been changed for some time now) and another sign added.
I was taken by surprise.
I would love to hear views on this topic (scholarly and in general).
Please, everyone respond if you can. This could be interesting for everyone!
love to all,
According to this article, the story results from the comments of an astronomer that were taken out of context, and the news story that has recently gone viral is just a big misunderstanding:
The idea of this 13th sign is actually not new, though. I've seen references to it several times in online forums. I never really followed up on them before because I have only a rudimentary understanding of the "traditional" zodiac. Doing a quick Google search, though, I find that there's a pretty well-developed Wikipedia page about the constellation Ophiuchus, too (click here to read it).
I know there are all sorts of different zodiacs as well. I think this recent viral hiccup may cause more attention to be directed upon Ophiuchus, and perhaps even render the knowledge of alternative zodiacs more common. I don't think it will revolutionize astrology at large, though. But again, I am not an astrologer. Just my $.02.
That was an interesting article.
One thing I find interesting with Astrology is that many assume an actual influence from the planets. I've always looked at them as a clock. The clock doesn't have a causative effect, rather it serves as a reference point. Astrology is just a more complicated form of clock. That's how I've always interpreted HPB's/Barborka's explanations. Jerry Ekins turned me on to a book by Purucker on the subject (whose title I forget now) that seems to delve quite a bit into the issue. It should be interesting.
It seems to me that they are confusing the zodiac of the stars with the tropical signs. There are two different things. Only when the sun crosses the equator it begins the first grade of aries.
Me parece que están confundiendo el zodiaco de las estrellas con los signos tropicales. Son dos cosas diferentes. Solo cuando el sol cruza el ecuador comienza el primer grado de aries.
Hi Heidi Ann, here's what I have written on the matter. Some of the links at the end of the article are very informative on these matters as well.
Thank you [big warm smile]
Great post--thank you!
"...a rose by any other name is still a rose."
Hi Peter, regarding your comment above 'I do recall reading a long time ago; one of Blavatsky's works, that at the birth of Christ, Pisces and Virgo were the same sign. At this moment in time was the only time there was a change in the Zodiac; heralding a new age. It was then the Zodiac became 12 signs and has yet to change as no new age is upon us. Except of course the labels applied by society such as the age of information which is hardly esoteric.'
I have been studying Vedic Cosmology through the work of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet who continues Sri Aurobindo's lineage and his interest in the restoration of Vedic Gnosis and the Sanatana Dharma (eternal truth of being and becoming). It is apparent through her yoga and research that the 12 zodiac signs, the 12 division of the 360 degree year has been inherited from India, and that the Vedic seers were aware of the zodiac as a 12-stage evolutionary journey that plays out in the course of the year, and larger cycles of time, including Precession of the Equinoxes and its 12 astrological ages. The God Vishnu the Preserver is actually described in the Rig Veda as taking 3 steps (Trikrama) across the universe, from Leo (the Lion), to Taurus (the Bull), to Aquarius (the highest realm of the Friend). Vishnu's 'vehicle' is the Eagle (Scorpio). Notice these are all Preservation signs. [See pics/link]
It is important to consider the Vedic origin of 12 signs of the 360 degree Zodiac/Year, meaning the 12 division has been established for at least 5000 years. Ms. Norelli-Bachelet writes that the Vedic Year is eternally tied to the Earth's equinoxes and solstices and that the signs do not shift according to the shift of the Constellations, via the Precession of the Equinoxes. Her writings on recognizing the zodiac as an integral and seemless cyclical journey are significantly mind/heart opening (especially The Gnostic Circle and The Magical Carousel). It represents a Vedic gnosis and vision of Time and show how circumstances play out from the center point/soul in an orderly and geometrical arrangement in Time/Space. I recommend reading Sri Aurobindo's 'Secrets of the Veda' as well. It discusses among other things the 12 month vedic journey/sacrifice/year. Sri Aurobindo wrote that it's been thousands of years since anyone has properly understood the Vedas (including the vedic sacrifice) and the significance/importance of true Vedic Gnosis for the world community.
Best of Light, Lori
1) Most Western astrologers consider the positions of the planets and stars correlative, not causative. Kind of like if you have a raft, and you want to put it in a river, you throw a stick in the river first. The stick will indicate the underlying currents, and allow you to predict the behavior of the raft, but the stick is not causing the raft to move in one direction or other.
2) As was pointed out, Western astrology is tropical in nature. When the signs were formulated (start from the point where the sun passes the equator on is apparent trip north, and that's where 0 degrees Aries is; the sky is divided into 12 equal parts from there) the signs were named after prominent constellations that happened to appear in those sectors, but the significance of the signs is based on millennia of study; any relationships between them and the legends about the constellations are mnemonics. The effect of the precession of the equinoxes has been discussed since the times of the Babylonian empire; it is nothing new.
3) It is kind of strange for people who do not even believe in astrology to declare what is valid and what is not in astrology.
Thank you Bart,
A note on your number 3):
The day this "Zodiac Shake-up" hit the national news the local news broadcaster added a personal remark to the tune of "I don't know about all that" with a sneer and a grin. My thoughts were; obviously not...
Once again, uneducated "majority" rules. Interesting. Perhaps there remains a few who believe the Earth is flat because majority once deemed it so. Makes me think that it is reason why the controversy made national headlines; to reassure the ignorant they are correct in not looking into astrology seriously.
"...long and winding is the path, and uphill all the way, with pebbles firmly placed to throw off every step..."
Have a Wonderful Day Bart!