Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

First of all I would like to thank the admins of this site. I have recently joined but I am very well pleased with the information and care has been given. I am fascinated with the idea of 13 sign/true sidereal astrology. I have also read the topics related to Ophiuchus in solunars.net since I was born under this constellation. I am definitely into astrology.I would love to read more but unfortunately I do not have much time as a Surgeon. That is why please do understand me, if the questions I might ask sounds a bit ignorant.
Is Ophiuchus real? Should we include it in the zodiac natal chart calculations? Are there any reliable books or articles you could suggest regarding this constellation?
What are the true traits of Ophiuchus? Because generally they mention it with either Saggitarus or Scorpio traits.
Thank you as always.

Calithie wrote: Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:24 am I am fascinated with the idea of 13 sign/true sidereal astrology.

That's not actually Sidereal astrology. If someone is calling it that, then they're co-opting the term. (I'll summarize below what Sidereal astrology actually is.) What you are talking about actually came into popular awareness back in the early '70s as a 14-sign zodiac including Ophiuchus and Cetus because both astronomical constellations had some stars that made their way into band of the zodiac. (You can actually get Steven Schmidt's 1970 book, Astrology14 off Amazon. It was surely my first exposure to quasi-sidereal astrology, nd to the idea that I was a Virgo and not a Libra, so it had its use in my life )

But astrology isn't based on "the visual constellations" if you mean the constellations as defined by astronomers in the early 20th century. In every single culture where there has ever been anything that could be called a zodiac, that zodiac has consisted of exactly 12 divisions, and those divisions have been exactly equal in size (30° each). But we don't hold to this just because it's old: Solid, compelling research conducted by Donald Bradley and others beginning in the mid-20th century independently confirmed the existence of a zodiac of 12 equal segments. Probably the one thing we know more solidly and certainly than any other thing in astrology is exactly where the boundaries of the zodiac are.

Ophiuchus and Cetus have neve been part of anything that can be called a zodiac. However, in some places at some times the symbolism of Ophiuchus has been merged into that of Scorpio, i.e., they were seen as the same sector (sign). The Babylonians did this, for example, in their "scorpion-man" figure, which was their way of portraying Scorpio. It's also true that, while there are only 12 actual zodiacal constellations, the surrounding extra-zodiacal constellations often have their mythic themes interwoven with the zodiacal ones, e.g., Ophiuchus and Serpens with Scorpio, Andromeda and Cetus with Pisces, Aquila with Aquarius, Hydra and Leo, and others.

That is why please do understand me, if the questions I might ask sounds a bit ignorant.

No need to apologize for ignorance - we all have plenty of it . (I do think that people usually should apologize for willful persistence in ignorance, but that's not at all what you're doing. You're seeking knowledge.)

Is Ophiuchus real?

As an astronomical constellation, yes. As an astrological constellation, no (though it's symbolism naturally melds into that of the astrological constellation Scorpio).

Should we include it in the zodiac natal chart calculations?

No.

Here are some introductory summary notes on Sidereal astrology and the Sidereal zodiac.

Astrology is the study of the synchronized relationship between astronomical patterns and human and other life, whether individually or collectively.

Astrology's fundamental doctrine is that every intersection of time and space (i.e., each moment at each place) has a unique character. Whatever arises out of a particular intersection of time and space partakes of the nature of that moment and place.

Sidereal astrology is a school of astrology founded by Cyril Fagan, Donald Bradley, and their close collaborators beginning in 1944. It has both commonalities and differences in methodology with modern Western Tropical astrology, and is most distinguished by a different theory of the zodiac. It shares much of its zodiacal theory with traditional and modern Indian astrology, but differs dramatically in methodology.

Sidereal astrology is both an ancient recovery and a modern discovery. In the mid-20th century, separate investigators independently discovered the same boundaries of the zodiac by (1) archaeological research into astrology's origins and (2) statistical research into astrology's behavior.

Now as in antiquity, the zodiac consists of 12 CONSTELLATIONS each exactly 30° wide. Though we say “constellation,” astrology’s ZODIACAL CONSTELLATIONS are not beholden to astronomers' remapping of constellation boundaries in 1922 (though the two mostly overlap). For convenience and ease of communication, we commonly say “sign” to mean a 30° section of the Sidereal zodiac, just as we would of the Tropical zodiac. However, Siderealists often have affection for “constellation” (which, used in its original sense, is an accurate term).

You might be interested in the following thread: In 1975 the founders of one organization of Sidereal astrologers wrote a list of "pooints of agreement." I felt these needed some sharpening after all this time, and so I started a rewrite earlier this year and consider it an evolving document, not "finished" in any sense. The original Points and my current update effort are here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2259

There are some introductory essays at the top of the "Many Things" section of the forum:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5

The more recent history of Ophiuchus as a zodiac sign:
Back at the end of 2010, a bunch of astronomers from the Minnesota Planetarium Society, faced with a loss of funding, decided to stir up some publicity and debunk astrology by announcing they'd "discovered" a new zodiac sign to "correct" astrology because it was out of step with the actual stars. They had no idea current tropical astrologers claim the zodiac is counted from the vernal equinox and not measured against the stars.

But no matter. Their "new zodiac" got a lot of publicity and was accepted by a lot of people who practice neither tropical nor sidereal nor Sidereal astrology, nor Eastern, nor Chinese astrology, and some British astronomer wrote what he called an astrology book, which was wildly popular in Japan. That system was incorporated into several popular games and some anime.

As Jim explained, Ophiuchus is not part of the zodiac. It does cross the line of the path of the Earth around the Sun if you use the map astronomers use of the constellations, but it's important to understand the map astronomers use is one they spend a lot of time drawing and redrawing in pursuit of academic honors and tenure. You can't use the map the astronomers use for astrology. (Or for navigation or for surveying.) The zodiac is an exact division of the line of the ecliptic by 12.

We know for a fact that Spica is 29°06' of Virgo. We also know that Aldebaran is at 15°03 of Taurus, Regulus is 5°06 of Leo, and Antares is 15°01 of Scorpio. Jim just recently, while doing statistical tests on something else, proved it again. The 13 sign "zodiac" isn't real, any more than the tropical zodiac is real. It's not what people in Egypt and Babylonia used.

The tropical zodiac, btw, was accidentally invented by Ptolemy when he wrote a multi-volumed book about astrology, astronomy, medicine and mathematics. Most people only bought one volume, on the subject they were most interested in, so they never connected Ptolemy's statement in the astrology volume that the vernal equinox was located at 0° of Aries with the long discussion of precession in the astronomy and mathematics volumes.

Since people also only bought one ephemeris copied by hand for their libraries and used by navigators and surveyers, and only incidentally by astrologers and astronomers, people who looked the planet positions up in books instead of going out and "shooting" the night sky (they thought breathing night air was how people got sick,) gradually came to believe 0° Aries was coincident with the vernal equinox, and invented reasons for that to be true.

The tropical zodiac, btw, was accidentally invented by Ptolemy when he wrote a multi-volumed book about astrology, astronomy, medicine and mathematics. Most people only bought one volume, on the subject they were most interested in, so they never connected Ptolemy's statement in the astrology volume that the vernal equinox was located at 0° of Aries with the long discussion of precession in the astronomy and mathematics volumes.

Since people also only bought one ephemeris copied by hand for their libraries and used by navigators and surveyers, and only incidentally by astrologers and astronomers, people who looked the planet positions up in books instead of going out and "shooting" the night sky (they thought breathing night air was how people got sick,) gradually came to believe 0° Aries was coincident with the vernal equinox, and invented reasons for that to be true.

Ptolemy was a sidereal astrologer and innocent of any wrongdoing. People didn't have the technology to widely distribute books and they didn't physically observe the stars at night because of superstitions about miasma. Ignorance is the worst culprit, as usual.

Yes, exactly.

Even Morinus have to use precession corrected solar return for exact position!

As for the energy that is melded into scorpio from the constellation, yes in theory one could seperate it and apply it. In my personal chart this would only happen to mercury (however having Mars aspect it just adds that energy back into the mix anyway.)

I would say that the mythology of ophiuchus as the warlock and the rebel is what lead tropical astrologers today to think that scorpio is the sign of the mystic. Even reading story of the sign they all speak of andromny autonomy and miracles of magic (Mercury, Pluto, Saturn/Uranus?). Down to the number 13, the sign of snakes, bats, and black cats, it's easy to see where they could of got mixed up.

As for if this means anything in the actual sidereal, perhaps if your venus was here a less violent more spooky aesthetic? Even that is a joke perhaps.

I will say the one thing that I really itch to know is what planets could be seen as the energy behind this specific constellation.

Astrologically, it's just part of Scorpio; therefore, the answer is Mars.

Could Uranus be in influence here as well?

Beanies+Bad habits wrote: Fri May 17, 2019 3:13 pm Could Uranus be in influence here as well?

Is this different from any of the other two dozen times we've talked about the issue of Uranus and Scorpio?

No issues here Jim. Just double checking. Just being the curious scorpio mercury I am, looking into if they're is any of the archtype that emerges from ophiuchus due to my mercury.