posted January 15, 2011 01:36 PM            

THE TROPICAL ZODIAC IS STILL AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN 100% VALID! You are still the sign you always believed you were!

Please, allow me to continue to make some points, and explain why the Tropical zodiac is still valid, as this also flipped my world upside down when I found out what many of you are finding out right now. I tried to force myself to abandon the Tropical zodiac because I was afraid of fearing change or clinging to the past last year. I feared the Tropical zodiac was a corrupted zodiac. I thought I had spent years researching and believing in fairy tales. I want to assure each and ever single one of you that is not the case, and if you are patient and you are willing to read, I have the info here to help explain why nothing has changed. There is not a simple answer to the dilemma the media has created for many people who don't understand what has happened, so only those who truly want answers should keep reading to inquire those answers in the large amount of information within the rest of my post. However, if you stick through this and read it in its entirety I doubt you will regret it.

Others here such as Glaucus and many posters have already done an excellent job of explaining why nothing has changed in other threads, but I want to share some extra info with you that would not be fitting as a mere reply in another thread. The mistake is we all at some time believed that the constellations that share that same names of the Tropical zodiac signs were the exact same thing. They are not. The constellations are completely different(astronomically at least) from the signs in the Tropical zodiac even though they share the same names! Due to the constellations drifting backwards one whole sign every two thousand years or so, several thousand from now when they are polar opposites, someone who is born a TROPICAL Libra(let's say...October 1st for example) will actually have their sun in the very different and separate constellation Aries when they are born. Does this mean they will be an Aries? No, it does not. Just because the signs share the same names with the constellations DOES NOT mean they are the same thing. Total mind-bender, I know... but if you can understand this simple fact, then you can understand how Sidereal and the Galactic Zodiac(the one that includes the 13th sign Ophiuchus) are two totally different systems when compared to the Tropical zodiac. The Tropical zodiac does not take account the precession of the equinoxes because it is a FIXED zodiac that will never change! Someone born October 1st will always be a Libra, someone born November 1st will always be a Scorpio, and someone who is born in December 1st will always be a Sagittarius. BUT, the constellations which share the exact same names as the Tropical zodiac DO move because the constellations are NOT a fixed zodiac, unlike the Tropical zodiac which is directly linked to our calendar and not to the constellations. Someone born thousands of years from now when the Tropical and Sidereal Zodiacs are completely polarized by sign on October 1st will one day have their Sun in the actual constellation Aries, someone born November 1st will have their Sun in the actual constellation of Taurus, and someone born on December 1st will have their sun in the actual constellation of Gemini since these constellations are slowly but always moving backwards due to the tilt or wobble, known as the the precession of the equinoxes, that we witness from here from earth with our geocentric viewpoint of the sky. The constellations do not stand still unlike the Tropical signs which share the same names.(which is why there is confusion) Therefore, in the future, the gap between the Tropical zodiac and constellations will continue to get larger and larger over time. But no matter what constellation the sun is actually in this person is still a Tropical Libra if born on October 1st, still a Tropical Scorpio if born on November 1st, and still a Tropical Sagittarius if born on December 1st even thousands of years from now regardless of where the actual constellations are in the sky. And the Tropical zodiac is still 100% right, and has its own scientifically valid system for asserting this belief. The Tropical Zodiac uses the Sun's relationship to the earth which I will explain in the following paragraph and with a must-read link. You may need to re-read this paragraph for it all to sink in, but you will 'get" it sooner or later.

If you want to find out more about the origins of the zodiac, the precession of the equinoxes, and more... this woman who is a Vedic astrologer who uses the Tropical Zodiac(considered by many Vedic astrologers to be blasphemous) makes a very good case why if you had to pick one, the Tropical Zodiac actually makes more sense in some ways than Sidereal does:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-argument-for-the-tropical-zodiac-in-vedic-astrol ogy.html

If you have any doubts about the Tropical zodiac, let this woman quickly erase them for you. She will explain how the Tropical Zodiac uses the Sun's relationship to the earth instead of actual constellations in the sky and how this works. She will show you why you don't have to have the backdrop of the fixed stars behind the sun to give a sign its power, and why many in the astrological community are sorely mistaken if they believe this is a requirement for a "real" zodiac. The Tropical Zodiac has always been a real zodiac. She will show you how the Tropical zodiac works providing very simple, basic explanation but with many facts you might not know about the Tropical or Sidereal Zodiac's origins. This is one of the best, if not THE best article you can read on the subject of Tropical vs. Sidereal...period.(and I spent countless hours researching this when I found this out a year ago) She will explain to you why the Tropical zodiac is and always has been an efficient, sound system not based on fantasy or deception.

Although she seems anti-sidereal I believe both systems are valid. They describe different densities of the human body and soul. It's just she is the only Vedic astrologer I have seen who does not dismiss the Tropical zodiac as a false zodiac, and stands up to all the other Vedic astrologers(who can be quite condescending when talking about Tropic vs. Sidereal) to explain why the Tropical zodiac has firm roots in the past every bit as much as the sidereal -- not due to someone in the west simply "losing knowledge" or forgetting about the precession of the equinoxes.

On arguing which zodiac is older or if Ptolemy corrupted the zodiac, remember that even Sumeria(whose civilization dates back over 6,000 years ago) had a solar calendar and a calendar with 12 months that the tropical zodiac is tied with. (even though our revised modern calendar, the Gregorian calendar, is very different now) Josephus Flavius(a priest from Jerusalem), is one of the historians that lived during Jesus's time claimed that there was a temple. In that temple there was symbolism for the TROPICAL zodiac. The priest wore 12 stones in FOUR rows to represent the four seasons. There were all kinds of other astrological symbolism in that temple, and this was before Ptolemy's time when these rituals were occurring. The Bible is actually coded with astrological symbolism no matter how many Christians who think they know what their religion is all about want to deny it, but that is for another thread.( it's very much tied to the "ages of the zodiac", the 12 signs pertaining to the twelve tribes of Isreal, and the 12 apostles with Jesus as the Son/SUN of God...get it?) Clearly the Tropical zodiac had been around for a VERY long time, much longer than 2,000 years.(many believe it was around in the days of ancient Egypt) Also, in order to find the "ages" of the zodiac one must have knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes,(sidereal astrology) and the vernal equinox, the start date of the Tropical zodiac begins on March 20th.(which many sidereal astrologers still refer to as the "Aries Point" despite it currently being in the constellation Pisces at the moment, which is why we are in the "Age of Pisces") Aries's Sidereal start date however starts in an entirely different location from the Tropical depending on the fixed stars in the sky. You have to use both the Tropical zodiac's FIXED start date March 20th( the vernal equinox, 0 degrees Aries) and Sidereal zodiac(knowledge of precession of the equinoxes showing were the constellations have drifted backwards) to arrive at the conclusion that we are in the Age of Pisces! As the actual constellation Pisces keeps drifting backwards, we will be in the Age of Aquarius in the future.(hence the "dawning of the age of Aquarius") But we have to use the Aries Point, the beginning of the Tropical zodiac that never changes since the Tropical zodiac is a fixed zodiac in its entirety to decide what age we are currently in. Both systems have to be used, therefore both systems are valid or we could never come to the conclusion what "age" it might be.

Also, they even designed our calendar with the beginning of the Tropical Zodiac in mind. Even though in our current calendar we start the New Year on January 1st, the names of the months reveal this was not always how things were supposed to be -- it was supposed to be on the Vernal Equinox.(the Aries Point) It actually started on March 20th, on zero degrees Aries according to the Tropical Zodiac. Here is the proof:

# September: from septem, Latin for “seven”
# October: from octo, Latin for “eight”
# November: from novem, Latin for “nine”
# December: from decem, Latin for “ten”

Read more: The Names of the Months — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0002067.html#ixzz1B7xY2GDd

As for the signs, 13, Ophiuchus. That's a totally different system -- astronomy is not exactly astrology. You cannot tell me with how giant Ophiuchus is compared to tiny Scorpio, that Scorpio was chosen instead of Ophiuchus for thousands of years by mistake. Vedic astrologers who have kept records for 5,000 years or so, stared at the stars/moon every night which illuminated the sky, taking notes of every move the celestial bodies made in the heavens, and assumed these planets were in Scorpio instead of Ophiuchus because of... ignorance? Ptolemy even knew about Ophiuchus and did not include it. This guy explains why Ophiuchus was probably not included in our modern zodiacs:
http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFive/OphiuchusDilemma.htm

Notice how he shows you with pictures that Ophiuchus IS NOT in the natural southernly path of the zodiac, and none of the signs are 30 degrees. Which clearly astrologers gazing at the stars for thousands of years could easily recognize... So if size is the issue, why not count Virgo twice like he said since it's technically on the elliptic the longest? And Aries doesn't even really touch the Elliptic... Astronomers are saying just because the sun technically sits on Ophiuchus's foot even though it's in Scorpio's "real estate", that it belongs in Ophiuchus and not Scorpio period during this time, making the Sidereal zodiac actually sound of even worse of a failure than the Tropical since the actual constellations(whose domain/ "real-estate" are each given an equal 30 degrees each) ARE the zodiac in that system. Bull-hockey I say! Plus, imagine holding your hand out completely straight and even. Now imagine holding your arm out straight line guiding it in a complete circle like guiding the sun around the elliptic and make one full circle. Now imagine doing the same thing but a little bit after your half-way through moving your hand drastically vertically up then back down again to the natural straight line you held your hand at when making a circle for the first time before you complete a full 360 degree spin. That's kind of what adding Ophiuchus would do the zodiac when taking account the actual constellation's placements in the sky.(even though the sun technically passes just through his foot while traveling on the elliptic ) Plus, you would need 13 houses instead of twelve wouldn't we as each sign is related to a certain house?(Gemini ruled by mercury is the third sign in the zodiac -- the third house rules all forms of communication, writing, and speaking, for example) So now even the houses would be off in both the tropical and sidereal system. Everything that has touched your soul about your chart would be "wrong" no matter what house system or zodiac you prefer. Doesn't something sound terribly wrong the more you try and shove Ophiuchus into the zodiac? I hope also the author in the link above helped clarify for most of you why traditional astrologers were probably not clueless fools, and that they [intentionally] left out Ophiuchus for what they felt were good reasons.

And finally, if you need physical proof that the Tropical zodiac is authentic and very real, go to astrofaces.com. Click "Zodiac Faces" on the bottom left. Look at a triple Aries and feel the fire pouring from their own soul, look at a triple Taurus's "bull-shaped" face and eyes, look at a triple Libra's pleasant demeanor and glowing smile, and a triple Scorpio's haunting intensity in their eyes. About 80% these people have their signs by the other systems in completely different signs of the zodiac, and would not be considered to be categorized correctly by sign. But you can feel impressions of each and every single person's energy without having to be a psychic. You can see the Tropical zodiac is still true, still has meaning, and it still works because the proof...is in their faces. Only someone who wishes to stay in deep denial could not see the correlation between the signs(as Tropical astrology describes them) and the energy these people carry when comparing them to one another. After looking at them do you really feel the signs are that "off"?

And one last thing, I am unsure how many of you are willing to go out on a limb here. I have mentioned Edgar Cayce before. He is documented as the most accurate psychic that has ever existed with an estimated 90% accuracy rating. He never charged -- not ONE time -- nor made a public display of his abilities his entire life. All his readings were documented,(kept at the A.R.E. institute in Virginia) and he lived a very hard life. He was poor when he young, and he was poor when he died an old man. His family wrote some of the readings he gave people of old gift wrapping scarps of paper they were so poor throughout his life. Edgar became far more famous after he died than he ever was when he was alive. The entity that Edgar channeled seem to prefer Sidereal astrology, but only mentioned that there were 12 signs in the zodiac. He never mentioned the number 13, only 12, when describing the constellations of the zodiac.(and he did hundreds of readings on astrology, 10,000+ documented word for word readings total) If you look at what this man accomplished and truly understand his readings, you would know no matter what his critics say that what he did was impossible if he was a phony. This man saved many lives with cures way ahead of their time. Anyway, the L/L Institute(which has been around for about 40 years now) that that carries on Edgar work through other people that have the gift of channeling spirits,(mediums) had an astrologer who preferred the sidereal zodiac come in to verify which one was the "true" zodiac in a reading. They posted the transcripts of that reading and many others on their website. The entity's answers in this reading are astounding in what it revealed the function and the reason behind both zodiacs. I realize some of you may be skeptical, but I ask that you all take some time to read this and let your higher soul guide you as to whether this is truth or lie. I believe inside you'll feel that this is the truth. I stopped searching and doubting after I found this, because my soul finally felt at peace why there were two different zodiacs once I read this. If you want to truly understand the differences between the zodiacs, then read this and you might finally feel at peace within your soul as well and be tolerant of both systems as I am now:
http://www.llresearch.org/transcripts/issues/2006/2006_0207.aspx (first question and answer are what is most important, you can read the rest if you wish)

The link above truly is amazing and I hope you read it, and I thank the entity that answered with such incredible amount of detail for putting my mind at ease that there is no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" zodiac when comparing the Tropical or Sidereal.

I hope the info here will help bring peace to those searching for answers like I was over a year ago. I also want to say that the Galactic zodiac/"Real" Solar Zodiac that includes Ophiuchus, despite my strong stance for 12 signs instead of 13, does not mean I think it does nothing or has no significant meaning. But only time, patience, a revised system that suits the Galictic zodiac, and understanding will reveal if the Galactic zodiac works and its true meaning. As of right now though, whether you prefer Tropical or Sidereal, it should work just fine. They are both fine systems and you don't need to sweat bullets wondering if they are somehow "wrong" because they don't include Ophiuchus. I realize this is a lot to read, but I wrote all this out for people who are truly looking for answers. I do not usually get this passionate about most subjects, but the media's current shoddy reporting on the matter confusing the hell out of most people(actually stating word for word that "everything you know about yourself is a lie") is really getting under my skin! So take a deep breathe and then relax.(maybe I should too lol) Your tropical chart has and always be 100% correct, and anyone who uses it is not using a "fake" zodiac. You cannot fix what was never broken to begin with.

P.S.

Here are two other excellent links for those who want to do some extra reading on the matter:

The "Aries Point" and Precession of the Equinoxes explained:
http://www.planetwaves.net/cainer/archive/003790.php

posted January 15, 2011 02:04 PM            

If you include Ophiuchus in a tropical zodiac, it will disturb the order in regards to mode,element, and planet rulership as well as the seasonal divisions
as well as even the aspects

of course, the use of TranSaturnian and giving them rulerships actually contradict Ptolemy's system
The Sun and Moon were meant to have 1 sign rulership, and the planets were meant to have 2 sign rulerships signifying day and night

whole sign aspects and whole sign house system were used in Ptolemy's Astrology

------------------
No..I am not a Virgo.

posted January 15, 2011 03:00 PM            

Cyril Fagan Sidereal Zodiac Western Astrologers can be the same way.

I give the rebuttal:
Even though my Sun is in Libra in the Sidereal Zodiac, it is not in the Libra constellation. The constellation zodiac is not a zodiac of 12 signs of equal degrees that include Virgo being largest,Scorpius being smallest ,and includes Ophiuchus.

but yeah..I was born on the 2nd to the last day that Sun was in the Virgo constellation before entering Libra constellation

------------------
No..I am not a Virgo.

posted January 16, 2011 08:13 AM            

Yes, adding Ophiuchus would disturb the natural order. It actually disturbers Sidereal's natural order too but actually does create a bigger problem for them in the long run depending on who you talk to and what they believe -- but mainly because their zodiac uses the actual constellations and are ours(the Tropical zodiac) doesn't. I would only resort to the "it really wasn't in that sign either" argument if they insist there can only be one zodiac. Cause technically it wasn't since none of the signs are 30 degrees, but that's why sidereal is a different system anyway. I am tolerant of both, and believe both systems are valid in their own way.

I like Liz Green's take on the different systems used in astology:

Nick Campion: The issue of whether there is anything in astrology that is "out there" and "real" often comes down to the claims astrologers make for particular techniques or ways of constructing a horoscope and the house system. Competing house systems is one of the main problems in astrology from that point of view, quite apart from the problem of the sidereal versus tropical zodiacs. How do we decide which house system to use, let alone which zodiac? You once said that "you should use the house system that works for you." That sounds like you are putting the astrologer in the center of the equation, rather than the astrology.

Liz Greene: Only in part. I think that all these different structural approaches open a window on something, but it is a narrow window and no single one of them reveals the whole landscape. I think that’s why they all have validity to some astrologers but not to others.

She is spot on to me. These different zodiacs and house systems are just like looking out a different window in your own home. Some views are better than others, but when it comes down to it it's all about preference. They all have their own special sets of strengths and weaknesses, but none of them can see the whole landscape because they all have their own "blind spot".(or maybe this is just my libra asc talking desperately trying to balance those scales lol)

As far as Ophiuchus goes, he will have to stand trail for me. I am open minded but the other signs have proved that they are valid and work for a couple thousand years now. Just because the media opened a can of worms doesn't mean I'll accept him with open arms just yet.(I've actually known about him for a while though) The link I put up about Ophiuchus raises some deep questions for me too, especially considering how Ophiuchus in not in the natural southernly path at all when looking at the other constellations, and just because the sun touches his foot does that mean we are forced to accept him? And if it's "all" about the Elliptic than why not count Virgo twice since it's technically on the Elliptic the longest, and not count Aries at all since it's not even really on the Elliptic. He raises a lot of good questions. I am unsure about the real solar zodiac,(for more than just sun signs) but if someone creates a system suitable for it I will watch it closely and put it to the test just like I have the other two zodiacs.