Your Personal Horoscope 2020. Joseph Polansky

Чтение книги онлайн.

       A Note on the ‘New Zodiac’

      Recently an article was published that postulated two things: the discovery of a new constellation – Ophiuchus – making a thirteenth constellation in the heavens and thus a thirteenth sign, and the statement that because the Earth has shifted relative to the constellations in the past few thousand years, all the signs have shifted backwards by one sign. This has caused much consternation, and I have received a stream of letters, emails and phone calls from people saying things like: ‘I don’t want to be a Taurus, I’m happy being a Gemini’, ‘What’s my real sign?’ or ‘Now that I finally understand myself, I’m not who I think I am!’

      All of this is ‘much ado about nothing’. The article has some partial truth to it. Yes, in two thousand years the planets have shifted relative to the constellations in the heavens. This is old news. We know this and Hindu astrologers take this into account when casting charts. This shift doesn’t affect Western astrologers in North America and Europe. We use what is called a ‘tropical’ zodiac. This zodiac has nothing to do with the constellations in the heavens. They have the same names, but that’s about it. The tropical zodiac is based on the Earth’s revolution around the Sun. Imagine the circle that this orbit makes, then divide this circle by twelve and you have our zodiac. The Spring Equinox is always 0 degrees (Aries), and the Autumn Equinox is always 0 degrees Libra (180 degrees from 0 Aries). At one time a few thousand years ago, these tropical signs coincided with the actual constellations; they were pretty much interchangeable, and it didn’t matter what zodiac you used. But in the course of thousands of years the planets have shifted relative to these constellations. Here in the West it doesn’t affect our practice one iota. You are still the sign you always were.

      In North America and Europe there is a clear distinction between an astrological sign and a constellation in the heavens. This issue is more of a problem for Hindu astrologers. Their zodiac is based on the actual constellations – this is called the ‘sidereal’ zodiac. And Hindu astrologers have been accounting for this shift all the time. They keep close tabs on it. In two thousand years there is a shift of 23 degrees, and they subtract this from the Western calculations. So in their system many a Gemini would be a Taurus and this is true for all the signs. This is nothing new – it is all known and accounted for, so there is no bombshell here.

      The so-called thirteenth constellation, Ophiuchus, is also not a problem for the Western astrologer. As we mentioned, our zodiac has nothing to do with the constellations. It could be more of a problem for the Hindus, but my feeling is that it’s not a problem for them either. What these astronomers are calling a new constellation was probably considered a part of one of the existing constellations. I don’t know this as a fact, but I presume it is so intuitively. I’m sure we will soon be getting articles by Hindu astrologers explaining this.