Spiritual Portal

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_astrology

I think what we have to ask ourselves is whether distant stars are the determining influence or the relationship between the Sun and earth. I do not have a finite fixed answer...only my own personal observations. Sometimes we find another explanation that may incorporate both views of a what appears to be a contrasting set of variables.

An interesting point from the link below; the constellations do not fit in neat 30 degree sections. This being the case; we may ask ourselves how influential are the constellations themselves when they do not fit neatly into 30 degree departments although 30 degree divisions are used in sidereal as well as tropical astrology.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110806164006AAZkBSt

Steve, as far as I know, there are sydereal systems which consider the constellations unequal and even introduce the Ophiucus constellation. I referenced them in the thread on astrology and astronomy. One of such systems has been pretty successful in Japan.

I foudn the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_and_tropical_astrology

Cyril Fagan relates sidereal to tropica, shifting the boundaries (same as in Vedic astrology).

Whereas Walter Berg devised a system based on 13 signs and variable boundaries.

from the Wiki voice on walter Berg:

Walter Berg's site.

My first impression: I,  I, I, ..... His presentation ostensibly reeks of a giant ego. Even though it's a strategy some people use against theft of intellectual property.

http://www.walterberg.co.uk/

In his system scorpio has a very limited width

(http://www.walterberg.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/13-Zodiac_400.png)

As you may or may not already know the signs almost always will be unequal if you do not use the equal house system. This is true because the closer you get to the poles the more the signs are skewed. The question one would have to ask is what do the signs look like if someone was born at the equator?

Steve, this being not my arena I cannot answer precisely right now, my understanding though was that the reference is the plane of the ecliptic, following the table by Berg illustrated in this link. So the boundaries are defined by astronomical reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_and_tropical_astrology

Notice that the width of Cancer in Berg's illustration is even smaller. His idea is not a new one. i found this at space.com

 Constellations names: What's your Zodiac sign?

The sun, the moon, and the planets travel on a set path through the sky known as the ecliptic as the Earth rotates. The list of 13 constellations they pass through are known as the stars of the Zodiac. The Zodiac constellations' names:

    Capricorn
    Aquarius
    Pisces
    Aries
    Taurus
    Gemini
    Cancer
    Leo
    Virgo
    Libra
    Scorpio
    Ophiuchus
    Sagittarius

Astrologers use 12 of these constellations as signs of the Zodiac, omitting Ophiuchus, to make predictions.

The constellations are divided up into equal parts each one being 30 degrees. Adding to 360 degrees of a circle. There are many references to 12 in history as an example: the 12 disciples the 12 tribes of Israel etc. 12 is a number of perfection. Numerology and Astrology are inseparable. There are four elements and three qualities. Notice: 3 times 4=12 There are many constellations if you look deeper and deeper in the sky-not just the ones of the zodiac. At some point we must pick and choose. The ones most visible and that divide into the significance of 12 are used. Four is for the earth and its qualities of fire, air, earth and water. Three describes the three qualities of cardinality, mutability and fixity. 3 times 4 equals 12. The 12 signs or houses in astrology.

Mathematics, Astrology and Astronomy are inseparable. One depending on the other. Astronomy can not exist without and understanding of mathematics. Astronomy is devoid of spirituality without Astrology and Mathematics are dry without Astronomy and Astrology. As a matter of fact the more we understand about one discipline the more we realize they are dependent upon one another. So Numerology plays a part in Astrology also.

Lastly, it is best to keep an open mind to others views. However when someone decides to use other constellations or to divide up for instance the great pyramids in Egypt into 13 faces or perhaps 5 faces we immediately are suspect to such views that appear to contradict all previous archetypes of Mathematics,  Numerology and Astronomy.

Now let us look at the zodiac. It is evident that there are many more stars out there that could have been designated as signs of the zodiac. Ophiuchus is rather off course to some of the other stars close to the zodiac. So this results in a simple observation: Is it really the stars of the zodiac that affect events in our lives or is it rather the sections of the sky and the position of the the planets and Sun and Moon in front of them that emanate their own unique meaning to events on earth? You may notice that there are many stars in between the zodiacal constellations. With this in mind it appears that the constellations themselves are only an outward confirmation of 30 degree sections and 12 divisions in the sky as related to the Sun's yearly orbit through them and all other objects of our solar system that have the backdrop of these stars. These 12 areas and 30 degree sections remain the same no matter how much the the Sun processes in a 24000 year cycle. The Sun will still cross the equator each year at spring and fall at the equinoxes and all the planets will willingly follow the motion of the Sun having the same relationship to the sky as the Sun. We should ask ourselves which came first the chicken or the egg? In this case it is more likely that the Suns' path and the planets' path through the sky came first and then someone developed some signs along the way called the zodiac.

By the way that is my intellectual property. LOL

(http://my.execpc.com/60/B3/culp/astronomy/fig/Zodiac.gif)

I bet there are reasons for all this we have never even thought of, nor begin to imagine. 360, 12, 24000, could be so elementary that renders their meaning insignificant when measured against the real meaning of which we can only speculate.

Thinking about the sections behind (or in front) of the constellations, which are used as a benchmark, sounds pretty reasonable and sensical to me.

We should read Berg's book though to see which are his points  and why he introduced the ophiuchus section. Sure enough, his method is pretty awkard to apply and needs a specific software (which is in commerce as far as I know) or a certain skill with ephemerides and astronomy tables. And it should be validated as its accuracy goes, with respect to the classical method, tested throughout a couple of millennia.

You know, in music, we also have a 12 note chromatic scale. i try to think of a 13 note scale. Have you ever considered it? Intervals are in thirds. Interesting how numbers reoccur from one medium to another. i must say i was a bit put off by Berg's puffed up attitude. It is almost as though he has to be different and put his signature on it.... no matter what it takes. It is difficult for me to get beyond that. As i have already brought up-- this is not a new idea... Ophiuchus.  Astrologers just choose the stars they did at the time a long time ago and made patterns out of them. You could easily have used Ophiuchus instead of Scorpio or seen different patterns in the sky then the ones we accept. The stars forming Scorpio just are closer to the ecliptic then Ophiuchus. If he finds some significance in Ophiuchus and some other astrologer finds significance in some other stars. Then so be it. There are many ways of looking at life and human creations can be viewed differently.

Steve, some instruments like keyboards just cannot be played in one third tones or one fourth-tones, whereas Indian music as you know makes wide use of microtones. There are techniques by which sax players can play microtones, on my digital  piano I cannot though!!

I want to give Berg the benefit of doubt. In academia, sometimes people act puffed up because they want to declare thei rown intellectual property over a subject. Benoit Mandelbrot, who codified the mathematics of fractals, in his seminal book constantly used 'I', 'my', 'mine'. The same goes for Sthepen Wolfram when he speaks about cellular automata.

As far as Ophiucus goes, it is not too clear to me. I understood that Ophiucus dominates the ecliptical circle in one interval, whereas Scorpio dominates it in a shorter interval. Your illustration would tend to show otherwise. Who's right? I know that there are arguments between western and sidereal astrologists.

The wiki voice on Ophichus clearly states that Schmidt and succesively Berg had the idea to include Ophiuchus into the zodiac. According to the 1930IAU constellation boundaries, the sun would cross the Ophiucus field.
That's the source of Walter Berg's hypothesis and model.

Now, I'm not able to falsify or verify that.

As far as I uinderstand, continuing my research, is that at present (actually, based on observations of 1930, 85 years ago) the exact subdivision of the zodiac according to the classic constellations is in 13 parts of unequal width.
This as described by the vector (arrow) leaving the earth thru the sun and outward bound.

Of course, this is strictly related to Sidereal astrology and has nothign to do, as Steve has explained, with classical tropica astrology whose subdivision is just conventional.

(http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/starfinder2/en/horoscope13.en.gif)

This is an interesting 3D view of the vector defining the zodiac constellations. The ecliptic is red, the equator is blue-white.
The blue lines seem to be the astronomical coordinates.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Ecliptic_path.jpg/1280px-Ecliptic_path.jpg)

This is another interesting illustration. The ecliptic drawn against the constellation boundaries in modern celestial coordinates.
It is all too evident how the ecliptic has a very short span into the scorpio constellation, whereas the span is longer in the ophiuchus constellation.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Constellations_ecliptic_equirectangular_plot.svg/1000px-Constellations_ecliptic_equirectangular_plot.svg.png)

i find this illustration very interesting. i still have a reserved opinion about the astrological signs. The influence of the objects in our solar system are much more conclusive and less susceptible to reproach. Although i will admit that the tropical zodiac has seemed much more accurate when describing personal traits.

It is difficult to put together some of the confusing differences in approaches. There is more consistency about the angular relationships between the Planets and other objects of our solar system. Thinking of Aries as being a spring sign and Scorpio an autumn sign just does not fly when you start doing charts for people living in the southern hemisphere.

One of the most confusing things to me is that the characteristics associated with Ophiuchus do apply to some things associated with my Scorpio Moon. But as you know what was once Ophiuchus has now become Scorpio or Libra if we look at it from a sidereal point of view.

The question that comes to mind: what constellations?  Whose idea of what constellation  has been viewed. Because stars can be viewed in any number of ways and patterens. Many stars may not be included. Who makes that decision. Isn't it somewhat arbitrary what we see in the sky? I may see a cat where you see a scarecrow.

For me the tropical view is much more descriptive of the people I have met and their 'sections' of the Sun's path as a description of personality traits.

That may be a basic point. That is, the chaldean astronomers/altrologers created rules, determined from their insights, which cannot be exported 'as they are'  to the recent sidereal model.
Ptolemy wrote clearly that the tropical model, as Steve already reported, is but a conventional subdivision of the sky and does not consider the equinoctial precession because that's not a factor of interest in that particular model.
Again, this is not my arena, but it is clear that tropical and sidereal astrologers are often in disagreement.
Probably, a recent sidereal model should be based on the principles of Vedic classic astrology update and expanded.

I've no idea if there is someone who is currently able to do that.

Thought this might be interesting; To see visually the power of the middle of the Milky Way. If indeed there was some obstruction from the source of the middle of the Milky Way it does appear that it may affect the consciousness of the inhabitants in a small solar system on one of the arms of our galaxy. 

That is the Frawley hypothesis, which proposes the existance of a spiritual 'light' emanating from Sagittarius A*, the central black hole in our galaxy. He believes that an obstruction, another celestial object, may prevent this influence  ('light') to reach us at times, causing recurring dark ages.

I think the model is too vague and undefined. Which would be such an obstruction? A single celestial body or many? Which is or are the spatial patterns and configurations causing such an obstruction? Sagittarius A* is a fixed benchmark in this respect, so it shouldn't be too hard to point out possible 'obstructions'.

It probably will take more interest from the astronomy and scientific communities to come up with a model that makes sense. Many if not most in those communities still accept the wobble theory of our planet to explain the procession of the equinoxes so it may take a while before that happens and an acceptance of a binary system manifests for the retrograde motion of our solar system through the astrological signs. Although they have already found out that there are mutations and anomalies that can't be completely explained by the wobble of our earth. We should also accept the fact that at the time of Sri Yukteswar living in the body there most likely was no understanding or concept of the center of our galaxy. Therefore he used a word like Vishnunabhi to designate it in his own terms. That's my take on it. We did not have the technology to have pictures and an understanding of our universe-though small- as we do today.

I came late to this and dont really understand, (sorry) but are you saying the earth spins perfectly on its axis and there is no wobble or deviation even after 24,000 years?

i do not think that the earth has no wobble. Just that it is not responsible for the processional 24,000  year cycle.

SI, walter Cruttenden, a wealthy SRF member, has been hiring consultants (astronomers) to work on alternative hypotheses on the cause of the equinoctial precession (among which: the sunA-sunB binary star system). Cruttenden was inspired by SY's 'The Holy Science'.
Some hypotheses, based on scientific facts and observations, are outlined in his site:

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/

There are no hard proofs yet. SunB, if it is really existing, goes on being elusive (of course, if spotting sunB would be so easy we would have known its existance for millennia now).

KK, that's a plausible hypothesis. Although, if the entirety of SY's theory should be accepted (that is: revolution of sun A and sunB aroudn a common baricenter) then Vishnunabhi should be by logic much closer to our system than Sagittarius A*, the central black hole, the hub of our galaxy. This because, as we have already discussed, a revolution around a dual would cause a change in distance from Sagittarius A* pretty much negligible, given the distance, even  in the astrological perspective . Whereas a closer Vishnunabhi would imply a variation in distance which is more significant.

Vishnunabhi might even be an astral region with no physical counterpart. Unfortunately SY is no more around with his body and we cannot ask him, although we might be able to get in touch with him by deep meditation.

I see, thanks. We'll never really know unless someone could stand in the northern hemisphere for 24,000 years to measure it, while having some sort of satellite looking back down in the same spot to measure wobble. And if it did wobble, how would we know that the amount of wobble stays exactly the same for every 24,000 year period?

Things like this have way too many variables so my bet would be a combination of theories and possibly other forces we're not aware of.