Saturday December 16, 2017
Home India The 13th Zodi...

The 13th Zodiac sign ‘Ophiuchus’: Myth or Fact

2
5237

By Ekta Mal

 

The recent media hype about the Ophiuchus (pronounced Oh-fee-YOU-cuss), “the new 13th zodiac sign”, has made people crazy and searching for their own identity, but the experts have something else to say.

“Ophiuchus has nothing to do with astrology”, said the expert astrologer Rock Levine, (according to a a famous astrological website ‘dailyhoroscope.com’). “It’s not an astrology issue. It has to do with stars, its not a sign, its a constellation”.

But people are still freaking out wondering , if they were Gemini yesterday and Taurus today.

In reality, Ophiuchus is a large modern constellation commonly represented as a man grasping the snake represented by the constellation Serpens.

It is actually just a constellation.

It all began when an astronomy professor Kunkle, said “Two thousand years ago the Sun was ‘in’ whatever it was in. Now it’s about a whole constellation off from that.” Kunkle’s quote went viral and was picked up by FOX News and other media outlets because people mistakenly assume that Astrology is based on constellations. But that’s not true.

The real truth?

Astrology is based on the four seasons, not on constellations and the seasons don’t change. As there are four seasons, each with a beginning, middle and end, which adds up to 12 zodiac signs. There is no 13th astrological sign period.

This means that your zodiac sign hasn’t changed. If you were a Gemini yesterday, you’re still a Gemini today.

What can we learn from this?

Listen to the experts, and don’t believe everything you read until you check your facts. There are a lot of people out there who think they understand Astrology when they really don’t.

(Inputs taken from wikipedia and astrology websites) (Image:youtube)

  • billy

    The 13th zodiac sign is actually Huge Cunt. Did you not see a Huge Cunt on Wikipedia?

  • ten.O

    The majority of those who prefer the sidereal version seem to base their differences on the new position of the stars compared to 2000 years ago, regardless of whether or not the 13th zodiac sign is observed. I think it may be okay to dismiss those who want to include it as a new sign now, especially if it was never a sign in the history of astrology. But I don’t think this dismissal should be lumped with dismissing those who believe in the sidereal format. They may not believe in a 13th sign, but they apparently believe in sidereal astrology, which, by default, means the signs are in different positions now, including ascendants, moons, etc., resulting in sidereal astrologists to aver that my sun sign and ascendant and moon are different than they appear to be in the tropical astrological version. Tropical astrologists believe the zodiac is based on the four seasons, while sidereal astrologists believe it is based on the constellation placements. There are experts in each version.

  • billy

    The 13th zodiac sign is actually Huge Cunt. Did you not see a Huge Cunt on Wikipedia?

  • ten.O

    The majority of those who prefer the sidereal version seem to base their differences on the new position of the stars compared to 2000 years ago, regardless of whether or not the 13th zodiac sign is observed. I think it may be okay to dismiss those who want to include it as a new sign now, especially if it was never a sign in the history of astrology. But I don’t think this dismissal should be lumped with dismissing those who believe in the sidereal format. They may not believe in a 13th sign, but they apparently believe in sidereal astrology, which, by default, means the signs are in different positions now, including ascendants, moons, etc., resulting in sidereal astrologists to aver that my sun sign and ascendant and moon are different than they appear to be in the tropical astrological version. Tropical astrologists believe the zodiac is based on the four seasons, while sidereal astrologists believe it is based on the constellation placements. There are experts in each version.

Next Story

India’s ‘Mythical’ Sarasvati River: Find out what the Research Reveals about the Lost River

Recent discoveries say that the Ghaggar-Hakra was not a glacially fed river but probably a monsoon-fed river like all the rivers of central and peninsular India.

3
967
Sarasvati River. Image source: indiafacts.org
  • Vedic Sanskrit and the first part of the Rig Veda are regarded to have originated along the banks of Saraswati in the 2nd millennium BCE
  • The new government launched efforts to trace the lost river as soon after coming to power in May 2014
  • The Ghaggar-Hakra was a much bigger river but it was well before the supposed arrival of the Indo-Aryans about 4,000 years ago

Praised by the Rig-Veda as ámbitame nádītame dévitame sárasvati, “best mother, best river, best goddess,” the great Saraswati river holds a very important place in the history of our land. Vedic Sanskrit and the first part of the Rig Veda are regarded to have originated along its banks in the 2nd millennium BCE . The Rig-Veda, and later Vedic and post-Vedic texts glorify this mighty river that flowed between Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west. The Mahabharata mentions that the Sarasvati dried up in a desert.

While many believe that the river is just a myth, there are those who believe in the existence of the Sarasvati. They say that the river is represented by the Ghaggar and its tributaries in Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat, and the Cholistan region in Pakistan. Some suggest that the Helmand river of southern Afghanistan corresponds to the Vedic Sarasvati .The truth about the Vedic Sarasvati is crucial in figuring out whether there was an Aryan invasion around 2000-1500 BCE, after the decline of the “native” Indus Valley Civilisation.

Follow NewsGram on Facebook: NewsGram2

The new government launched efforts to trace the lost river as soon after coming to power in May 2014. With millions spend, the dried-up palaeochannel of the Ghaggar is being explored and is being excavated. The recent discovery finds the river  in the Ghaggar-Hakra basin to be a monsoon-fed river like all the rivers of the central and peninsular region and not a glacial-fed river like the Indus, Ganga,  and their tributaries.

Anil Kumar Suri of Swarajya.com shares his viewpoint and understanding in light of the recent findings-

The Swarajya article discusses the recent findings of a team of geologists led by Peter Clift. Using a geochemical technique called uranium-lead (U-Pb) zircon dating, the team able to establish that the sediments from the various rivers – Indus, Beas, Sutlej, Hakra and Yamuna – could be distinguished from each other and that they were matched to that of the dry channels. They were also able to determine that no sediment from the Yamuna, Sutlej or Beas in the main channel of the Ghaggar that could be said to be less than 5,000 years old. All this implies that the Ghaggar-Hakra was a much bigger river but this would have been well before the supposed arrival of the Indo-Aryans around 4,000 years ago.

Follow NewsGram on Twitter: @newsgram1

The team discovered that the Ghaggar-Hakra was not a glacially fed river, unlike the Indus, Ganga and their tributaries, but probably a monsoon-fed river like all the rivers of central and peninsular India.

The shift in the cultivation pattern to adapt to the declining monsoon lead to the vanishing of the Sarasvati, suggests that the natives migrated to new lands and that there was no new population and no invasion

-This article is compiled by a staff-writer at NewsGram.

ALSO READ: 

 

3 responses to “India’s ‘Mythical’ Sarasvati River: Find out what the Research Reveals about the Lost River”

  1. We should definitely make efforts to find out this river. According to Hindu mythology, the river is invisible.

  2. There was no Aryan invasion as there is no way that the migrants from another land would know the landscape of Bharath from top to bottom and glorify them in an entirely new language. There is no reference of an invasion in the Rig Veda.

  3. If you go to Allahabad, there is a holy place known as ‘triveni sangam’ this is where 3 rivers, the Ganga, Yamuna and Sarasvati intersect at a point. The course of Ganga and Yamuna are quite distinct but Sarasvati is said to flow secretly.