Age Of Aquarius???
-
Would that be an example of a "prologue of the unborn" if you will, where characteristics of the age to come begin to manifest themselves (slowly over time) in the previous age to assist in its annihilation? Or another way, will we begin to see slow hints of movement towards Maat as the New Aeon advances?
-
There are always those who are way ahead of the baseline of humanity.
-
@Iugum said
"Do you think that Nema is one of those people?
"I have no clear opinion about her. I seriously doubt it, but actually have no clear opinion about her.
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"
@gmugmble said
"Maybe. Mathers' system defined the star Regulus as 0 degrees Leo. That creates a sidereal zodiac that is offset from the "Aldebaran = 15 degrees Taurus" zodiac by about 4.9 degrees. Offhand, I don't recall how different the latter is from the Fagan-Bradley zodiac, but I think it's close. If I did my back-of-the-envelope number crunching correctly, I think that means that we will be entering Aquarius (under Mathers' system) in just about 20 years (in approximately 2029). Any sidereal gurus care to verify?
Steve"
"Crowley himself was unaware of the Sidereal Zodiac, or at least failed to utilize it. His book on Astrology illustrates this fact somewhat painfully. Thus, his Astrological conception of time was on par with Mathers': flawed.
As far Sidereal Astrology is concerned, the Age of Pisces is nearing its completion.
-
@JPF said
"As far Sidereal Astrology is concerned, the Age of Pisces is nearing its completion."
As of today, 83% done.
But it's not "as far as Sidereal astrology is concerned." The thing that keeps getting missed is that outside of Sidereal astrology there is no basis for the ages. They are defined by the passage of the northern hemisphere vernal equinoctial point through an Aquarius (or other sign) that, by definition, can't be constrained to that same equinoctial point.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@JPF said
"As far Sidereal Astrology is concerned, the Age of Pisces is nearing its completion."But it's not "as far as Sidereal astrology is concerned." "
Good point. I myself tire of making the distinction. After all, how many times can one explain to the layman that his sun sign is Aries, and not Taurus, and that there is in fact no basis for the "Intellectual Zodiac" as opposed the true and actual position of the heavenly spheres? It is true, though, that many seem unwilling to accept the idea that the Sunday newspaper gives them the wrong horoscope.
-
I stumbled upon Sidereal a few years ago and it was a revelation, it describes my friends and myself much better than Tropical. It's reassuring to see others here using it.
-
@JPF said
"Good point. I myself tire of making the distinction. After all, how many times can one explain to the layman that his sun sign is Aries, and not Taurus, and that there is in fact no basis for the "Intellectual Zodiac" as opposed the true and actual position of the heavenly spheres?"
How many? I've lost track. But it's been basic to the last 37 years of my life.
If they have an actual interest, you can hold their attention a little longer. If not, it's not worth it anyway.
-
"Crowley himself was unaware of the Sidereal Zodiac, or at least failed to utilize it. His book on Astrology illustrates this fact somewhat painfully. Thus, his Astrological conception of time was on par with Mathers': flawed.
"In the GPofA Crowley says Sidereal is macrocosmic and Tropical is microcosmic, I'm not sure what that means, just thought I'd point it out.
-
GPofA?
-
General Principles of Astrology
-
Since all of the material collated into that book was written decades before Sidereal astrology existed (1944 onward), there is no reason to assume that Crowley was using the term in the same fashion.
-
Dion Fortune's Cosmic Doctrine (1923 - 4) also uses the term "Sidereal astrology", contrasting it with "Zodiacal astrology", so it must have meant something in the Golden Dawn tradition before modern sidereal astrology came along in 1944. The prose of CD is, shall we say, difficult to penetrate, but what it seems to me to be saying is that the constellations determine the Ages (Age of Pisces, Age of Aquarius, etc.) which pertain to the evolution of humanity as a whole, while the tropical zodiac should be used in the ordinary way in natal astrology.
-
Oh that makes sense. Is it possible that Sidereal has always been used by a secret elite and the Zodiac was fixed to dis-empower the masses?
-
@Middleman said
"Oh that makes sense. Is it possible that Sidereal has always been used by a secret elite and the Zodiac was fixed to dis-empower the masses?"
No. That would be sweet to learn, but it's just not the case. Crowley likely had no functional knowledge of it at all.
-
I was flipping through a new book by Pat Zalewski on the GD Inner order documents and he states that around 1910 the remnant GD orders (or one of them in particular, can't recall) started using sidereal astrology.
I'm curious if that is true and how that version of "sidereal" compares to the modern day one.
-
I suspect he meant that they were using the "Regulus = 0° Leo" zodiac that Mathers theorized. It was about 5° off.
-
@Middleman said
"Oh that makes sense. Is it possible that Sidereal has always been used by a secret elite and the Zodiac was fixed to dis-empower the masses?"
It would seem that way, wouldn't it? But I'm afraid the real reason the Zodiac was fixed is simply human ignorance.
As far as Crowley is concerned, he himself had doubts about Astrology throughout his career. It seems as though he himself knew something was amiss. Given the fact that he was working with both the attributions of Magick and the fundamental rulerships, he managed to base his interpretations on at least some degree of truth. For example, when writing of Mars in Leo, he would be correct in describing the action of a fiery planet in the sign of the Sun, but go astray in the description of actual nativities. Such interpretations are always flawed, and he was successful only on a hit and miss basis. It is obvious that he leaned heavily on existing tradition. Furthermore, many of the charts in his book rely on faulty information.
Perhaps one of the most entertaining things is to hear Crowley talk about himself. For instance, in the section on Leo rising, he goes on and on about the nobility and courage and love of the Leo for his fellow man, and his tireless energy, and his lordly mein. Would that he knew himself for what he was: a Crab! (Several puns involving the word "shellfish" come to mind.) Of course, I jest. But it is so fun to catch Crowley at his own game.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I suspect he meant that they were using the "Regulus = 0° Leo" zodiac that Mathers theorized. It was about 5° off."
Yes, I believe that was it... so I guess a different deal altogether.
-
@JPF said
"Perhaps one of the most entertaining things is to hear Crowley talk about himself. For instance, in the section on Leo rising, he goes on and on about the nobility and courage and love of the Leo for his fellow man, and his tireless energy, and his lordly mein. "
I'm a real tyro with Sidereal, but Crowley's chart has the Sun as a predominant angular planet... I'm going to venture that is why he identified so much with the leo qualities.
