Age Of Aquarius???
-
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.
-
@Escarabaj said
"
@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.
"Well, Cancer being a Cardinal sign, it's easy to see how the two could be confused. In actuality, the native of Cancer can be just as unselfish and couragous, and the native of Leo can be just as sensitive and moody. The one is the feminine or the maternal, and the other masculine or paternal.
-
Is there a form of astrology that uses the 13 uneven divisions of astronomy?
I know those boundaries were arbitrarily agreed upon by astronomers in the 50's but they agreed upon 88 of them, this I see as further evidence of covert mysticism with academia.Is there a form that uses 12 uneven divisions combining Scorp and Ophi?
-
@Middleman said
"Is there a form of astrology that uses the 13 uneven divisions of astronomy?"
Although there may be a person somewhere who has (and tries to act on) this idea... no, there is nothing that could be called "a form of astrology."
Please understand: There is no question about the number of signs or where they are located (where the beginning of each is). The extensive research on this was the foundation of Sidereal astrology's emergence. The evidence is summarized in the articles to which I referred earlier. (Only summarized, because it is so voluminous.)
"I know those boundaries were arbitrarily agreed upon by astronomers in the 50's but they agreed upon 88 of them, this I see as further evidence of covert mysticism with academia."
Yes, there was academic agreement - but for what purpose? It was for functional visual organization. They (quite obviously!) weren't agreeing based on astrological interpretive relevance.
"Is there a form that uses 12 uneven divisions combining scorpion and serpent wrestler?"
The Babalonian proto-zodiac was more equatorial than ecliptical. It included a half-scorpion, half-man (kinda like a centaur, except a scorpion below the waist). The symbolism of Ophiuchus is important in properly understanding Scorpio and, in fact, it should (for astrological symbolism purposes) be considered part of Scorpio.
-
93, So by this sidereal zodiac I'm a Sagittarius, not a Capricorn?(Jan. 11) Correct? Never been into astrology more than necessary.
-
Are we allowed to know what book that was by Pat Zalewski.