Age Of Aquarius???
-
Jim's Mystical and Magical System of the A.'.A.'. finally made it to the top of my reading list.
I must say Jim it is an excellent work. A real joy to read.
I have a question though that maybe you or someone else could help me with.
I have had several conversations with other Thelemites both online and at my local OTO regarding how (or not) the Aeon of Horus and the Age Of Aquarius are related. A rough concensus from my discussions would be that they are of course not the same thing - but that the AOA is at least harmonious to the Aeon of Horus and complimentary in many ways.
Most of the books on astrology I have read place the start of the AOA anywhere from mid last century up to about 2016.
So I was interested to read foot note 21 on p11 (yes somebody actually reads them!) where you state :
"The actual age of aquarius........ We now know will not commence until 2376 EV......."
Can you help me with what you mean by this? How do you mean "we now know" - this suggests a recalculation based on new thinking?
Is this a tropical versus sidereal system driven difference?
Thanks
-
It's a matter of definition.
The Age of Aquarius is the time period during which the northern hemisphere's vernal equinoctial point is passing throug the astrological zone Aquarius.
This 'Aquarius' is necessarily sidereal, because, by the above definition, it can't be linked to the movement of the equinoctial points.
By 1947, Cyril Fagan and Donald Bradley had decisively determined the boundaries of the actual zodiac, and this was fine tuned (to at least within seconds of precison) in 1957. For the story, read the introductory articles on <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.solunars.net">www.solunars.net</a><!-- w --> - it's a longish story.
The vernal point is today at 5°07'08" Pisces, precessing at approximately 1° every 72 years. It will enter the constellation Aquarius soon after the summer solstice in 2376.
-
Even if you don't buy the Fagan-Bradley conclusions and use one of the Indian zodiacs instead, you're going to get a date for the Age of Aquarius that is hundreds of years away.
So where (I wonder) did people get the idea that now was the "dawning of the Age of Aquarius"? It must have been a Golden Dawn teaching, because both Dion Fortune and P.F. Case speak of it, and while I don't remember Crowley ever using the term per se, there are a couple of places he alludes to it, and he seems to have thought that the Age of Aquarius and the Aeon of Horus were more or less the same.
-
@gmugmble said
"So where (I wonder) did people get the idea that now was the "dawning of the Age of Aquarius"?"
Some of the perceived ambiguity may come from the shapes of the constellations themselves (i.e., the connect-the-dots "stick figures" drawn between the brightest stars). If you just consider those, and ignore the standard 30-degree divisions, then we're in the middle of a vast wasteland between Pisces and Aquarius. The ecliptic hasn't touched the stick-figure of Pisces since Mohammed was walking around. It won't touch the stick-figure of Aquarius for at least another 800 years or so.
"It must have been a Golden Dawn teaching, because both Dion Fortune and P.F. Case speak of it,"
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?
"and while I don't remember Crowley ever using the term per se, there are a couple of places he alludes to it, and he seems to have thought that the Age of Aquarius and the Aeon of Horus were more or less the same."
I'll leave that to the EAEs (Expert Aleister Exegetes). It's probably a safe bet to predict that he made different statements at different times of his life...
Steve
-
I see no reason to link the Aeon of Horus to the Age of Aquarius, if only because previous aons have not been of the same length.
Contra Crowley, I believe the Aeon of Osiris began with the Reformation, when Mother Church (be it the Church of Rome or the Patrician Imperial cult that preceded it - both headed by the Pontifex Maximus) was replaced by individual seeking for truth.
I don't see the Aeon of Horus lasting more than a couple of decades, when the Aeon of Hrumachis will arrive. This is more to do with how science and technology are advancing than any "spiritual" understanding.
I'll be writing all this up soon.
-
@sethur said
"I see no reason to link the Aeon of Horus to the Age of Aquarius, if only because previous aons have not been of the same length."
Agreed!
"Contra Crowley, I believe the Aeon of Osiris began with the Reformation, when Mother Church (be it the Church of Rome or the Patrician Imperial cult that preceded it - both headed by the Pontifex Maximus) was replaced by individual seeking for truth."
I place it long before... because I equate it functionally with the establishment of the Ruach (ego-consciousness, etc.) as the "lead" part of the human psyche. Its roots, therefore, would reach many millennia BCE but, in any case, would have been well-founded by 5th C. BCE during the high point of Greek culture. Osirian and Christian religions came to flourish during that time, and the Arthurian legend (late 1st C. CE) is the archetypal tale of the still-young emerging Ruach (the "ever boy" Solar King etc.). By the Reformation it was entering its very late stages, its fulfillment already laying the grouynd work for its expiration.
"I don't see the Aeon of Horus lasting more than a couple of decades, when the Aeon of Hrumachis will arrive. This is more to do with how science and technology are advancing than any "spiritual" understanding."
I think evolution - if it were to continue to go unimpeded - is moving at a much faster pace than in the past. But the core essence of the Aeon of Horus developmentally is the awakening of superconscioiusness as the new baseline of the routine, mature adult psyche. We're clearly only at the dawn of this. I don't see this coming fully awake for centuries, especially at a stable level, and wouldn't be surprised if it still took a millennium or more... but its roots will be recognizable by history as having dug into the soild of the 20th Century. 'Hrumachis' is a general symbol of the new dawn of a next aeon, not the distinctive deity of it, which we know will be Maat. I think her time is still very far away.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Osirian and Christian religions came to flourish during that time, and the Arthurian legend (late 1st C. CE) is the archetypal tale of the still-young emerging Ruach (the "ever boy" Solar King etc.)."
1st century? The furthest back I've seen for historical roots of Arthur is something like 5th or 6th century. I'd be curious to know more about earlier antecedents.
"By the Reformation it was entering its very late stages, its fulfillment already laying the grouynd work for its expiration."
Definitely. I view the Italian Renaissance (Pico, da Vinci, etc) as the first rumblings of the Aeon of Horus, too...
"
"I don't see the Aeon of Horus lasting more than a couple of decades, when the Aeon of Hrumachis will arrive."'Hrumachis' is a general symbol of the new dawn of a next aeon, not the distinctive deity of it, which we know will be Maat. I think her time is still very far away."
Horus is Hrumachis. I've probably posited this before in another thread, but isn't the most obvious interpretation of "Hrumachis shall arise" something along the lines of: Horus gets up off the Throne in the East, in order to allow Maat to sit down and occupy the Throne for the next Aeon? There are intimations of the ritual motions of officers in the GD's Equinox Ritual in AL III:34, I think.
Steve
-
@Steven Cranmer said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Osirian and Christian religions came to flourish during that time, and the Arthurian legend (late 1st C. CE) is the archetypal tale of the still-young emerging Ruach (the "ever boy" Solar King etc.)."1st century? The furthest back I've seen for historical roots of Arthur is something like 5th or 6th century. I'd be curious to know more about earlier antecedents."
Typo. Thanks for catching. I meant late 1st Millennium.
"
"By the Reformation it was entering its very late stages, its fulfillment already laying the grouynd work for its expiration."Definitely. I view the Italian Renaissance (Pico, da Vinci, etc) as the first rumblings of the Aeon of Horus, too..."
Maybe... though I find that mostly to be a fine flourishing of Osiris at its best. DaVinci and some others clearly appear to have attained superconscious / cosmic conscious states as individuals but, then, so did Gautama and Lao Tse and others.
I think the earliest clear sign is the Magna Carta, which is the particular big step that started displacing the heliocentric theory of society.
-
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.