Cause and effect is probably the most telling clue as to when we will or have shifted into the age of Aquarius, look back through the last 1000 years and observe the relatively sudden advancement in things Uranian around 500 years ago, invention/electricity and more recently humanitarian concerns etc., don't forget that an approaching change would have to have an approaching orb that could translate in time to hundreds of years....No-one seems to be able to match any other planetary configurations in the past to the sudden advancement of technology, the shift into the age of Aquarius fits well!
I agree, there does seem to be a lot of evidence that we have entered the new age. But, there must be astronomy to prove that objectively, rather than just a more subjective approach. The Pluto-Uranus cycle could also account for this kind of Uranian progress.
...On march 10, 1977 ,the rings of Uranus were first viewed and the portals past Time were opened. I believe this is the marker of the beginning of the aquarian age...
rahu
respectfully snipped by me. Thanks for the chart, Rahu. Interesting. I think though, that the separating aspects from the lights, rulers of the eyes, show they were intuitively seen long before becoming fully conscious. Pisces and Scorpio are both intuitive signs. But, again, I think it is more than being able to see a planet or it's rings that marks a major event like this.
It has to be connected to a major ingress like the Vernal equinox, most likely shown through the precession of our light giving Sun, the planet that allows us to see and be aware. But, I can't discount the idea that it may be marked by a major star, like one of the for great watcher/guardian stars. I'd think the GC was a possibility too. Using a point like this would bring the macrocosm into the microcosm of earth.
The problem with later dates is that this would put the birth of Jesus, assumed correctly, in my opinion, to usher in the Piscean age, a half a millennium premature. I could accept that though, considering his demise, not being accepted by his own. But, would need to judge any date based on the astronomy and method being used, as much as my little, not super mathematically inclinded mind can handle.
Dr. Farr, you mentioned Zain and 1889, which would not allow much time for the age of Pisces, unless it started long before assumed. You also mentioned Mathers and 2050, which could fit, but I'm having difficulty finding anything about how he came to this conclusion. Although a Virgo, I'm not one to accept anything on blind faither, just to balance the Virgo/Pisces axis. I came up empty searching for Professor Whitney. I'd like to know more about how it was calculated.
Clinton, I skimmed the contents and a couple of links but didn't see anything relevant.
