Age of Aquarius

david starling said:

There is almost unanimous agreement that the First Point of Tropical Aries is the Transiting indicator for the Earth's Ages. Now, envision the circle of the Zodiac as a "clock-face", which most Astrologers divide into 12 equal Sign-partitions. Next, determine how to use the stars, or a star, of the Zodiacal constellations, to precisely locate WHERE the "Sidereal" (which includes Vedic) Sign-boundaries are. The "confusion" about the timing of the Ages isn't really about WHEN, it's about WHERE. Once you've chosen the Sidereal Sign-boundary positions that work best for you in interpreting Astrological -charts, you can then determine WHERE the exact position of the Transiting Age-indicator (the First Point of Tropical Aries for nearly everyone, with a few exceptions) is located in the Chart itself. And you'll know for yourself what degree of which Age we're in NOW, and you'll be able to construct a time-line for the past and the future Ages. Don't expect agreement on that, because YOUR version of exactly where the Sidereal Sign-boundaries are located will NOT be unanimously agreed upon, and a difference of only 1 DEGREE between your version and someone else's Sign-boundary locations will change the timing for the Ages by nearly 72 YEARS!
In summary, it's not confusion about the Ages themselves, but disagreement about exactly WHERE the Sidereal-signs are, that prevents unanimous agreement on the TIMING regarding the Aquarian Age.

Click to expand...

Sidereal sign boundaries can't be true if tropical sign boundaries are true.

petosiris said:

Sidereal sign boundaries can't be true if tropical sign boundaries are true.

Click to expand...

I'll modify it for Siderealists. Help me out on this, petosiris--what about "the First Point of Spring in the Northern Hemisphere", since Modern Astronomers are using it for Right Ascension? Or, the Equinoctial Line, which is used as a double-Age Indicator (the Age of Pisces/Virgo, Aquarius/Leo, etc.).

I'll edit it and use "the Equinoctial Line", since that was the original means for indicating the Ages, when the concept was first published around 1900. The Christ was associated with the onset of the Age of Pisces, and Virgo with the "Virgin Birth" motif.

The one clarifying factor I'm promoting is, that the Age Indicator belongs IN the CHART. It's like the companion to the Ascendant, another measured point of great significance. So, how the Age affects the World, is the aggregate effect of having it in the same Sign for so many centuries in EVERYBODY'S Chart, both Natal and Transiting. And, how it's Aspected by the Sun, Moon, and Planets makes it a specific Chart influence.
The standard, and [IMO] incorrect way of viewing the Ages, is that they're a separate, non-Chart related force, which blankets the Earth from the outside, and affects everyone in exactly the same way.

david starling said:

I'll modify it for Siderealists. Help me out on this, petosiris--what about "the First Point of Spring in the Northern Hemisphere", since Modern Astronomers are using it for RigAscensionht ? Or, the Equinoctial Line, which is used as a double-Age Indicator (the Age of Pisces/Virgo, Aquarius/Leo, etc.).

Click to expand...

We have discussed many times how the ancient Babylonians, Greeks and Romans observed the equinox at the 8th, 10th or 15th degree of Aries, that is in relation to the constellations rather than to the degree itself. I do not see much usefulness in the ages concept, I pretty much agree with quotes that Jupiterasc provided us of modern astrologers. Traditionally, it is nowhere to be found in tropical or sidereal mundane astrology, there is observation of the spring equinox*, eclipses, conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, new triplicity and that sort of stuff.

* If the sidereal signs are to be used with ''Aries ingress'', then you are not doing tropical astrology anymore.

It is interesting you mention the other equinoxes and solstices. I've always wondered, if they all change their signs too, shouldn't they also be taken into account? Also the spring equinox for Australia and South America is the opposite. It does not seem natural to use the northern spring equinox in the south.

The double-Age method, meaning, using both ends of the Equinoctial Line together, then has an Age of Aquarius/Leo, with Aquarius normally considered dominant. In the Southern Hemisphere, the First Point of Fall would then be the most influential, with the First Point of Spring being of greater importance in the Northern Hemisphere. Remember, the Ascending and Descending Nodes are also reversed from North to South.

david starling said:

The double-Age method, meaning, using both ends of the Equinoctial Line together, then has an Age of Aquarius/Leo, with Aquarius normally considered dominant. In the Southern Hemisphere, the First Point of Fall would then be the most influential, with the First Point of Spring being of greater importance in the Northern Hemisphere. Remember, the Ascending and Descending Nodes are also reversed from North to South.

Click to expand...

Then it would be better to differ in cardinal, fixed and mutable (or changeable, solid and double-bodied) ages in my opinion. If that is true, then the solid age would have to be good, as the solid are generally better than the other two.

Yes, the north node is ascending in the north, and descending in the south.

petosiris said:

Then it would be better to differ in cardinal, fixed and mutable (or changeable, solid and double-bodied) ages in my opinion. If that is true, then the solid age would have to be good, as the solid are generally better than the other two.

Yes, the north node is ascending in the north, and descending in the south.

Click to expand...

The Aquarian Age is expected to be an improvement by most, except for the Traditional rulership of Saturn. I contend that even if Saturn is considered the Age Lord, it will be a far less Malefic version than the one associated with its rulership of Capricorn. Maybe because of the solidity you mention.

david starling said:

The Aquarian Age is expected to be an improvement by most, except for the Traditional rulership of Saturn. I contend that even if Saturn is considered the Age Lord, it will be a far less Malefic version than the one associated with its rulership of Capricorn. Maybe because of the solidity you mention.

Click to expand...

The concept of ages was popularized by a society that brought up a false world messiah. The Christian, Islamic and Buddhist prophecies tell of an incoming decadence and abominations, not an improvement.

Only the Jews expect a messianic age in 222 years, which would about coincide with the Galactic Center zodiacs, what if this was part of their agenda? The neo-theosophists are waiting for him as well.

petosiris said:

The concept of ages was popularized by a society that brought up a false world messiah. The Christian, Islamic and Buddhist prophecies tell of an incoming decadence and abominations, not an improvement.

Only the Jews expect a messianic age in 222 years, which would about coincide with the Galactic Center zodiacs, what if this was part of their agenda?

Click to expand...

Actually, the first conceptualization of the EARTH'S Ages (not the concept of Galactic Ages, which were introduced nearly a century later), was a Christian-oriented one, predicting the Second Coming of the Christian Savior at the beginning of the Aquarian Age.

david starling said:

Actually, the first conceptualization of the EARTH'S Ages (not the concept of Galactic Ages, which were introduced nearly a century later), was a Christian-oriented one, predicting the Second Coming of the Christian Savior at the beginning of the Aquarian Age.

Click to expand...

No Christian said ever.

petosiris said:

No Christian said ever.

Click to expand...

Yes, actually that's how it was first introduced. I'll get into the history later, when I have more time.

The first published version of the "Age of Aquarius" came out in 1937, written by a Frenchman, Paul Le Cour. Using the best ancient value for Precession of the Equinoxes, he had the Astrological Ages as lasting 2160 years. He began the Age of Pisces in the Year 1 A.D., corresponding to the Nativity, and had the Age of Aquarius beginning at the end of 2160 A.D., which he believed would be the Second Coming.
Jung published his book about the Aquarian Age 3 years later, and secularized it, to the point of saying it would signal the end of religion as we know it.
Although Le Cour appears to have coined the TERM "Age of Aquarius", his work was based on that of earlier writers, Gerald Massey (around 1900), and Edward Carpenter. All three were Christians. And Jung's work was based on theirs, minus the Christianity. Jung was also a Christian, but he didn't believe the Aquarian Age will be a Christian Age.

Has anyone here read Thomas H Burgoyne's The Light of Egypt? He believed that we entered Aquarius in the late 1800's. He wrote a pretty convincing theory, to me anyways.

The key of mysteries plays a large role in his book.

He died in the late 1800's. His book is enlightening.

Opal

Uranus rules electricity.

With the industrial revolution, and Tesla's alternating current, is it feasible we have already entered Aquarius?

Aquarius is the water bearer.

What would he be a water bearer for?

As our waters are continually polluted, are we creating a need for a water freedom fighter?

Water is also being warehoused.

We are being charged for water and it has been said that we do not have the right to water.

Will the representative for Aquarius an air sign, set water free?

Opal said:

Has anyone here read Thomas H Burgoyne's The Light of Egypt? He believed that we entered Aquarius in the late 1800's. He wrote a pretty convincing theory, to me anyways.

The key of mysteries plays a large role in his book.

He died in the late 1800's. His book is enlightening.

Opal

Click to expand...

I use the zodiac to determine where we're at regarding the Ages. The sidereal zodiac is the only one that will show the Age using the usual astronomical marker, which is the "Vernal Equinoctial Point", abbreviated as the V.P. It precesses through the constellations at the current rate of 1 degree in 71.6 years, which gives the Age-length as 2148 years.
So, if the sidereal Age of Aquarius began in say, 1900 A.D., that means the Age of sidereal Pisces began in 249 B.C.E. (with no Year 0).
It also means that the vast majority of today's sidereal astrologers are setting their Sign-boundaries incorrectly, because they still have around 5 degrees to go before the V.P. reaches Aquarius in their zodiacs--another 360 years.

Btw, I discovered a tropical version on the Ages that does register in a tropical chart. The V.P. sidereal marker for the Age is also the marker for the first point of tropical Aries, so the entire tropical zodiac rotates around with it.
To do this, it requires a different astronomical marker. It also explains the overlap of Ages, which is well-known to those who study it in regard to historical developments. The tropical Aquarian Age is close, and its effects are becoming noticeable, even as far back as the 1880s and 90s, but much more apparent now.

Shamir said:

Hello am confused
is the age of Aquarius also at the same time age of Saturn?

Click to expand...

That's dependent

on whether you are a traditional astrologer or a modernist astrologer
i.e.
for many thousands of years SATURN traditionally rules AQUARIUS


the following useful diagrams explain PRECESSION

In my reading, I believe that there is a Great Year beyond as well. The 25,920 years allotted to a full set of the ages is not enough for the study of the ages. It is not long enough for a study of the Ages. Each set of 25,920 (A Great Year) would each also have to have a representative of the Zodiac.

Here are the numbers of Precession and an interesting site.

5 - 6 - 12 - 30 - 72 -360 - 2,160 - 25,920

http://www.graveworm.com/occult/precess/

I have recently read that the great great age is called a perihelion.

I have been reading two books recently, I am not done either, but, I am totally immersed in them both for differing reasons.

The first and the most fascinating to me is Thomas H Burgoyne's The Light of Egypt volume 1 & 2.

The second is The Gnostic Circle written by Patricia Norelli-Bachelet.

And yes, the book on Mayan history.....

Burgoyne's Chapter 5 feeds my obsession with the Key of Mysteries. He refers to it as La Clef Hermetique. What I find amazing about the Key of Mysteries are its similarities to Stonehenge. If you were to go to Google Maps or Earth to Stonehenge, you will notice that off to the Northeast is what could be seen as the shaft of the key.

http://cartedatrionfi.tripod.com/RotaTaro.html

On this site you can see my favorite version of the Key of Mysteries, it is the one with the number 10 on the outside of the circle. The number 10 is beside the sign of Man/Aquarius, Eagle/Scorpio, Lion/Leo and the Bull/Taurus.

What I see when I look at them together is a probable means of determining the Ages. When you look at the bits of the Key and the end of the shaft, you see the representatives of all of the signs of the zodiac. I believe that when we look at Stonehenge we are missing part of the show by not observing what is going on at the bits of the Key.

Norelli-Bachelet has considered what is called perihelion, I have not noticed that she uses that word yet, it does not mean that she doesn't, I just haven't noticed it. She has a diagram of 12 sets of the full ages.

Both Burgoyne and N.B. are educated in the Yugas.


Have a nice day! Opal
http://www.astrologersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=1255#top

I believe there is a "cusp" of the ages.....some more, some less abrupt......seemingly dependent on the size of the overlap of the constellations.

The Taurus to Aries overlap was short and over....Pisces to Aquarius has a large overlap.....

What if 0 AD is not a correct year?

Seriously consider what Uranus denotes, what Neptune denotes and secondarily what their traditional planets Saturn and Jupiter respectively denote.......

Think with your heart and astrological mind.......

Opal