Can we look at astrology from a scientific point of view?

Opal, are you SURE Burgoyne himself used the actual term "Aquarian Age", in his own writings? I've been researching the origins, and no mention of Burgoyne having published it. Often times followers will put words in the mouth of great thinkers. They interpret things in context of later developments. "That's what he was referring to, even if he didn't call it exactly that" is a phrase not everyone uses.

Listened to a audio recording of his book, "Light of Egypt". He definitely refers to what is now known by Jung's dominant catch-words, "Age of Aquarius", and "Aquarian Age", but, unless I missed it, looks like he called it "passage through the constellation or sign of Aquarius", and "this Age" without labeling "this Age" by sign, as far as I could tell. But he clearly means the Aquarian Age. He's been unfairly ignored by the researchers, including Campion's list of start-dates for the Age. I find his work impressive, although I disagree with his own start-date. I don't see the ancient Roman Empire as a Piscean Age manifestation, which would be the case with a 3rd Century B.C.E. beginning of the Age.

The standard start-dates for the Age of Pisces now are linked to the Nativity as the Year 1 A.D.; or, to a Piscean Age beginning around the 4th Century A.D. (which is when the Church formed, although not for that reason). Christianity makes more sense to me as being Piscean (in its original spirit), than the Roman Empire. We should look to empirical results rather than just accepting a theory by itself.

One of my complaints about most of the listed start-dates for the Age is that they're not those of practicing siderealists. Because if you pick one, it's a matter of the Vernal Point, (which Burgoyne is using), reaching a sidereal Sign-boundary. So, you're stuck with those particular Sign-boundary locations for all of the indicators, Sun, Moon and Planets. I suspect Burgoyne was a tropical astrologer with an interest in siderealism for the sidereal Age only, not for drawing Charts (like so many others). If so, that would lessen the credibility of his choice for start-dates.[IMO].

david starling said:

Listened to a audio recording of his book, "Light of Egypt". He definitely refers to what is now known by Jung's dominant catch-words, "Age of Aquarius", and "Aquarian Age", but, unless I missed it, looks like he called it "passage through the constellation or sign of Aquarius", and "this Age" without labeling "this Age" by sign, as far as I could tell. But he clearly means the Aquarian Age. He's been unfairly ignored by the researchers, including Campion's list of start-dates for the Age. I find his work impressive, although I disagree with his own start-date. I don't see the ancient Roman Empire as a Piscean Age manifestation, which would be the case with a 3rd Century B.C.E. beginning of the Age.

Click to expand...

JUPITERASC said:

Click to expand...

I see the implication. Same applies to including the Outermosts as auxiliary points in a Traditional chart.

I am quite sure he was a siderealist, but I will check again.

I find his writing extremely interesting.

Talk to you later. Work.

JUPITERASC said:

Click to expand...

😄😄😄thank you for my morning smile!

david starling said:

Listened to a audio recording of his book, "Light of Egypt". He definitely refers to what is now known by Jung's dominant catch-words, "Age of Aquarius", and "Aquarian Age", but, unless I missed it, looks like he called it "passage through the constellation or sign of Aquarius", and "this Age" without labeling "this Age" by sign, as far as I could tell. But he clearly means the Aquarian Age. He's been unfairly ignored by the researchers, including Campion's list of start-dates for the Age. I find his work impressive, although I disagree with his own start-date. I don't see the ancient Roman Empire as a Piscean Age manifestation, which would be the case with a 3rd Century B.C.E. beginning of the Age.

Click to expand...

I am glad you are enjoying him! I will be back

david starling said:

Listened to a audio recording of his book, "Light of Egypt". He definitely refers to what is now known by Jung's dominant catch-words, "Age of Aquarius", and "Aquarian Age", but, unless I missed it, looks like he called it "passage through the constellation or sign of Aquarius", and "this Age" without labeling "this Age" by sign, as far as I could tell. But he clearly means the Aquarian Age. He's been unfairly ignored by the researchers, including Campion's list of start-dates for the Age. I find his work impressive, although I disagree with his own start-date. I don't see the ancient Roman Empire as a Piscean Age manifestation, which would be the case with a 3rd Century B.C.E. beginning of the Age.

Click to expand...

Thank you! I agree.

C.C. Zain was a tropical astrologer, and a student and "disciple" of Burgoyne. He modernized Burgoyne's teachings, but kept his sidereal Aquarian Age start-date. Aside from WANTING an early start for the Aquarian Age, I couldn't find a reference as to WHY he chose it, from an astronomical perspective. Most siderealism today is based on ancient Babylonian records, which put the start-date MUCH later.
The nice thing about the sidereal Ages is that you can pick any start-date you want, simply by moving the Sign-boundaries. And, if you're not using sidereal Charts for the horoscope, it doesn't matter.

Bees can't fly according to the early science of aerodynamics. So, the science was upgraded to explain why they obviously can. That hasn't happened yet, regarding astrology.

david starling said:

Bees can't fly according to the early science of aerodynamics.
So, the science was upgraded to explain why they obviously can.
That hasn't happened yet, regarding astrology.

Click to expand...

There are multiple forms of astrology
for example
Vedic astrology
Chinese Astrology
Tibetan Astrology
Mayan Astrology
Ancient Mesopotamian Babylonian Astrology hhttps://www.babylonianastrology.com/
Sidereal Astrology https://solunars.com/

david starling said:

C.C. Zain was a tropical astrologer, and a student and "disciple" of Burgoyne. He modernized Burgoyne's teachings, but kept his sidereal Aquarian Age start-date. Aside from WANTING an early start for the Aquarian Age, I couldn't find a reference as to WHY he chose it, from an astronomical perspective. Most siderealism today is based on ancient Babylonian records, which put the start-date MUCH later.
The nice thing about the sidereal Ages is that you can pick any start-date you want, simply by moving the Sign-boundaries. And, if you're not using sidereal Charts for the horoscope, it doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

I do not know of him, thank you David. Have you listened to Le Clef Hermetique? There are two chapters in The Light of Egypt entitled that. It may answer the why for you. I am cooking supper. Talk to you later.

Traditional astrology was nearly extinct before Modern astrology came along.

david starling said:

Traditional astrology was nearly extinct before Modern astrology came along.

Click to expand...

Do you think Modern kind of revived Trad's ancient knowledge?

Gemini888 said:

Do you think Modern kind of revived Trad's ancient knowledge?

Click to expand...

Those who revived it started as Modern.

Yes, because again as people evolve everything else should.

Before people married for stability , money, and offsprings to help them work , now they marry for love, and for desire of creation. Houses chañge.

Even psychology gets outdated.

Even a lot of vedic astrologers realized signs I'm sidereal are just not working as interpretations so they switched to tropical signs with vedic methods and find amazing results.

david starling said:

Those who revived it started as Modern.

Click to expand...

Most astrological experts are traditional, in my objective observation as a former astrological student. Can you please explain this actual fact?

People still marry for status, money and stability. Courtly love & romance driven relationships have existed long before the current day, and the fact that traditional ideas still have a foothold in the current day shows the adaptability and fitness of them. There survival into the current day is a testament to that fact that either we haven't evolved as much as some believe, or that the ideas themselves are still alive and relevant for the current day human, despite the supposed evolutionary steps that have been taken from "back then" until now.

Modern astrology didn't come about because traditional philosophies and techniques were outdated per se (neoplatonism, atomism, stoicism are all philosophies that are popular and have lively followings today), but the time of its transformation came about on the heals of the enlightenment, Darwin's theory of evolution and the emergence of psychology as an independent branch of scientific study. An important change to the subject came about when Alan Leo was on trial for his astrological predictions and had to morph astrology into a new form in order to avoid the law. This opened the door to the marrying of psychology with astrology. Sun sign astrology apparently came about in the 1930s as a result of pressures from a newspaper to create a simplified astrology for the masses. Both instances can be referred to as "evolutions" in that both innovations came as a result of the changing environment and adaptation in order to survive. It can be argued whether evolution is in a never ending upward trajectory.