do you all think that the AOA will be evil like robert zoller believes? or do you all think that it will be beneficial?

I'm of the opinion that the AOA will be good, but during the transition period between the age of pisces and the age of aquarius there will be heightened potential for a general trend towards evil and deception. Of course I am just an amateur so what do I know. What do you all think?

also, I commonly hear the term age of aquarius bandied about with the phrase "brotherhood of man", "global unity" etc etc, but is this a modern addition to the symbolism of aquarius? or an ancient one? In my opinion, it just sounds incredibly modern and new agey (in the worst possible way). I mean, I support global peace and understanding as much as anyone (probably more than most people), but I am not too keen on the extreme, uncontrolled globalization that some proponents of the conventional interpretation of the age of aquarius seem to be advocating. (IE no nations, no distinct cultures or people, we all become one etc etc.)

I don't know what Robert Zoller believes. Are you referring to some published comments; if so, can you give the source?

Oh sorry! I should have posted a link to what he wrote. Here it is:

http://www.lunatica.pwp.blueyonder.co.u ... dged-2.htm

I think we should readjust our ayanamshas which are based on the precession of the EQUINOXES, when, what is clear is the polar/solsticial precession & when it aligns with the Galactic Disk -- eg now ...

As a tropical astrologer I dont see the logic of focusing on where the equinoxes are in the sidereal zodiac. The whole idea only originated with late 19th century Theosophy. Even if you do think it is is valid there is no consensus where the sidereal zodiac starts so there are several conflicting dates hundreds of years apart for when the Age of Aquarius might begin.

I am disapponted to see Robert Zoller buying in to all that.

If you want to study long term historical cvcles you can better use your time studying the Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions through the signs and triplicities or the movement of fixed stars through the tropical zodiac. As a tropical astrologer I think it makes far more sense to track the movement of stars through our zodiac than the precession of the equinoxes in a zodiac most of us dont even use.

Mark

Mark wrote:As a tropical astrologer I dont see the logic of focusing on where the equinoxes are in the sidereal zodiac. The whole idea only originated with late 19th century Theosophy. Even if you do think it is is valid there is no consensus where the sidereal zodiac starts so there are several conflicting dates hundreds of years apart for when the Age of Aquarius might begin.

I am disapponted to see Robert Zoller buying in to all that.

If you want to study long term historical cvcles you can better use your time studying the Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions through the signs and triplicities or the movement of fixed stars through the tropical zodiac. As a tropical astrologer I think it makes far more sense to track the movement of stars through our zodiac than the precession of the equinoxes in a zodiac most of us dont even use.

Mark

Mark,

there are Mesopotamian seals which have images of the Bull, the pleiades and the symbols/images of the Sun and the Moon all involved which seem to hint that the people of that time were very interested in where the Spring Equinox fell in the Fixed zodiac, most probably as it signified their new year. I agree though, I also fail to see why any modern Tropical astrologer would suddenly care about where in the Fixed zodiac the Tropical Cross was.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of the whole notion of astrological ages. My problem with it is that most interpretations seem to cherry pick events over a two millenium span which reinforce the theory, often ignoring entire populations in the process. The Age of Pisces was hardly the peaceful, religious period that you'd expect - there were just as many wars as the Age of Aries, culminating in conflicts that were genuinely global in scope as opposed to the regional wars which marked all history prior.

Mind you, although I am exclusively a tropical astrologer I am willing to accept that the Sidereal Zodiac is a valid system. I just feel that the supposed paradigm shifts produced by precession aren't as striking as proponents claim.

For anyone that really does want to get into this topic there is a good introductory chapter devoted to it in Neil Spencer's book 'True As The Stars Above'.

I should also mention that the Edinburgh based astrological researcher Paul Wright has written an excellent survey of this entire topic in his book: The Great Ages and Other Astrological Cycles, Paul Wright, Parlando Press, Edinburgh, 2007.

You can still buy the book directly from Paul through his publishing outlet via his website:

http://www.wrightastrology.com/bookshop.html

I personally, have worked on plotting world history through the apparent movement of certain fixed stars through the effects of precession in the tropical zodiac.

Mark

Mark wrote: I personally, have worked on plotting world history through the apparent movement of certain fixed stars through the effects of precession in the tropical zodiac.

Mark

Do you mind sharing some of your results? While the notion of sign-based ages seems a bit mushy to me, I have no doubt that the Fixed Stars can be a powerful predictive tool.

Eric wrote:

Do you mind sharing some of your results?

Hi Eric,

I still feel I need to do a lot more work before I would be happy putting out research on this publicly. I also have other projects taking up my time just now. When I do have time for this its more likely to be an article than a forum post.

One topic I have given public talks on a few times was the 'ingress'' of Regulus into Virgo in 2012. Ok its not strictly an ingress since it is of course the tropical zodiac that is moving against the backdrop of stars not vice versa.

I first got the inspiration for this from reading a small chapter in Vivian Robson's classic book The Fixed Stars and Constellations (1923)

Here is the chapter:

http://www.constellationsofwords.com/ca ... explan.htm

Regulus was the 'King Star' to the ancient Babylonians and was associated with leadership and changes to the kingdoms. It was one of the so called four royal stars of ancient astrology. I do think its movement through the signs seems to resonate very well with broad historical changes. I accept that is a very generalised approach ( just like tracking the ingresses through the sidereal zodiac) but its still revealing. There is also no historical ambiguity when exactly it transitions signs! As you see from the quote above Robson looked not just at the signs but the movement of stars through the three decans in each sign. However, I personally, prefer another smaller division of the zodiac within the signs known as the bounds, terms or confines. I find the transition of stars into different bounds is very revealing.

I had thought my research on this topic were completely original but it turns out others in the astrological community had been thinking along similar lines and earlier! In particular, here is a free recording of an interesting talk by Jonathan Pearl from the Blast Conference back in 2008 that explores the movement of Regulus in history through the bounds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpXY23PEOVQ

I believe many fundamental changes in our civilisation are augured by the movement of Regulus into Virgo. However, my research also includes other royal and bright stars.

Another interesting mundane application of fixed stars is to note their gradual movement through national charts. Sirius in the US 4th July chart is a famous example. We can also look at the changing declination of stars due to precession which arguably ties into the historical prominence off certain cities and capitals.

Mark