Skyscript Astrology Forum

I do not know if MarkC is aware of this or not, but his basic point in this thread-relating the changing signs of certain fixed stars being connected with historical changes and epochs-is a key element of a certain highly esoteric (secret) linneage which traces back at least to the early 1500's!
I fully agree with MarkC's suggestion to study the ramifications of certain stars (like Cor Leonis, as we call it) in certain signs-and in certain relationships with starry constellations and points on earth-on human events, and changes (or modulations) in epochs. Fact of the matter is that Cor Leonis moving into Virgo is, well, quite a "big deal" for the Earth...in terms of practical ramifications, much more so than the greatly anticipated "age of Aquarius"...

Hi dr. farr,

the Ulansey book is a rare example how a historical study can gain widespread popularity outside the academic circles. It is mostly due to the sensational "discovery" of precession as a core belief and central teaching in the Mysteries of Mithras. Nevertheless, popular it may be, the acceptability of a theory depends on the sources used. The Ulansey theory has several weak points, of which I would point to only two now: first, an anachronistic and hindsight approach to the Mysteries of Mithras as a religious phenomenon (the stress is on the "religious" adjective - clearly different from what it means now); second, central role attributed to the shift of "astrological ages". This latter is totally anachronistic - as it was pointed out by another well-known expert of this field, Roger L. Beck in a 1994 article titled "In the place of the Lion: Mithras in the tauroctony" which appeared in Hinnells (ed.), Studies in Mithraism.

In fact, no reference to astrological ages (in the form as they are conceived nowadays) exist prior to 19th or 20th century.

Recently, Beck published a throughout analysis of the Mithraic cult in his book The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire. It has a totally different and, in my opinion, rather convincing treatment of the Mysteries. Moreover, it contains several pieces of interest even for an astrologer, as he tries to reconstruct a forgotten helicoidal lunar theory and attempts to identify Antiochus of Athens. Needless to say, Ulansey's sensational but unfounded hypothesis on the role of precession in the Mysteries is dismissed. So this should be observed when his hypothesis is further utilised, like in the Fideler book or in films like Zeitgeist.

Levente

Mark wrote:
I have avoided getting into a discussion of Ancient Egyptian sources with you because I do not share your implicit faith in 'alternative' amateur writers on Ancient Egypt such as Cyril Fagan, John Anthony West, Robert Bauval or Graham Hancock.

Hi Mark,
I do not consider Cyril Fagan, John Anthony West, Robert Bauval or Graham Hancock ?amateur? writers on Ancient Egypt?nor do I label my education pertaining to these writers as ?implicit faith?. However, I would label my beliefs in Astrology as ?implicit faith?. I consider these men as ?alternative?, professional/ scholarly writers on Ancient Egypt?outside the mainstream, just as astrologers will always find themselves outside the mainstream. These ?alternative? writers have devoted and sacrificed a greater part of their life to the study of ancient Egypt and have greatly prompted/expanded my education/knowledge in the field of astrology/precessional astronomy. Cyril Fagan and West both believed ancient Egypt contained high (esoteric) astrological knowledge that far exceeds our present day knowledge of astrology/astronomy. These men (writers) have proven to me ancient Egypt contained a knowledge pertaining to the precession of the equinoxes and its Ages which is the title of your topic. These ?alternative? writers believed ancient Egypt was the embryo of astrology and precessional astronomy. Orthodox academia and most Egyptologists imbedded in academia do not have any knowledge of astronomy and thinks astrologers are pure idiots. I am only trying to contribute to your topic. I can contribute much ?alternative? material (mainly pertaining to ancient Egypt) to your topic; but, if you are not interested in any material from these scholarly ?alternative? writers, then I will bow-out.

Regards, Steve

Dr farr wrote:

The slow movement of academia in Egyptology is in the direction of verification of what the (so-called) "amateur" Egyptologists have been saying for many decades. Also don't forget Brophy's "Origin Map"-the author being an important astrophysicist. I lack the implicit faith in the good will of academia toward unconventional subjects which some of our Skyscript members seem to hold, nor am I as impressed as they by the alleged "legitimacy" of everything which flows from academia's hallowed halls.

Considering the history of academia in this subject I don?t really blame you for adopting this sceptical attitude. Still ,we shouldn?t let our distrust become a myopia towards valuable research that has been painstakenly undertaken for years in hundreds of sites across Egypt. Of course there are trends and fashions in academia just like anything else. In the 19th century the British astronomer Norman Lockyer was the first to propose astronomical alignments to Temples and Pyramid sites. Conventional Egyptology reacted against this work. Indeed Egyptian academic authorities like Otto Neugebauer rejected any astronomical alignments despite producing the classic work on the Decans. Now in the era of archaeoastronomy it is fashionable to find astronomical alignments to archaeological sites. People like Otto Neugbauer are now seen as impediments to a better understanding. You seem to be suggesting I have an implicit faith in all academia. Not so. However, where we are provided with years of extremely detailed research providing evidence of astrological relevance I think even the most sceptical astrologer needs to sit up and listen.

Regarding the field of Egyptology, with all their faults and foibles I'll take the "amateurs" over the "professional experts", any time!

I prefer to take a look at everything that is available myself. Its not an either/or debate. I have read Bauval, Fagan etc. I think Bauval in particular has made a valuable contribution and has been something of a catalyst spurring on orthodox archaeoastronomy to take a second look.

Regarding the antiquity of the concept regarding precession of the equinox relating to epochal changes for the world:

-for Islamic astrological considerations of a philosophical/metaphysical nature concerning precession, see Ibn Arabi (1165 AD), "Mystical Astrology According to Ibn 'Arabi", T. Burckhardt (2001) pages 48-52

-for a discussion of ancient (particularly hermetic/gnostic) concepts involving the "meaningfulness" of precession and world epochs, see "Jesus Christ: the SUN of God", D. Fideler (1993)

-for evidence (academic archeological) that the central or ultimate "secret" of the Persian/Roman Mithraic cult was directly connected with the "meaningfulness" of the precession of the equinox, see "Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries", D. Ulansey (1991: Univ. of Oxford Press)

Thanks. I have Ulansey?s book and it is very compelling on first reading. However, I do think his thesis is only one of many theories to explain the hidden mysteries of the cult. I have always meant to read Ibn 'Arabi. I know John Frawley recommends it to all his students. However, by his time precession was a recognised scientific fact. Does he actually, make a case for different epochs determined by precession in the sidereal signs? Regarding Gnostics I would be interested in reading your reference. However, as I don?t have an unlimited book buying capacity could you expand a bit and summarise what the book says?

I do not know if MarkC is aware of this or not, but his basic point in this thread-relating the changing signs of certain fixed stars being connected with historical changes and epochs-is a key element of a certain highly esoteric (secret) linneage which traces back at least to the early 1500's!

As its ?secret? perhaps you are not at liberty to say? Are you referring to the Rosicrucians?

I fully agree with MarkC's suggestion to study the ramifications of certain stars (like Cor Leonis, as we call it) in certain signs-and in certain relationships with starry constellations and points on earth-on human events, and changes (or modulations) in epochs. Fact of the matter is that Cor Leonis moving into Virgo is, well, quite a "big deal" for the Earth...in terms of practical ramifications, much more so than the greatly anticipated "age of Aquarius"...

I personally think it has been manifest for quite some time already.

Osthanes wrote:

Recently, Beck published a throughout analysis of the Mithraic cult in his book The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire. It has a totally different and, in my opinion, rather convincing treatment of the Mysteries. Moreover, it contains several pieces of interest even for an astrologer, as he tries to reconstruct a forgotten helicoidal lunar theory and attempts to identify Antiochus of Athens. Needless to say, Ulansey's sensational but unfounded hypothesis on the role of precession in the Mysteries is dismissed. So this should be observed when his hypothesis is further utilised, like in the Fideler book or in films like Zeitgeist

.

I had already been beginning to question the hypothesis myself in terms of fixed stars the cult assigned to the myth. I have a book token handy that exactly matches the cost of the paperback edition for Beck?s book so I think I may get this. Thanks.


Osthanes wrote:

In fact, no reference to astrological ages (in the form as they are conceived nowadays) exist prior to 19th or 20th century.

Yes apart from a lot of retrospective historical speculation that seems to be the case.

Steve wrote:

I do not consider Cyril Fagan, John Anthony West, Robert Bauval or Graham Hancock ?amateur? writers on Ancient Egypt.

Well they are not professional academics with a training in astronomy, archaeoastronomy or achaeology so in that sense it is perfectly legitimate to describe them as amateur. That doesn?t imply they might not have very important insights to offer us.

?nor do I label my education pertaining to these writers as ?implicit faith?.

Perhaps not. But you repeatedly make statements here on Skyscript about unquestionable evidence and facts established by these writers when a more level headed analysis would suggest these as just theories or a hypothesis you personally accept. I have had the benefit of being educated as a historian so I am very suspicious when I hear such language being used.

I consider these men as ?alternative?, professional/ scholarly writers on Ancient Egypt?outside the mainstream, just as astrologers will always find themselves outside the mainstream. These ?alternative? writers have devoted and sacrificed a greater part of their life to the study of ancient Egypt and have greatly prompted/expanded my education/knowledge in the field of astrology/precessional astronomy.

Well fine. However, these writers have had mixed results. Bauval is someone I consider a sincere man who has tried to present his evidence as rationally as possible. As for Graham Hancock..I don?t think I wish to even comment.

Orthodox academia and most Egyptologists imbedded in academia do not have any knowledge of astronomy and thinks astrologers are pure idiots. I am only trying to contribute to your topic.

Which is why I showed you a link to the work of JA Belmonte. Belmonte is an astronomer! I agree though about the attitude of most archaeology today. A noteable exception is Jane B. Sellers and her book The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt

If possible I would prefer not to turn the rest of this thread into a debate on the merits of the ideas of John Anthony West, Cyril Fagan, Robert Bauval or Graham Hancock here. It seems a long way away from the original point of why I created this thread and could be more productively discussed on another thread IMHO.

Thanks

Mark

Interesting to know is that for some gnostics in the Hellenistic era the discovery of precession was seen as a breaking through the deterministic nature of astrology of those days and thus a liberation of fate.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1583867

Sorry, again a jstor article that usually only can be opened at university libraries.

I'm not sure if I could entirely support a gnostic idea of matter being evil but the idea of having the mind liberated from astrological deterministic influences through astronomical discoveries is a very attractive one to me.

Hi Eddy,

Interesting to know is that for some gnostics in the Hellenistic era the discovery of precession was seen as a breaking through the deterministic nature of astrology of those days and thus a liberation of fate. http://www.jstor.org/pss/1583867

It does look most intriguing I agree. However, like many members here I dont have free access to JSTOR and the $34.00 cost looks just too pricey for me. I can only assume its an especially long piece?

I'm not sure if I could entirely support a gnostic idea of matter being evil but the idea of having the mind liberated from astrological deterministic influences through astronomical discoveries is a very attractive one to me.

Its not that dissimilar from the Jain or early Buddhist notion that
the way to psychological freedom is deliverance from clinging to existence by freeing the mind of greed , hatred and ignorance. Similarly, many Gnostic cults believed in reincarnation. This does raise the interesting question of whether a person with a 'liberated mind' is free of astrological determinism. This is a logically consistent position from these philosophical positions. Its an interesting question for the Philosophy part of the forum. Although I suppose only a genuinely liberated mind could really answer the question!

I must (respectfully) disagree with Osthanes statement regarding no references to astrological ages exist prior to the 19/20th centuries:
-item: reference Ibn Arabi's concepts regarding the length of the series of astrological ages/epochs (final pages of "Mystical Astrology")
-item: extensive time/celestial phenomena based calculations for the determination of epochs (yugas) in "Surya Siddhanta", 500 A.D. (possibly recast from an Indian Buddhist text of the 3rd century BC)

It is accurate to state that neither of these 2 sources are based upon the precession of equinox as we understand this today; however, each of the above are concerned with time epochs or ages based upon celestial connections and calculations. I could also mention at least 3 Chinese "astrological" references (many centuries prior to the 19th) giving methods for calculating "epochs" and eras, fundamentally based upon celestial indications.

Regarding "Jesus Christ: the Sun of God", Fideler does not by any means exclusively base his thesis upon Ulansey. True, he references Ulansey, but he also references Origen, and discusses the religious symbolism relating to the precession-concept outside of Ulansey's theory. I shall also point out that I referenced Ulansey as a source for considerations relating to the precession/era-epoch connection, solely with the intent to demonstrate that such ideas are not necessarily Theosophy-created (as has been argued in this current thread) but MIGHT have been a theme in quite ancient times-for me personally, while Ulansey makes some good points (just because Beck proclaimed Ulansey's view "anachronistic" does not necessarily make it so in fact), nonetheless I largely disagree with Ulansey's conclusions and will not attempt to "defend" them.

Regarding Theosophy and its supposed intimate connection with precession/age-era-epoch ideas-sure, there is a connection-but please consider what leading Theosophist and head of the British School of astrology (up to the 1960's), C.E.O. Carter wrote (many decades ago):

"It is probable that there is no branch of astrology upon which more nonsense has been poured forth than the doctrine of the precession of the equinoxes."

I shall add that various Rosicrucian groups, Golden Dawn members, Crowleyites, and others, have speculated (or "declared") upon the meaningfulness of precession of the equinoxes relating to ages and epochs.

I have read a great deal of the literature concerning the "ages" of the precessions, as well as other literature (mostly translations from olden works) concerning "era's" and "epochs" based upon non-precessional astrological calculations. I have looked at these things from an esotericist point of view, and have pondered the matter. What do I think, or believe, regarding this whole issue of "world ages" and "era's" and epochs? What final conclusion have I arrived at? My answer is that the conclusion I have arrived at is:

A BIG, FAT ? MARK...

dr. farr wrote: It is accurate to state that neither of these 2 sources are based upon the precession of equinox as we understand this today; however, each of the above are concerned with time epochs or ages based upon celestial connections and calculations. I could also mention at least 3 Chinese "astrological" references (many centuries prior to the 19th) giving methods for calculating "epochs" and eras, fundamentally based upon celestial indications.

But that ancients fixed events from celestial calculations here I think everybody agrees- Jung included, as he reports in Aion.

This is very late testimony but which contains in shortly everything should be mentioned between scholars and not:

"But entering Saturn's apse in Capricorn and Mercury's in Virgo, and great conjunctions coming back to the pristine triplicity after the apparition of the stella nova in Cassiopea, it will be a great new monarchy, and laws and art reform, and prophets, and renewal. And they say this will be profitable, but first one should destroy and clean and then build and plant. " (Campanella, La Citt? del Sole )

even Gospel says something which was read by many in an astrological sense:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matthew, XXIV, 29-30)

so it's evident that celestial omen were significant for detecting the new "aeon" but the role of precession seems not evident,

margherita

Apart from looking for origins of era's an precession one could think about when they would start. Since the classical ayanamsha's are all between 20? and 24? Aries (at the moment), a (sign x) age should start when the equinox approaches thes points. Regulus entering Leo then wouldn't fit in this view. From that (20?-24?ayanamsha) view the 'age of Aquarius' will only start 4 to 7 centuries from now. Looking at this way I'd think it would only be of concern for siderealists. I think it's very difficult to delineate changes from something as slow as precession.

Eddy's last post makes a good deal of sense to me.
I neither accept-nor reject-the various celestial-calculation-based, or precession based, "astrological ages" or "era's" theories which I have studied over the years: I myself have come nowhere near any solid (personal) conclusions in this area.

The part of me that screams 'the world is being taken over by soulless bureaucrats with surveillance equipment' wants to disagree.

The part of me that's read Michel Foucault's Discipline et Surveiller knows about the invention of the Panopticon, the way people were confined to their own streets by what passed for law enforcement during the ages of plagues, etc., says that it happens and this is certainly not the first time it's happened - and the precessional age doesn't so much matter. It also tells me that the more bureaucratic the world becomes and the more closely people are watched, the more doomed the society in question is if you look at history.

On the other other hand, even though I know that the Thema Mundi was a pedagogical tool, various bible stories interpreted in the astrological tradition (and even Jewish practises today, like Birkat Hachama - blessing the sun every 28 years when it returns to the time and place it was at 'creation') notes that the 8th house of the Thema Mundi is Aquarius and the story of Lot isn't so far away from where we are now, how the Passover and Exodus stories managed to smush together the end of both an Arian and Taurean age, and all the rest, and throws up both hands in despair. It's probably not quite so obvious in the Greek or English as it is in the Hebrew.

But no - it's never quite so simple as saying 'the Age of Pisces is this, the Age of Aries was that, etc.' Especially when you look at the historical as well as the allegorical material.

No - that probably didn't make a lot of sense, I know! But the historian in me usually wins - not that I discount the allegorical material, either - especially when I see something so strange in it that it looks like it has to be from a historical source. But I haven't worked out the answer to it. I don't know that anybody has.

Well, perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. What I say is not to deny the existence of several ancient theories of world ages, which would be obviously unfounded; I only assert that (as far as I know - a formula that should be added all the time) the astrological-looking theory on world ages like the Age of Aquarius and so, based on a syncretistic tropical-sidereal or tropical-constellational view, seems not to exist before the Theosophical rebirth of modern astrology. That is why I wrote "...no reference to astrological ages (in the form as they are conceived nowadays) exist prior to 19th or 20th century."