|StarGate Forum: AquarianAge Open Topics|
Re: Re: Re: Age of Aquarius Still Some Time Off
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ AquarianAge Forum ]
Posted by Terry MacKinnell on 09 May 2006 at 20:36:17:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Age of Aquarius Still Some Time Off posted by Bender on 05 May 2006 at 11:10:42:
Your statement “Because of the space between different constellations, it is difficult if not impossible to determine precisely when one age ends and another one begins…” implies that the defining quality for the precessional ages are the zodiacal constellations.
However these zodiacal constellations are not inherent but defined by ancient astrologers. They could have made any collection of stars anywhere on the ecliptic into any number of constellations. – which is what happened. The Hindu’s have 29 asterisms or mini-constellations around the ecliptic, while the Egyptians had thirty. Before the 12 zodiacal constellations there were evidently only six according to some archeo-astronomers. The only reason I bring up these points is that the 12 zodiacal constellations are only relevant to the ages if they were defined to calibrate or mark the ages by the ancient astrologers.
Most researchers in this area follow an intellectual approach divorced from substantiation or proof. I prefer support to any argument that I put forward. For example the earliest known depiction of the zodiac shows not only the zodiac but also a `micro-zodiac’ with 12 sub-signs placed within each sign – along the lines of the contemporary Hindu dwadasamsa (abbreviated to dwads). If dwads exist within ages, then each dwad is approximately 179 years each. While it may be difficult to rectify where ages of 2150 years each may sit, these smaller periods of approx 179 years are much easier to locate.
Based on 18 years of research into this area, I have found the dwads of ages and these dwads indicate that the Aquarian age commenced around 1400 AD. This date is astronomically supported by the heliacal rising of the zodiacal constellations. The constellation of Aquarius has been heliacally rising at the Vernal Equinox for centuries as should be expected for an Aquarian age commencing within a few years on 1400 AD.
The Equinoctial Point method that has monopolised the calibration of the ages via the zodiacal constellations since the time of the ancient Greek astrologer Hipparchus (c.125 BC) is incorrect as Hipparchus did not understand the methodology of the ancient astrologers one to two thousand years before his time. It is the ancient astrologers of Mesopotamia that defined the zodiacal constellations – not the ancient Greeks. Because Hipparchus did not understand the background to the zodiacal constellations he messed up the approach he developed.
So while the Equinoctial Point has centuries to go before it enters the constellation of Aquarius, the constellation of Aquarius has been the heliacal rising constellation at the Vernal Equinox for many centuries.
I believe that Nicholas Campion mentions my above rectification of the Aquarian Age in his `Book of World Horoscopes’ though I have not sighted it for myself.
The detailed support for the above statements can be found at my research site which can be determined from my email address
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Age of Aquarius Still Some Time Off -- DoctorCari 07/12/06 (0)
Post a Followup