Yes. That's probably as good as it gets from an astronomical view. It's also what Jung stated. Have a look at this:
http://www.oocities.org/astrologyages/ageofaquarius.htm
Probably, the crucial question is whether we base the calculation on the movement of the E.P. through the constellations (and mind you, there are thirteen to fourteen of them touching the ecliptic, not just the twelve that gave their names to the signs) or through the sidereal zodiac. The problem with the sidereal zodiac (widely used in India today) is that there is no general agreement as to where exactly on the ecliptic it begins (that is, where to locate 0° Aries). There are widely differing values for this
ayanamsa in use which also lead to different results regarding the time that the E.P. moves from sidereal Pisces to sidereal Aquarius.
Thank you !
Someone knows a bit of what I am referring to !
Guys, look at a constellation map. Have you ever looked at a star atlas ? Are you familiar with the constellations and boundaries and their shape and how they intersect the ecliptic. They are all over the place. Unequal , disjointed jig saw. One corner of Cetus goes up to the ecliptic, the EP will pass through that constellation ... will we have an age of the Whale ?
(Waits for Michael to return with info about how that happened in the 70s when we all went nuts about whale songs
)
Also, if we wanted to look at an astronomical position of a planet , in reality, there are even more constellations it can be in, as planets do not have to follow the LINE of the ecliptic, but their path is within the BAND of the ecliptic .... much much wider .
If you Follow some constellational boundaries, they go along, to enclose a constellational asterism, then do a right angle, zoom off through space, do 2 right angles around some distant lone star and zoom back to the asterism, so that the constellation has this weird square corridor sticking out from it.
There are multiple constellations on the ecliptic, according to this idea
and this is what I am trying to get at ... the idea
if the idea is that ..... when the EP passes a constellational boundary and goes into that constellation, we are in the age of that constellation. But some are massive ( like Libra - because she stole Scorpios claws ) and Scorpio is tiny on the ecliptic ... any constellational (on one of these astronomical maps we are talking about ) 'age' for Scorpio would be over in a relative blink .
The whole idea of the ages being equal periods means they can not be mapped on to the CURRENT astronomical chart .... and it makes trying to work out a lot of astrology useless or ridiculously complex. That was the whole point of making an equal 12 SIGN equal degree system in the first place that overlaid the constellations !
This is also what 'sidereal astrologists do. They dont follow the constellations ... or they would have a sign of Ophiuchus ... they use the 12 equal house system and attempt to shift the whole thing around to account for precession .... it doesnt match the astronomical sky either !
This is IMO why the GD were experimenting with a new system based on older forms of astrology.
It isnt THAT hard to work out. One has to look at older forms of
I just think its nuts to think the world astrological age changes according to some 'arbitrary' constellational boundary drawn recently on the current map .... thats ridiculous !
If any one else is still with me ..... my suggestion is, to look at historical changes in constellations ( generally via culture, not every model that appeared in one culture ) and get an idea about how constellations and their boundaries are very flexible, What is less flexible is asterisms. So one needs 12 general asterisms on the ecliptic and work out the degrees before and after them to make 30.
Some protest this as things will happen like Scorp will intrude on Lib .... but IMO that is actually a restoration as the old Scorpions claws went to Libra ... and other dynamics.
My prefered system is actually a true sidereal system and not based on any imaginary and arbitrary area of 'void space' around, near of far away from an asterism. ie, based on stars.
And since my theory is that any constellational 'space' is better defined by varient energy of a decan ... and decans get their energy from particular stars on or perpendicular to the ecliptic, then the whole thing can be worked out that way . The precession, modern boundaries decided by astronomers, unequal constellations, etc etc etc dont even have to enter into it .
Does anyone follow me here ? (please dont explain the dynamics of precession to me again in answer
)
I better stop here.