View Full Version : small cards zodiacal attributions
Hello I wonder if any one can tell me why crowley begins the sequence of small cards at 0 degrees leo (5 of wands, strife), rather than at 0 degrees aries for example? Any clues...? thanks
2 3 4 Cardinal
5 6 7 Fixed
8 9 10 Mutable
It would be even more revealing to know why
the ancient Chaldean astrologers began the
sequence with Mars first in Aries (2 of Wands).
Mars in Pisces (10 of Cups) is the final decan,
and it's done so for a reason: the hinge-pin.
The concept is of a descending order, based on
various considerations, and goes like this:
Saturn Jupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon
I could come with no better reason than the ascendent thing myself but perceived there must be something else to it -to give his ego the benefit of the doubt. I guess maybe there isn't, though it is kind of surprising as he does tend to try to ground things in something or other even if it is his own revelations -which are not to be sniffed at.
Fulgour I don't understand how your reply helps my enquiry? Are you saying that the chaldean system did this first and crowley uses it, if so given the order (kabbalistically as crowley would have it) of the planets descent the question remains, why begin with mars rather than saturn? If the 'hinge-pin' is an answer -and I do not mean this facetiously- then what does it mean, as on its own it says very little.
The Vernal Equinox is the fixed point that makes all astrological
references possible. It is the agreed upon starting point, the pin.
The Chaldean system of decanates, probably 5,000+ years old is
not an image of perfection, but a human creation, and so flawed.
As if to say, of course we know, there is the beautiful doubling
of Mars at the beginning and end ~ the flaw that fixes the form: