Why start with Regulus?

Tzadkiel

First of all: Thank you all for the great input!

@ ravenest >> Usually the first of the 72 angels is "Vehuiah", located at the first five degrees of Aries, making him the angel of a 5-day-period starting on the 21st of March. So, following this common order, "Vehuiah" would rule the 2 Wands ("Dominion"). BUT the Golden Dawn placed "Vehuiah" in the first degrees of Leo, making him rule the 5 Wands ("Strife").

So, working with the 72 angels using the usually accepted order AND Golden Dawn based material or decks, you have to change the angels attributed to the pips or vice versa.

For example: Someone born on the 22nd of March would be guided by the angel Vehuiah. The pip card of that person would be the 2 Wands - at least according to the position of the sun in his/her birth-chart. BUT following the Golden Dawn this person would have a different angel. And if you just look at the pip card the Golden Dawn associated to Vehuiah, you get the 5 Wands and not the 2 Wands. Can you see the "problem"...?

ravenest

Yep. The answer (to my question) ... {Where ya been? Could of cleared that up long ago ... its cool - just joking

} appears to be they DID change the attribution not just started the listing in a different place.

I dont really get into that shamhempforher stuff and the angels attribution though. I have a duQuette deck and book at home (someone gave them to me) ... not home lately (bin away

) ... that lists these angels on the cards doesn't it? (Its been a long time since I looked at either that deck or book.) Does it list the first angel at 'strife' or 'dominion'?

Just curious ... as I know little (or forgot) about these angels. I found this (just then);

1 Vehuiah

Qualities
Divine Will
Brings the Primordial Creative Fire
Capacity to initiate, to begin
Success for all new creations
Guides toward innovative work in an avant-garde field
Sets the example, serves as a model and a leader
Allows us to get out of an impasse and confusion
Renewed energy that heals depression
Abundance of energy, courage, audacity, bravery
Loves as if it were for the first time

Distortions
Lack of dynamism and willpower
Stubborn, relentless, authoritarian, imposing
Triggers anger, turbulence
Intervenes in affairs that will end badly
Rushes into things without thinking, dangerous passion
Violent situation, impetuosity, destruction of entourage, excessive reactions
Incapable of deciding on which direction to take
Imposes one's will, forces Destiny

To me the first seems like dominion - in a way, the second seems like strife - in a way?
But their source? ( http://www.ucm.ca/en/angels/1-vehuiah.html)

Maybe need something more traditional.

" Vehuiah

Guardian of the ones born: from 21st to 25th march
Angelic chorus: Seraphim
Archangel: Kamael
Angelic essence: Will
Element: Fire

In the packaging in every pendant is included a booklet which describes all caracteristics (meaning, qualities developed, defects fought back, prayer) of this Guardian Angel.
As example you can have a look at the booklet of the Guardian Angel Vehuiah

Price: € 55.00 (including 20 % tax) "

OOOPS ! :joke:

Oh no ... I tried to google it ... what a lot of angel ...'stuff' there is out there.
I dont know. Does GD use the twisted letter version and generate some obsure number from the bible passage and words or is it the version based on Ezekials chariot that ends up multipling it all with 4's 3's and 7's and rays from crowns.

I dont know what an angel 'distortion' is. Is that the 'night side ' of the first angel.

I dont know! :laugh:

in any case I always thought that the GD SET their zodiac at Regulus, not STARTED it at Regulus (due to their card attribution - they didnt set 2 wands at Regulus) but looks like they did 'start' at that point for angels.

Hard to tell for me without seeing the ref in the book, and on that point I go back to my original request in my first post above; where is it from, a chart or a passage or text in the Book? (I ask as I have noticed in the book that somethings are either and sometimes their statements seem justified and other times just plain post-Victorian ignorant. ... and at others , obvious mistakes or slip ups in setting out a table (like that Kamea of Venus).

ravenest

I was wondering about some type of sidereal pro/regression (as that angel and date only line up with a tropical astology system and Mathers used a sidereal one) but considering he probably wrote it up around 1900 (?) Thats only about a .... 25* differance (?) not the 150* or so difference needed.

Even subtacting the 150* x 72 (I think) years (rate of precession) puts it back in the neolithic revolution! :laugh:

(at least I didnt get Little Richards; "What notable things happened in the 1040s, I wonder? " date :laugh:

... unless I add a 0.

Look Falcon Press, if this does turn out to be a typo

Tzadkiel

Dear ravenest,

thanks again!

The "distortions" are the "negative effects" of the angel or - more precisely - the "darkside aspects" of the person, born in the time of that angel.

I own Lon's deck and yes, the Golden Dawn tradition starts the list of angels at 0-5 Leo ("Strife"). The list in itself follows the arrangement you usually find online. (Vehuiah being the first angel and so on... Although the Golden Dawn tradition often uses different translations/versions of the three Hebrew letters, forming the angels names.)

Scion writes in his "Guide to the Liber T Tarot" that the decans were in ancient times called "The Lords of Time". (And that - in a way - the 72 angels are Hebrew interpretations of this Egyptian way of time-measurement.) Maybe the Golden Dawn members were trying to connect the whole angel-thing with the ancient/Egyption system of the decans? (And the now found attributions are just a more simple way to connect the zodiac to the angels, by connecting angel #1 with the first degrees of Aries?)

ravenest

Tzadkiel said:
The "distortions" are the "negative effects" of the angel or - more precisely - the "darkside aspects" of the person, born in the time of that angel.

Yes. But don’t you see the similarity above with the darkside and the 5 wands? :shrug: Maybe it is a coincidence?

Tzadkiel said:
I own Lon's deck and yes, the Golden Dawn tradition starts the list of angels at 0-5 Leo ("Strife").

And is that the system Lon's deck uses? Does he make any comment?

Tzadkiel said:
The list in itself follows the arrangement you usually find online. (Vehuiah being the first angel and so on... Although the Golden Dawn tradition often uses different translations/versions of the three Hebrew letters, forming the angels names.) Scion writes in his "Guide to the Liber T Tarot" that the decans were in ancient times called "The Lords of Time". (And that - in a way - the 72 angels are Hebrew interpretations of this Egyptian way of time-measurement.)

Does he?

That’s not like Scion ... well ... 'in a way' ... ok. I can see the decans linked to the 'Egyptian night clock' (see the Gods on the outer rim of the Dendra Zodiac) and how some relate the angels to the decans but I am wondering if there is a direct link, or historical reference, or tradition or validity to link those angels with the decans, if so there might be a 'right' or 'wrong' way of doing it. But maybe it’s just one of those 'coincidences' with number like; 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet ... 22 Tarot trumps ... hmmm :lightbulb

[i.e. 36 decans, 72 angels = 2 x each decan ) If this is the case maybe they (whoever they were) just started listing the angels with the first one at the first point of the zodiac (which is really an arbitrary point depending on time, locality, hemisphere and season) but most of us have been conditioned to see it as 1* Aries. If your zodiac starts somewhere else then that is where you put the first angel.

It would depend on whether or not there is a direct correlation to the energy of the angel and the decan. How were the qualities of the angels worked out? Were they were placed on the decans and took on their ‘flavour’, or did they have a flavour first and that influenced the decan? What came first, chicken or egg? (I ask a lot of questions don’t I ?)

Tzadkiel said:
Maybe the Golden Dawn members were trying to connect the whole angel-thing with the ancient/Egyptian system of the decans?

Possible, they liked to 'Egyptianize' things. I was contending a while back (in astro forum) that those Egyptian decans and gods that ruled them were the source of our modern star signs which originated in constellations (again see Dendra Zodiac where, for example, the Goddess on the rim with the scorpion headdress seems to align with a scorpion shape towards the centre (the outside seems the Egyptian method, the inner the Greek) - but the idea was severely poo-pooed by the experts.

Tzadkiel said:
(And the now found attributions are just a more simple way to connect the zodiac to the angels, by connecting angel #1 with the first degrees of Aries?)

Yeah ... it all got simplified and dumbed down quite a bit.

Sorry if I am going on and on and on about this but no one posted to my other thread here on GD astrology: grin:

I'm off to read more of Scions decan info ... thanks for reminding me.

ravenest

ravenest said:
... see Dendra Zodiac where, for example, the Goddess on the rim with the scorpion headdress seems to align with a scorpion shape towards the centre .

Wrong. wrong wrong!
Its not the Dendra Zodiac, it is one of the lineal zodiacs that shows the scorpion headress Goddess (Serket) and next to her is a stylised asterism.
I dont suppose anyone is familiar with this ... I cant seem to find the image ... or at least a clear repoduction

Aeon418

ravenest said:
And is that the system Lon's deck uses? Does he make any comment?

He merely mentions that 0° Leo is the traditional Chaldean start of the year.

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
He merely mentions that 0° Leo is the traditional Chaldean start of the year.

No reason or ref. ? How annoying!
Is he refering to Regulus? Is he saying Goldern Dawn set up their horoscope as a copy of the Chaldean? Is there any reference to the Chaldeans doing this?

It is one of the four main stars of the 'Chaldeans' (or is it Persians?) in any case it was assigned to the Summer solstice (and see my ref above). The Chaldeans started their year at the Summer solstice?

I'm going to blame Tzadkiel for wearing out the ? key on my laptop.

Aeon418

ravenest said:
No reason or ref. ? How annoying!
Is he refering to Regulus? Is he saying Goldern Dawn set up their horoscope as a copy of the Chaldean?

I don't know. Lon doesn't appear to expand on this point.

ravenest said:
Is there any reference to the Chaldeans doing this?

In their book, Tarot Talismans, the Cicero's claim that there is evidence to support the view that in some parts of Egypt the 0° Leo starting point was used. Although they don't go any further than that. They just quote Rupert Gleadow's assertion (The Origins of the Zodiac p.28) that the oldest version of zodiac was measured from the fixed stars.

Leo is one of the fixed signs. Add a bit of Mathers 'clairvoyant investigations'. A dash of gematria - Shem Ha-Mephorash has 216 letters. 216 = GBVRH, Geburah. And also ARIH, Lion; Leo. Bingo! Start with the 5 of Wands.
Also Exodus 14:19-21 begins with the Angel of Elohim.

ravenest

Aeon418 said:
I don't know. Lon doesn't appear to expand on this point.

In their book, Tarot Talismans, the Cicero's claim that there is evidence to support the view that in some parts of Egypt the 0° Leo starting point was used. Although they don't go any further than that. They just quote Rupert Gleadow's assertion (The Origins of the Zodiac p.28) that the oldest version of zodiac was measured from the fixed stars.

Leo is one of the fixed signs. Add a bit of Mathers 'clairvoyant investigations'. A dash of gematria - Shem Ha-Mephorash has 216 letters. 216 = GBVRH, Geburah. And also ARIH, Lion; Leo. Bingo! Start with the 5 of Wands.
Also Exodus 14:19-21 begins with the Angel of Elohim.

!

Thats more like it.