Decans

Grigori

sapienza said:
I guess I'd feel more comfortable knowing there was some solid reason for starting off in Leo and that it wasn't just an arbitrary choice. Maybe it doesn't really matter. Sometimes when I wade into this stuff I feel like I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about :)

There is an important star there (actually its at 5 degrees, not 0, but smack in the middle of the decan I guess :D) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulus
It was the traditional start of the zodiac before Aries was I think, and is the starting point for sidereal astrology.

http://www.lunarplanner.com/siderealastrology.html

Starting in Leo seems to make sense, starting with the 5 of Wands however... *shrugs* I'm not sure why.

Having a 7 planet system does mean that it doesn't work out evenly and a planet gets an extra spot. In this case Mars does the first decan of Aries (start of the year) as well as the last decan of Pisces (end of the year). Apparently get Spring up and kicking :) So you do get Aries as well as Leo as starting points within the same system.
 

Abrac

sapienza said:
Sometimes when I wade into this stuff I feel like I have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about :)
Neither do I half the time. :laugh:

Once in a while Manly P. Hall has some interesting things to say about the "ancients" so I looked up Leo in his Secret Teachings. It says:

"On the 21st of June, when the sun arrives at the summer solstice, the constellation Leo- being but 30° in advance of the sun -appears to be leading the way, and to aid by his powerful paw in lifting the sun up to the summit of the zodiacal arch. This visible connection between the constellation Leo and the return of the sun to his place of power and glory, at the summit of the Royal Arch of heaven, was the principal reason why that constellation was held in such high esteem and reverence by the ancients."

This idea is further illustrated in the Masonic "Grip of the Lion's Paw" ritual which is a symbolic resurrection from death to life.

And from Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry:

"Plutarch says that the Egyptians ornamented their Temples with gaping lions' mouths, because the Nile began to rise when the sun was in the Constellation Leo"

The ancient Egyptian calendar started with the inundation of the Nile which, as I understand it, was during the hot days of summer.

There seems to be an ancient "tradition," as DuQuette calls it, that predates ours that assigns Leo rather than Aries at the beginning. This isn't a smoking gun that says positively this is why Mathers chose Leo for the starting point, but it's pretty good evidence. :)
 

sapienza

Thanks for the info simila and Abrac. Will need to find some time to check out the links. At least it's good to know there is some meaningful reason for why the system is the way it is. Coming at decans from astrology (as opposed to Magick) I'm interested in seeing if there are particular fixed stars that match up with each decan. I'm sure that has been mentioned in this thread somewhere but I really need to wait until I have some spare time to sit and read through it again. How easy it is to feel like you are drowning with all this!
 

Abrac

The decans have been assigned constellations in the past. One of the oldest known sources is found in the writings of Persian astronomer and astrologer Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi (known as Albumasar in the West). His system was documented in 1865 by Florence Rolleston in her book Mazzaroth; or, the Constellations. There's a PDF of the complete text here; just scroll down and click the Download link.

Quoting from page 56 of the PDF:

"Decans are divisions of a sign, each occupying about a third. This division is said to have
been introduced into Egypt by King Necepsos, about 700 years BC The Decans are here
arranged from a work by Albumazer, Flor. Astro., a Latin translation of which is in the
Library of the British Museum. Albumazer speaks of them as in the Persian, Egyptian,
and Indian spheres. The Persians, he says, understood, but the Indians perverted them
with inventions."

It seems that originally the decans had a precise astronomical function but were gradually changed or distorted to conform with certain magical purposes.
 

Abrac

These are the constellations assigned each decan according to Albumasar.

Aries
1. Cassiopeia
2. Cetus
3. Perseus

Taurus
1. Orion
2. Eridanus
3. Auriga

Gemini
1. Lepus
2. Canis Major
3. Canis Minor

Cancer
1. Ursa Minor
2. Ursa Major
3. Argo

Leo
1. Hydra
2. Crater
3. Corvus

Virgo
1. Coma
2. Centaurus
3. Bootes

Libra
1. The Cross (Southern Cross)
2. Victim of Centaur (Lupus)
3. The Northern Crown (Corona Borealis)

Scorpio
1. The Serpent (Serpens)
2. Ophiuchus
3. Hercules

Sagittarius
1. Lyra
2. Ara
3. Draco

Capricorn
1. Sagitta
2. Aquila
3. Delphinus

Aquarius
1. The Southern Fish (Piscis Australis)
2. Pegasus
3. Cyngus

Pisces
1. The Band (Al Risha/Alpha Piscium)
2. Cephus
3. Andromeda
 

sapienza

Fantastic Abrac. Thanks SO much for posting that. :D

I note that this is the same assignments that are used in the Celestial Tarot. Unfortunately they don't use the Chaldean decans system but rather the Oriental (I think that's what it is referred to in the book). Also they assign the cards 1-9 to decans and not ten. It's an interesting deck but I've always found that assigning different decans to the cards and yet still coming back to the RWS meanings gave the deck a 'fatally flawed' kind of vibe to me. Anyway, given Brian Clark is an astrologer it's probably not a huge surprise he's assigned the stars/constellations the way he has. The companion book for the deck does provide some great info regarding the myths associated with the fixed stars/constellations. I refer to the book quite a bit but never use the deck at all.

I'd like to have a look at the constellations as they are assigned to the decans and match them to the appropriate card in the GD system and see how they connect, or don't. Again, something for when I find some spare time.
 

Abrac

sapienza, awhile back I started doing exactly what you said, comparing the constellations with Book T and also the Liber T. I didn't find anything too meaningful and stopped before getting very far. It might be a project that's deserving of a more thorough effort though.

Thanks for mentioning that about the Celestial. That's one I've never payed any attention to but I might have to check out the book, sounds interesting. :)
 

WolfyJames

Scion said:
It literally comes down to the old Fate vs. Free Will debate that plagues Western civilization: are our lives meaningful and what controls them? The empty, facile, psychologized New Age horsehit that has passed for astrology for 100 years is predicated on a nonsensical view: that the universe is a mechanism BUT that the mechanism can be bent to our will if we just wish hard enough. We might call this Free Will with a lower case "f" (as in F.U. mom and dad! You're not the boss of me! ) in which there is infinite entitlement and no responsibility. The Aquarian Age rejection of "Fate" as ineluctable necessity is a kneejerk reaction based on people liking to have their own way. A me-generation wankfest where everything is a reason to pat yourself on the back and feel proud. Getting your way and Free Will are not the same thing. The trouble with a universe possessing deities and spirits and meaning (and Fate) is that some things MEAN more than others, some events WILL happen, everyone doesn't get to be the protagonist in the universal drama, we cannot be FREE agents. Only in a universe empty of spirits (and therefore magick) could people believe they can act blindly and randomly without consequence or cosmic impact. Only in a universe devoid of consciousness could someone believe that EVERY horoscope is positive, that EVERY person is special, that EVERY fate is happy.

The thing is that what you're talking about is outdated. When the astrology you're talking about were every day talk, pretty much not far from our time to a few milleniums ago, free will didn't exist, only fate ruled then. People were born in their position and career and were dying there. People were forced to get married with people they didn't like, people were forced to believe in religions they didn't care about. Of course fate was all powerful then. But today while fate has still some threads in our lives it has been kicked to the curb because Fate's Aeon is dying right now like Osiris's Aeon is dying too, its weak clutch still grasping us. And for good. Free will is the new rule and the new god of the Horus and aquarian age. Today we have still some limitations due to fate but we can surpass them, we can go from poor to rich and educated, we can change, we can achieve almost everything what we apply our mind to, and unlike the past generations we choose our partners and our children (as in how many and when).

And isn't magick all about bending fate? Is fate is bendable then fate is not that irrevovable as you claim. And considering magick has been done for millemumns therefore fate is definitevely bendable and the planets too.

In other words, I suggest you get used to free will because it's going to be there for the next 2 milleniums, blowing away everything in a good way.
 

Scion

No, Wolfy.

I hate to say it, but you're actually doing exactly what I describe in that quote: you're imagining that somehow the universe is a machine that we can "tilt" to get what we want. If we can cheat the system, it isn't a system, is it?

Magick is not about "bending" Fate. Fate is that which does not bend. Ananke! Necessity. That which must happen. Magick is about allowing Fate to work through you so that you are its conduit rather than an obstacle. As Crowley says, the True Will brooks no opposition because NO OPPOSITION is possible. If you believe Crowley, the New Aeon was and is inevitable, an expression of Ananke, and Fate is the True Will. Crowley didn't CREATE the Aeon, he announced it. Magick cannot exist in a world of Free Will because there is no POWER outside of the individual self. Again, this is a huge problem for modern Magickians; we have been raised to distrust the idea of Fate, and so we distrust the idea of external power... but EVERY system of magick on Earth is predicated on the existence of external powers, and there fore upon a worldview centered on Fate aka the Wheel of Fortune. Not surprisingly, I'd make a case that TAROT is founded on a belief in Fate, both as an allegorical gaming deck and a divinatory system. Again, it's hard to argue the opposite.

Think it through: if Magick and Free Will could coexist, what would be the source of Magick? What would literally make things happen? And before you say that "the magick is inside you," I'd say, "then it's inside everyone and therefore you can only do what everyone else is willing to LET you do." Which doesn't sound very magickal (or very free) at all, does it? How can divination occur without the Divine? How can you tell a Fortune, if there is no Fortune? Astrology is rooted in a fate-based worldview. No two ways about it. Every attempt to make it otherwise has pretty much made it NOT astrology, but rather a kind of saccharine moodring. Magick always starts with spirits. Spirits have consciousness. Consciousness is another word for Will. If we have Free Will, whose Will wins? Not any humans, certainly. Making you, if you believe in magick, a pawn in a game played by daemons.

Free Will isn't "new" any more than Fate is "old." The myth of unlimited opportunity and easy access is exactly that. And the small freedoms we feel we've gained have been matched with byzantine restrictions, controls, and invasions. For the record, the numbers on social mobility are bad. This is something that lots of Westereners don't like to look at, but the odds of escaoping from one sociasl class into another are astronomical. You are more likely to spontaneously combust thatn to make it out of the foster care system into something like a successful healthy home life. You are more likely to be hit by lightning that to climb out of dire poverty into wealth and privelege. It isn't just a matter of work, but of all the circumstances arrayed against your choices. The difference is the difference between Actions (which are an expression of Will) and activity (which arise in the absence of Will). Action and activity are not synonyms but modern society invariably mistakes one for the other, witness most modern entertainment, education, religion, politics, art, and science.

Or to put it another way, which is how I did it when I taught theology classes, I'm going to challenge that so-called Free Will you're talking about... You ready?:

Okay. Fall in love with someone right now. Go ahead. While you're sitting there. Pick someone and love them fully and passionately to the excception of all others. Enough that you'd die for them. I'm waiting. No? Then how about you make yourself a supermodel with a virtuosic singing voice. Go ahead. No? Or why don't you unsay something you said to someone a year ago? Have an earthshattering idea on the spot? Force someone to change their mind? For that matter, change your race, sex, age, abilities, the color of your eyes...? Nope. We do have a few more choices and some ACTIVITIES available to us that our ancestors did not because of access and technology, but we do NOT have ACTIONS available to us that they did not. Whether you believe in Fate or Free Will is a personal matter, but usually wehen people speak glibly about Free Will as if it's a big blank check to personal power then they haven't thought about it with any degree of gravity. Free Will isn't a panacea, anymore than belief in Fate is a prison. Even the idea of "getting used" to Free Will is so funny to me. Free will is aboutt the individual getting used, by all of creation.

Free will isn't "freedom" at all... That's what I was writing about in the above quote, if you reread it. Free will is a terrible terrible responsibility, a soul-crushing burden. It isn't a release! It's the willingness to be the cause of everything... in the world... forever! Free Will doesn't mean you can "do whatever you want" but rather that you have no framework, no guidance, no assistance, no support, no morality, no hope, no prayer, no spirit, mo power outside of your own. On the one hand, it gives you a certain amount of autonomy, much in the same way that a Nuclear explosion clears out a certain amount of real estate. Believing in Free Will means that EVERYTHING... the grass growing outside, the baby crying two streets over, the wind blowing past the Eiffel tower, is connected directly to you and the choices you make. Are you willing to be responsible for people's cancers, assaults, wars? Are you willing to be completely and utterly at fault for every mistake, flaw, or habit that gets in the way of your wishes? That's a tall order.

I'm not saying we SEE the world the way the ancients did, but rather that when people say that we DON'T see that world because we believe in Free Will, that they are using the phrase immoderately. Free Will is no small thing, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

So no. I'm plenty used to Free Will. I've thought about it a LOT. And Fate. I have a sense of how they operate as worldviews, and neither (like waves/particles in light) is a complete model... but in NO model is Free Will a free ride.
 

Always Wondering

Oh, I like it when you talk magick Scion. Maybe I will find somewhere to start a new thread.
I just have to sift through all the the questions you just inspired and pick a choherent one.

AW