Talk:Aeon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(First comments)[edit]

Nobody bothered to mention the 'Aeon' which is the 20th card of the Crowley Toth Tarot Venus Satanas (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


I object to References in Popular Culture. It contains major spoilers in regards to Final Fantasy X/X-2. I'll be removing it, if someone objects feel free to voice your arguments for containing it and restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.54.152 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Aritcle about Æon but yet page name is incorrectly spelled Aeon. Redirect was placed on Æon to direct to Aeon.

Sanskrit Units of Time[edit]

This article refers to "yug ( more than light years)", but light years are a measurement of distance, not time. Nick Urban (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Book[edit]

There is a book by Karl Jung whose title is Aeon. -- 15:03, 12 March 2007) User:Bodhide

Aion[edit]

Shouldn't Aion (deity) be a separate article? He is not really the same as the Gnostic Aeon. He is a lion-headed deity with a snake wrapped around him. Carl Jung wrote a whole book about this deity, Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, which should probably get its own entry. -999 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Additions[edit]

Why "emanation of the God" should be termed Aeon?--Connection 10:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Aeon in the Buddhist Cosmology[edit]

An Aeon in Buddhist cosmology is probably equivalent to one expansion and contraction of the universe.... from the big bang and back to the next big bang. Whereupon the whole process is repeated.

When asked 'how long is an aeon?' the Buddha replied..."imagine a mountain 10 miles wide, 10 miles long and 10 miles high, and once every 100 years a being appears and wipes the mountain over carefully with a very fine cloth. That mountain would sooner be rubbed away level with the ground before an aeon is completed."

When asked 'how many such aeons have gone past?' the Buddha replied..." Take the river Ganges, from its source to where it reaches the sea..... how many grains of sand lie between? Greater than this are the number of aeons which have passed."

There is a word unique to Buddhism, called "asongkaya", or some such spelling. It means 'an incalculable period' but in fact can be written as the number 1 followed by 140 zeros! There are three types of Buddhas. One practices (from the time a vow is made to become a Buddha, until enlightenment) for a period of 4 asongkaya plus 100,000 mahakapa; another for 8 asongkaya plus 100,000 mahakapa; and the third for 16 asongkaya plus 100,000 mahakapa. The present Buddha (whose teaching is still extant) is of the first type, whilst the next Buddha (Marietreya) is of the third type.

Mahakapa is another term for aeon. Roughly eqivalent to the length of time from the begining, expansion, contraction and destruction of the universe. (After which ...it all happens again).

Eon[edit]

The eon link takes you to the disambiguation page, it should take you straight to "eon (geology)". However, I don't know how to change this.


Vandalism[edit]

Not sure I understand why this page seems to attract so much vandalism. AnonMoos 11:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Do the italicised passages citing "Myther et al" (who I can't trace) count as vandalism? Reference to CP symmetry seems a touch out of place... PaddyLeahy 00:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed the paragraph "Since originally the word is believed to have meant a period of time close to 100 years, the notion of "eternal damnation" that Christians attrobute to the Bible is jeapordized. In the original greek, aeon is the word that was ultimately translated to eternal. But damnation for about 100 years isn't quite as motivating as "Eternal Damnation", so they fudged it a bit." Unreferenced, misspelled, bad grammar, improper use of words and includes personal opinions. --121.6.184.26 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually in modern Greek, aeon means century unless you use it poetically. But aeonios means eternal. I'm not sure on how we came to use aeon as 100 years today. Simanos (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Myther[edit]

I deleted the references to Myther. Until it can be shown otherwise, Myther is an unverifiable source. The reference to CP symmetry is quite an anachronism: overlay of modern physics on a system developed in 100-200 CE. I also modified the description of the generatiosn from the section on Tertullian that describes the manifestations as 32 (using some justification of aligning the text with the sephiroth in the zohar). Tertullian is clear that the number of manifestation is 30. The addition of the 32 (which adds another pair to the Ogdoad and disrupts the symmetry of the double Tetrad described by Tertullian) also breaks up the numerical and Pythagorean elegance of the 30 system Ogdoad (4 X 2) + Decad (5 x 2) + Dodecad (6 x 2)

If somebody wanted to create a section on modern interpretations of the aeons- including the addition of a 16th pair of aeons, the relation of the gnostic aeons to emanations (sephiroth) found in the Zohar, or the relationship of aeons to modern theories in physics- then the ideas attributed to "Myther" would be appropriate. However, verifiable sources and authors that express these ideas would still be desirable.

External Links[edit]

There was an external link with the phrase "Aeon - a nonprofit developer, owner, manager of affordable housing" which I am removing. It is not at all related to the article, but looks more like someone trying to get some attention for their business. It may be valid, but it would seem to me that if the company that it is referring to is of value, it should have its own page, not a link in the External Links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.133.130 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Split?[edit]

I'd like to propose the "In Gnosticism" section of the article be split off to a separate "Aeon (Gnosticism)" page.
The main body of the article describes a philosophical concept, with a number of scientific applications, all to do with a period of time. The Gnosticism section by contrast describes some form of "emanation of god" co-incidentally bearing the same name, and is at most a non-central sub-topic. It also takes up more than half of the article, which to my mind is out of proportion to the rest of the article.
Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. :-) Melchoir (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Ahh! thanks! I'd forgotten about this...Moonraker12 (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)