|
Every age has its own astrology and the
Age of Aquarius is no exception. Obviously, new Aquarian astrology is to
appear, and it needs a new Zodiac. That's what the New Age is demanding.
I would like to propose that the existing Zodiac is the child of the Age
of Pisces and thus does not fit the New Age.
1. The existing Zodiac creates much confusion. Almost all
astrologers know that in fact there are several Zodiacs and that at
least three of them are identical in nomenclature. They are the
sidereal, the tropical and the fixed Zodiacs (Let me remind you that 0
degrees of Aries is now 6 degrees of Pisces in the fixed Zodiac).
As a result of all this we are always confused. Constellations are
confused with signs, the fixed Zodiac is confused with the moving one,
and this goes not only for the general audience, but for astrologers
themselves. A new Zodiac (i.e., new sign names for the tropical Zodiac)
would eliminate such confusion.
2. Illusions. The existing names are so visual that they create the
illusion of easy interpretations, making them too primitive. This tempts
many to enter the path of pop-astrology. Incidentally, new names would
help professional astrology to distance itself from yellow-press
astrology.
3. Psychological meaning. On the one hand, we keep repeating that
all the Zodiac signs are equal and that there are no good or bad signs.
On the other hand, many of the sign names sound like a medical
diagnosis. The medical profession long ago switched to Latin names for
diseases which few laymen understand. I know several people who were
ashamed of their sign. We, astrologers, may find it strange, but
sensitive people are somewhat shocked by such names as Scorpio, Cancer,
and Pisces.
4.Due to the fact that Zodiac sign names seem to be easily
understandable, people fall into the trap of their knowledge. It is not
the signs that influence people, but their names. You are lucky if you
happen to be a Sagittarius or a Leo. For me personally, identifying with
my sign played a very big (though not positive) part at a certain point
in my life. A friend of mine, a very sociable person, became less
talkative after he had learned that he was Pisces. A married couple, a
Leo and an Aquarius divorced upon receiving information about their
signs, etc.
5. Moral problems. There is a moral aspect to the problem. Twenty
years ago Soviet press ņited the following example of reactionary
oppression: the ban on teaching Darwin's theory of human evolution in
some American schools.
In fact, it was a wise ban. We are not concerned here if this theory is
true for the biological human being. Instead, let us imagine its impact
on the forming self-realisation of a person. If my ancestors were
monkeys, lots of restrictions are lifted. What's so bad about resembling
ones ancestors in behaviour once in a while (sometimes, the resemblance
is rather strong)?
Of course, such thoughts are half-unconscious. But it remains a fact
that in the end such kinship undoubtedly strengthens the already strong
animal side in humans. It calls us backwards, not forward. Similarly,
being a Leo, I may allow myself to growl, while Tauruses are allowed to
bellow. In short, it's funny to discover various atavisms in oneself.
And why should they be fought if they are but a reflection of the cosmic
plan?
This may not appear too serious, but this type of impact occurs on the
unconscious level.
6.Outdated ideas on the structure of the universe. In the previous
age the Zodiac comprised a belt of approximately 8 degrees in width
which embraced the ecliptic on both sides. Such is the maximum distance
of the 7 visible planets. Now that new bodies have been discovered in
the Solar system, the belt should be widened so that it covers not 12
(14) constellations, but 24 constellations. The widening of the Zodiac
belt is in harmony with the new age with its tendency to stress the
vertical dimension and to move from the flat plane towards volume.
7. The current Zodiac is a heterogeneous mixture where everything
is humped together, horses and people. You don't have to be a zoologist
to see that mammals are crossed with arachnids and creatures of myths.
If the Zodiac is an animal circle, what are Virgo, Gemini and Aquarius
doing there? If it is a circle of life, what is an inanimate object,
Libra, doing there? Another mark of fish age can be seen in the
abundance of water (wetness), as the three water signs were joined by
Aquarius; Capricorn, too, can not hide its fish tail.
It is important to note that the lion's share of criticisms of
astrology refers to the Zodiac. It is easily understandable: on the one
hand, the Zodiac is easy to notice for the general public. On the other
hand, those who criticise astrology reason thus: since they've been
sticking to this pattern for so long, it must be the core of astrology,
on which the whole system is based. We know it's not true; and the more
surprising it is to state that astrology is such a conservative science.
Try finding another science that would work with one and the same
pattern for 2000 years (I mean the Zodiac) and would bare teeth at any
attempt to indicate that the pattern is worn-out. It resonates with the
primitive layer of individuality, the layer of self-identification with
one's totem (this mostly goes for animal signs).
In this respect, it's not hard to understand the scientific
establishment: they feel that there must be something in it, otherwise
the system of notions would not have survived for 2000 years. But since
they do not know astrology, their criticisms are confined to rather
helpless attacks on the mummified Zodiac as compared to other
astrological factors. Houses, planets and aspects keep evolving;
something new appears there all the time. But the Zodiac is practically
unchangeable. All of us will feel much better when we give up the old
pattern. And critics of astrology would have to study it before being
able to criticise.
Thus, we've listed 7 reasons for switching from our Zodiac to an
Aquarian Zodiac. What should the New Zodiac be like?
One thing is clear: it should bear the mark of Aquarius. But first let's
try to make sense out of Aquarius. What is it really doing? They say, it
pours the water of knowledge on the humanity.
Several questions arise at this point: why is knowledge symbolised
by water? why is a fixed sign spreading substance when, by definition,
it should concentrate it? finally, why is an air sign called Aquarius?
I think we shall come closer to answering these questions if we
remember that water traditionally symbolises life, the
instinctive-sensual origin (Moon), and that Aquarius is also called the
Human or the Angel, i.e., a human free of all the earthly and animal
aspects.
According to the esoteric astrology, the human realm is ruled by
Mercury and Saturn, dry and barren planets which are very strong in
Aquarius. It is also common knowledge that the Moon, the most watery of
all the planets, is not on good terms with Aquarius.
Now we've come to the key thesis. All the above seems to hint at
the fact that Aquarius is not watering humanity with the water of cosmic
wisdom, but is gathering excess moisture (the animal origin), taking it
away from humanity to pour it out elsewhere.
Thus, the pathos of Aquarius is in separating the natural and the
divine origins in human beings and in overcoming the instinctive-sensual
origin with reason. Aquarius was called Water-gatherer, and now it is
called Water-bearer, which also indicates the fact, that it works with
water, manipulates it and does what he wants with it. It is curious that
Aquarius is often strong in the charts of medics-experimenters and
generally in those of biologists, medical doctors and physiologists,
i.e., people who manipulate the processes of life.
It is as if Aquarius is outside the natural world; it creates
artificial nature. This is one of the most important indicators of the
New Age. It is not by chance that Serpent-holder is trying to get in the
Zodiac as the 13th sign. A Human being struggling with the Serpent. Here
one can see the same plot-line: a human being fighting the natural,
animal origin.
According to one of the most widespread versions, Serpent-holder is
no other than Asclepius, the famous healer whose art was so great that
he could bring people from the dead.
The appearance of the Serpent-holder also indicates the crisis of
the old Zodiac and the emergence of a new one from its depths. Indeed,
number 13 is also number 1 in the next dozen.
When talking about the turning of ages, we usually look at the
movement of the spring solstice point. There is an opinion that the
movement of the winter solstice point is no less important. At the
beginning of World War II the winter solstice point was projecting on
the border of Serpent-holder, and one can consider this to be the
beginning of the age of Serpent-holder.
It is not so important what age is coming now. What matters is that
the agelong struggle of humans with the animal nature (first of all,
inside themselves) has reached its peak, and if astrologer want to stay
abreast with times, the natural Zodiac should be replaced with human
one.
The existing natural Zodiac is based on the change of solar energy.
This change is especially noticeable in areas with certain climate. Now
that people have spread all over the planet, the old energy pattern has
lost its meaning. The development of new energy technology makes
humanity even less influenced by the changes in the solar energy.
Finally, the traditional Zodiac function of structuring time has
practically disappeared. Indeed, what's more important for a modern
human: the beginning of a month or the Sun entering the next Zodiac
sign?
The most important moment of the Zodiac cycle, the spring equinox,
passes almost unnoticeable for non-astrologers. No one will argue that
most of the population structures time according to the usual calendar
rather than the Zodiac and the ephemeris. And, making calendars used to
be one of the main functions of astrology. Astrologers watched time, and
time used to be their responsibility.
During the Age of Pisces calendar time and ephemeris-Zodiac time
separated. It appears that true cycles were of little interest to the
fish astrologers. Isn't having one's own, secret calendar a typically
"fishy" thing?
I think this mistake should be corrected. We should return the
calendar into the realm of astrology. Until we assimilate the civic
calendar, we can not step out on the wide all-human arena.
This is what the new age is calling for. Let us not forget that
astrology is a science of time and has no right to ignore the
commonly-accepted system of time measurement.
Several years ago I started to analyze our usual calendar. There is
an opinion that it's far from the basics of life, that it's too formal
and conventional. It is an erroneous opinion. How can it be merely
conventional if people live according to it? Can we plan a marriage
ceremony for a Sunday if marriage registration offices are closed on
Sundays?
No matter what the aspects are, students never start school on
August 1, but always on September 1. And finally, of course, the most
important day of the year is January 1, not March 21.
The energy-saturation of the New Year celebration is such that I
started noticing that the Zodiac coordinate of December 31/January 1 is
acting as a sensitive point. Modern new year also has a certain cosmic
meaning: it's near the Galaxy Center and Earth perihelion to the Sun. In
a word, January 1 is the natural beginning of the New Zodiac.
I believe it would make sense to base the New Age Zodiac, the human
Zodiac, on normal modern calendar. My research shows that people born in
one calendar month but in different Zodiac signs nevertheless have very
specific common characteristics. People born on one and the same day of
the week have a lot in common.
The weekly cycle, unbroken since the days of Creation, is harboring huge
prognostic and descriptive potential. Undoubtedly, the calendar should
be studied from the typological point of view on people born in
different years, months and weeks. The numerological approach can prove
very productive in this.
Of course, now we are just standing by the cradle of Aquarian
astrology and there is much work to be done... |