Skyscript Astrology Forum

It has bothered me for years that I don't think we quite have the significations of Aquarius quite right. (Lest anyone get upset, I am using the word "we" VERY broadly!).

I would welcome thoughts on what people on this forum think the significations and meanings of Aquarius are, particularly in a traditional context.

Too often we see significations that mix 'Traditional' significations/indicators (Saturn-based, Air, Fixed, Masculine, etc) with modern Uranus-based significations (group-orientation, humanitarian liberality, eccentricity etc).

I am further concerned that my own categories and characterizations are 'wrong' or not representative of the Tradition, either! For example, does the 'humanitarian' aspect frequently characterizing Aquarius actually come from Uranian significations, or more due to the 'human-ness' of the sign itself from millennia ago?

Any thoughts on this topic? I am mostly looking at a Natal context, with Aquarius either as a Rising Sign or a Sun Sign, but would welcome any opinions on this.

This subject has been extensively discussed in several threads here on Skyscript over the years. However, i am struggling to dig up any of those discussions at present!

In any case I think you will find many of your answers in the following two articles by Deborah Houlding and Kim Farnell:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aquarius.html

http://skyscript.co.uk/ur_aq.html

You might also find the following forum discussion interesting. In it I made the controversial case Uranus is not a very good fit for the traditional understanding of Aquarius. I argued the traditional understanding of Aries is a more logical fit for Uranus than Aquarius. The forum post generated a very lively and diverse discussion.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0

Mark

Back in Fall of 2015, I got and read Babylonian Star-lore by Gavin White which led me to get so interested in Mesopotamian Astrology that I converted from the Tropical Zodiac to Sidereal Zodiac.
I temporarily converted back in 2012 after reading Cyril Fagan's books, but I went back to Tropical Zodiac out of habit.
Gavin White opened my eyes.


I have Moon and Mars in Sidereal Aquarius. They are in the constellation, Aquarius. My Moon is conjunct alpha Aquarii Sadalmelek and theta Aquarii Ancha.
My Moon is conjunct gamma Aquarii Sadalbachia and Ancha in Right Ascension.
My Moon is in a 3D conjunction with Ancha. Even though My North Lunar Node is in Sidereal Capricorn, it is conjunct epsilon Aquarii star Albali.
I really don't like using projected ecliptic conjunctions. Bernadette Brady influenced me to have a preference for parans. Kenneth Bowser and Robert Hand has influenced me to use Right Ascension,Declination,and rotating Parans. However, David Cochrane has recently led me to change my mind to work with his method of rotating parans and not the methods that Starlight and Solar Fire uses.

The stuff that Gavin White wrote about Aquarius deeply resonated with me. That's something that Diana Rosenberg and Bernadette Brady failed to do with me when I read their histories of the Aquarius constellation.
Unlike them, Gavin pointed out that Aquarius was Gu-la 'The Great One' which represented Ea/Enki who was the God of Water,Wisdom,Magic,and the Arts. He was also a fertility god. He resided in the Apsu which is a watery region located between the Earth and the Netherworld. Capricorn was Sahur-Mas-ku 'The Goatfish.' Ea's symbol was the goat-fish. Both Gu-la and Sahur-Mas-ku were associated with him. Piscis Austrinus was Ku 'The Fish', and it was associated with Ea too. As-Gan ' The Field' was the other constellation associated with Ea.

In the Mul.Apin, Gu-la is identified as Ea.


I think it's easy to think of Aquarius as humanitarian if you consider its historical connections with Ea/Enki who was known to be a deity that was benevolent to humanity.
In Mesopotamian Mythology, Ea/Enki was the creator and protector of humanity.
In Mesopotamian Mythology, Ea/Enki took part in creating humans.
In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Enki prevented the complete eradication of humans by the flood that Enlil brought about to destroy all humans because they created too much noise.
He advised Utnapishtim to build a boat to keep humans alive.
He sent the Seven Sages to teach the arts and skills of civilization to men.


I don't believe in using elements and ruling planets for the Sidereal Zodiac. The Babylonians didn't use them. That's all Hellenistic. I strongly disagree with what Western Sidereal Astrologers and Vedic Astrologers are doing. I don't want to use the Greek names for the zodiac signs like the Western Sidereal Astrologers.
I want to use the Mesopotamian names for the zodiac and interpret the zodiac signs based on the Mesopotamian star-lore which means that Gu-la (Aquarius) and Suhur-Mas-ku (Capricorn) would be water signs due to them being Ea/Enki and his symbol, the goat-fish.



I actually bought and wear an Ea/Enki pendant to embrace his archetypal energy that I have strong in me with just my Moon and Mars in Gu-la and North Lunar Node in Sahur-Mas-ku alone.

JPskyman wrote:It has bothered me for years that I don't think we quite have the significations of Aquarius quite right. (Lest anyone get upset, I am using the word "we" VERY broadly!).

I would welcome thoughts on what people on this forum think the significations and meanings of Aquarius are, particularly in a traditional context.

Too often we see significations that mix 'Traditional' significations/indicators (Saturn-based, Air, Fixed, Masculine, etc) with modern Uranus-based significations (group-orientation, humanitarian liberality, eccentricity etc).

I am further concerned that my own categories and characterizations are 'wrong' or not representative of the Tradition, either! For example, does the 'humanitarian' aspect frequently characterizing Aquarius actually come from Uranian significations, or more due to the 'human-ness' of the sign itself from millennia ago?

Any thoughts on this topic? I am mostly looking at a Natal context, with Aquarius either as a Rising Sign or a Sun Sign, but would welcome any opinions on this.

Honestly, I don't understand what this often observed agitation regarding 'traditional' vs. 'modern' meanings is all about. The signs are what they are, no matter how you explain their traits. They are not something decided on by the consensus of astrologers (traditional or modern). They are empirical truths, easily observed in those that partake of their nature.

And hell, there is no 'traditional vs. modern astrology'. There is only astrology. You have to study it with an open mind in the light of nature, if you want to gain any significant understanding of it. Book definitions - be they traditional or modern - will only take you so far anyway.

Ideally, at the end of the day, let your observational experience decide what the foundations of your art are supposed to be.

Just sharing my view. No offence intended.

I plan to get more involved in this thread when time allows.

For now though I wanted to put the link up to a very old forum discussion I have located which was the stimulus for Kim Farnell to write her article on the history of the astrological linkage of Aquarius with Uranus:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=254

Mark

To clarify my previous post... When I first heard about Project Hindsight back in the 1990's, I was really excited about the opportunity to learn more about ancient astrology. I like going back to the sources when studying a topic... I don't share the view that 'modern' necessarily means 'more developed', actually, I often find that knowledge tends to get lost (or hidden) somewhere along the way. So I ordered all the then-available books asap and had a few interesting conversations with Ellen Black by phone.

It was not until much later that I learned that ancient astrology had become a 'new' kind of astrology . Not really seen in the light of the current state of the art and used to supplement existing knowledge, but in lieu of it. Anything authored post-French Revolution was seen as a contamination of the original art's purity from that perspective.

In my opinion, that's a biassed view. Something either works or it does not. It shouldn't really matter how it came to be acknowledged. Yes, some conclusions may have been drawn prematurely and wrongly. Yes, it's cool to question and to discuss stuff.

Personally, I accept both old and new rulerships. But I never mind a good debate about what astrology's theoretical foundations are supposed to be. Nor do I have any objections to talking about what the traits of a certain sign are from an experiential perspective.

What I do have an issue with is any dogmatic attempt to filter out modern views out of astrology a priori. It reminds me of certain people trying to base their behaviour solely on (their understanding of) some ancient book. Actually, that's what it is.

Now you are free to draw your lines wherever you wish. You may actually be quite happy keeping your knowledge into neat little boxes. Chances are that they will even work for you to some degree. Yes, they will set boundaries to your perception and understanding. Yes, they will keep you from developing your skills as an astrologer to their full potential.

Again, I mean no offence. Be free to ignore me or to discuss with me. I just somehow felt like sharing these thoughts in this thread. I guess my Mars in Aquarius compells me to do so...

You might also find the following forum discussion interesting. In it I made the controversial case Uranus is not a very good fit for the traditional understanding of Aquarius. I argued the traditional understanding of Aries is a more logical fit for Uranus than Aquarius. The forum post generated a very lively and diverse discussion.

Hi Mark, I highly recommend Sue Ward's paper mentioned in that thread "Uranus, Neptune and Pluto: An investigation into the sources of their symbolism" which might be available elsewhere but I could only find it on the website SCRIBD.

Ward makes a convincing case for the overwhelming influence of the Theosophy movement in attributing symbolism to the trans-saturnian planets, symbolism derived exclusively from their own esoteric ideology. What we now pretty much accept to be the nature of the outer planets is pure invention. The Theosophy movement essentially made up stuff about evolved beings and higher octaves and vibrations and if you didn't get what the hell they were talking about that's on you as an unevolved 3d class person (there were classes of people). They believed the "old" system was inferior because they weren't working with all the planets, poor guys. No wonder they had to mess around with things like sect and term and what have you.

I'm being heavy-handed but Ward is very methodical, clear, and concise and I can't do it justice in a post.