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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moral problems

There is a moral aspect to the problem. Twenty years ago Soviet press сited 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.

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.

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’t 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 symbolizes 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 believe it would make sense to base the New Age Zodiac, the human Zodiac, on normal modern calendar.

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…

© Boris Israitel

First published in NCGR Newsletter August/September 1996

Photo above © Kosinskaya Tatyana/Shutterstock.com, photo article © Barandash Karandashich/Shutterstock.com