Over the last several decades since I first became interested in mysticism and the esoteric I have noticed that spiritual seekers who like to think of themselves as in some way advanced and progressive will often define themselves as Aquarians, displaying characteristics associated with that astrological sign. Hence they will be humanitarian, egalitarian, tradition rejecting, happy to involve technology in their spiritual lives, tolerant of sexual abnormalities and so on. This is in line with the idea, now firmly established in even conventional thought, that we are leaving the Age of Pisces, associated with Christianity, and entering the Age of Aquarius in which the spiritual path takes a more universal and inclusive form. Those who can be identified as Piscean in their thinking and spiritual approach will be regarded as outmoded and behind the times. Aquarians are the vanguard of the brave new world.
I do not doubt that there are such things as astrological ages which depend on the movement of the vernal point, where the sun rises in spring in the Northern hemisphere, from one constellation to another. Since each astrological constellation spans roughly 30 degrees of the sky and the whole cycle takes around 26,000 years, the so called Platonic or Great Year which is the name for the period during which all the fixed stars return to the position in the sky they occupied at the beginning of the cycle, the sun will rise in each sign for roughly 2,000 years during which time human consciousness and civilisations will be marked by the characteristics of that particular sign. In traditional astrology each sign occupies an exact one twelfth of the whole with Aries always the first sign in spring. However, because of the slight wobble of the Earth's polar axis caused by gravitational pull on the equatorial bulge, there is the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes which means that over time the astrological signs and the physical constellations do not actually correspond any more. But that doesn't matter from the point of view of geocentric astrology because Aries in this sense is not the constellation in the sky so much as the first 30 degrees after the vernal equinox.
But the physical constellation also exists, though no one really knows where one constellation ends and another begins because the boundaries cannot be clearly identified. This is why we cannot know for sure when Pisces ends and Aquarius begins. It is clear, however, that Aquarian characteristics have been emerging since the 18th century, perhaps with the discovery of the planet Uranus which was soon seen as the new ruler of Aquarius, replacing Saturn. So, we may be in Aquarius now or we may still at the end of Pisces. Whatever it is, Aquarius represents the New Age in many people's minds and so to be Aquarian in consciousness is regarded as a good thing, a progressive thing.
However, here's a thought. Why should new be better? If you regard humanity as inevitably moving onwards into a better world then it might be, but traditional thought, whether Western or Eastern, has never seen the world in those terms. Christians have the End Times, Hindus have the Kali Yuga and, I believe there is a similar understanding in some forms of Buddhism and Native American lore. To think in an Aquarian way just means going with the flow, conforming to the zeitgeist, perhaps even limiting yourself to atmospheric conditions that prevail in the psychic world. Might the spiritual person be required to go beyond this or, at least, not allow himself to be bound by it? Is it not just like someone who slavishly obeys society's mores regardless of right or wrong, truth or higher truth? Should you not sometimes stand apart from those who simply go where the wind blows or the current takes them?
Aquarius as a sign has certain characteristics. These are not in themselves good or bad but can be expressed in good or bad ways. They would also need to be balanced by other signs to operate in a spiritually, or even materially, harmonious manner. Thus, Aquarius is innovative, egalitarian in outlook, sometimes radical, scientific, concerned with individuality and freedom. You could justifiably lay all the weirdities of wokeness at its door and some might take this as proof that these point to the future but others, like me, would simply say that this is a perversion of the Aquarian spirit, the reaction to it on a spiritually ignorant level by immature minds.
Let me come to the point. For good or ill we are entering the age of Aquarius. There is no reason though, certainly none that traditional spiritual thought would accept, that this means we are entering a bright new age of love and spiritual insight. Actually, there is little of real spiritual insight in the typical Aquarian mentality. The love is mostly on a theoretical or ideological plane and the mentality involved (Aquarius is an air sign) largely intellectual. Also, we should recall that the planetary rulers of Aquarius are Saturn and Uranus. These are both, to put it completely unscientifically, quite dodgy planets. Saturn is traditionally a malefic planet which means its influence is not regarded as benign. Nowadays, we would qualify that by saying it works for the overall good but through tough love, creating hardship in order to foster development, but still it is not sugar and butterflies. As for Uranus, he stands for independence, inspiration, originality, reform, unorthodoxy, eccentricity and so on which means he can be exciting but also unstable and disruptive. He is not safe or reliable. Consequently, both of these ruling planets have problems associated with them.
The spiritually conscious person must stand above all the influences of the day. He is not to be swept along by astrological mood swings or fall into conventional ways of thinking, whatever the conventions are. He must be centred in the eternal not the temporal. The fact that the world is entering into the age of Aquarius is irrelevant to him. Obviously, he will be affected by this as he is in the world, and to deliberately go against it is just reacting to it on a different level, but his consciousness should not be conditioned by it for it is a psychological phenomenon not a spiritual one.
Hi William, I'm new to your writings and am trying to contact you to ask if you're familiar with the Enneagram. If so, could you write a post about your thoughts regarding it as a pscyho-spiritual tool? Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHello K Lopez
ReplyDeleteI've heard of the Enneagram but don't know much about it. I'm not convinced by any psycho-spiritual tool, to be honest. As a genuine spiritual aid, that is. I find astrology useful from the psychological perspective and the esoteric concept of the rays is interesting but the psychological and the spiritual are different areas, generally speaking.
Hi! So, what is the main difference between the spiritual and psychological? I'm wondering if the psychological pertains mostly to the concept of self without involving the spiritual or immaterial, and the spiritual is the concept of self without involving the mind or individual self. I'm reading your book "Remember The Creator" and it's helping me deconstruct Advaita/Non-duality and the doctrine of no-self. The Enneagram points to ego constructs and individuality but simplifies the differences between individuals by 9 basic types. However, I believe the origins of the Enneagram before personality types were introduced in the 20th century came from Esoteric Christianity so was hoping you'd have understanding in how to integrate the spiritual and psychological components using the Enneagram. Perhaps you see these as needing separate tools to navigate growth, not one?
ReplyDeleteVery briefly, I would define the psychological as what pertains to the mind in terms of how we normally perceive it, its thoughts, desires, emotions etc, both conscious and so-called subconscious. That would include a lot of the feelings sometimes called spiritual which are really more forms of pleasurable psychological activity. The true spiritual is what relates to the soul or higher part of our being and is more transpersonal and not centred in ego behaviour. So actually your definition is a good one.
ReplyDeleteThere clearly are different personality types and different spiritual paths are suitable for these different types, certainly at the beginning. But the more one progresses the more all these paths will coalesce and become similar in focus though perhaps differing in outer form.
thanks Kristen. I'm glad to hear you're finding it useful.
ReplyDelete