By Amanda Painter
Today the Sun enters a new sign: Aquarius. We’ve reached the middle sign of the winter season here in the Northern Hemisphere, one day before the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States.
Photo by Amanda Painter
Does that event feel like a fresh, revolutionary beginning to you? Or more like the crystallization of questionable (or disturbing) cultural and political trends from the past year? Interestingly, either sensation could be an accurate illustration of Aquarius.
This is a reflection of Aquarius having two rulers: its traditional ruler is Saturn, and its modern ruler is Uranus. Saturn signifies the force that concretizes and limits. Uranus represents the force that surprises and shatters old forms.
It would be easy to cast one as the ‘bad guy’ and the other as the ‘good guy’. How often have you heard people speak of Saturn transits as ‘hard’, or you’ve had difficulties with authority figures and restrictions? How often have you longed for freedom, or wished that something would come along to shake up systems that no longer work?
Yet neither of these planetary energies is ‘just bad’ or ‘just good’. In fact, we need both forces working together in proportion to live in balance — to grow, to establish clear structures, and then to open them up and grow some more.
Notable astrologer Isabel Hickey published her classic book Astrology: A Cosmic Science back in the early 1970s — when the culturally tumultuous events of the ‘60s were still reverberating, and their impact just becoming clearer. In the section on Aquarius, she says of the dynamic relationship between Uranus and Saturn:
If we can understand these two energies we will understand what is happening in the world today. Without the responsibility inherent in Saturn the force of Uranus can cause destruction and chaos. Without discipline (Saturn) there can be no real freedom. Freedom without responsibility is license and not liberty.
Hickey continues:
When the Saturn form is shattered it sets the spirit free to function in a greater expanse of consciousness if it will. On the unevolved [person], Uranus can act destructively, for they break out into irresponsible destructive actions and they need a strong sense of the Saturnian common sense to steady them. The unevolved of today are sweeping away old forms of control and of government without possessing the necessary inner self-control to see them safely through this time of transition.
Does anything in that description seem to apply to cultural trends and governmental events today, despite it originally applying to a time 40 years ago or more? If you’ve been reading Chronogram’s astrology columns for the last few years, you’ve probably seen our current time called “the anti-Sixties” by Eric Francis Copppolino. In many ways, we’re witnessing something like an inversion of some of the cultural revolution of that earlier era.
Pre-order the 2017 Planet Waves Annual, The Book of Your Life, to lock in our special early pricing. Read more here or go straight to the purchase page.
Astrologically, this is related to the ongoing cycle of Uranus and Pluto. The Sixties were marked by a conjunction of Uranus and Pluto; 2011-2015 featured a square aspect between those two planets.
Our current phase of this cycle has brought in another planetary player: Eris. Eris in Aries has been combining with Uranus for the past year-plus to ramp up the surprise factor, the chaos factor, the sense of license rather than liberty, and also the role that digital technology is playing in all of it.
So what do we have here, on the eve of the inauguration of a president-elect nobody seems to have seen coming? How you see it will depend on your political leanings — which really means it depends on your personal view of the world, your understanding of your role in it, and perhaps how you embody responsibility and authority in your life (or don’t).
It also depends on your relationship with compassion, empathy and the idea of greater good. If you’ve heard that song from the musical Hair — you know, “The Age of Aquarius” — you know there’s something about this sign that’s supposed to usher in a time of great spiritual unity and humanitarianism. Aquarius has that reputation for a good reason. But like most higher potentials described by astrology, that of Aquarius needs to be consciously activated by the individual in order to manifest in day-to-day actions.
We all have Aquarius somewhere in our chart. We all grapple with the energies of Saturn and Uranus, in both their creative and destructive forms. And when the Sun enters Aquarius at 4:24 pm EST today (21:24 UTC), you might start to notice that your awareness of these potentials increases.
What you do with those potentials, however, is your choice — tomorrow, and every single day after that.
I’m reminded of an Alan Watts talk in which he points out the “heavy handed”-ness of Hinduism. As in, ‘I am the creator! I am Shiva!’ ‘I am the destroyer! I am Kali!’ outlook. I find that energy exciting. I think it’s interesting how Trungpa Rinpoche had Ram Das come to Naropa to teach at one point. I can only speculate that it added quite a stir to things; blending that “heavy handed” crackling energy with the ‘middle way’ energy of Buddhism. Those that take the path of destruction may not feel as though they are destroying anything that shouldn’t be destroyed. Trungpa Rinpoche was never mad about the Chinese invasion, and subsequent actions in Tibet. Even though he was forced to flee into the mountains for safety, so many suffered, so many relics, and things were destroyed. He did not cling to any of it, and he ended up starting a university in Boulder, Colorado. I mean, if that’s not a crazy journey with incredible fruition, all brought about by destructive forces, I don’t know what is.
I don’t really know what I’m getting at here. I’m not advocating destruction. I do tend to play with the fires of creativity to catalyze certain events, and circumstances in my personal life. That’s why I think I have an affinity for Kali; destructive energy, and power. I tend to disassociate from the ‘pain’ of death that many so often speak of, and I know is real, and I have felt it. Yet, my deep understanding of death is way beyond surface grief, and I find that grieving close people’s deaths is always up there as the most joyous experiences in life.
I think we’re at a point in history where we absolutely must take in everything, and everybody that’s been ostracized in any form. We need to integrate everything that’s been cut off. And I know these are monumental, seemingly impossible tasks that often come down to things like literally accepting a executive administration that makes Kali seem like a freakin unicorn. I mean, what can we do, storm the Bastille? It’s out of our hands in one sense, and unfortunately what is out of our hands is in the hands of the destroyers. The destroyers of the worst kind, first & foremost because they threaten our physical lives. This aint no smoke a joint, have an inner look, and destroy shadows sort of experience we’re about to have with this administration. Shit’s gonna get real, as if it wasn’t already “too real” as Eric coined 2016.
However, let’s keep this somewhere inside our minds as we venture into the ‘funhouse’ of 2017: Don’t judge, for you’re in the hall of mirrors.
Definitely some interesting ideas to contemplate, Michael! And I can totally recognize that sometimes being *in* a situation that needs changing or “destruction” makes it even hard to see it from that perspective.
At the same time, I find myself wary of giving over to “necessity of destruction to the extreme of apocalypse,” or to the point of nihilism. It strikes me as a delicate balance to strike, or at least an important thing to be aware of as we swing between seeming extremes of creation and destruction.
btw — did you see Jen Sorensen’s cartoon for this week? It’s a few posts below this one. Definitely seems apropos of your comment somehow. And yes: there *is* creative potential in destruction when viewed as a cycle. Not everyone can detach enough to embrace that. And…I’m not sure if all destruction is necessary, or necessarily part of that cycle…. Hall of mirrors, indeed!