Why does Saturn rule Aquarius?

david starling

Well-known member
As a natal Saturn applying square to Neptune, A-M-E-N to that. Not very helpful for those 'grounded'people.:wink:



As one of the Uranus trine Neptune individuals, with Saturn and Uranus in the same sign, astrology has been mentally 'a portal' in the attempt to 'cross the line' of this far and no further that manifestational Saturn so definintely draws.:smile:

Yes, Astrology as an "interface" between Material and Spiritual. :cool:
Saturn is of tremendous help in studying the Material-realm, and Aquarius is good at that, but not exclusively so. [IMO] that's not what Aquarius is really about, and in Modern-astrology :uranus: fits the Sign better. I do see it as increasing mental-ability in whatever Sign and House it's located.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Staff member
I don't have enough practical experience in natal astrology to make any claims, but I assume that the same principles apply in all of astrology. I can only say that "outer" planets do have a meaning in natal astrology, based on Venus conj. Neptune in my own chart. I guess I would classify myself as an open minded traditionalist leaning towards pragmatism and eclecticism. A lot of useful stuff, for instance, can be found in Vedic astrology too. In that regard, Dr Farr is an AW member who has made a long lasting impression on me.

Sadly, Dr. Farr has not been here for several years. When I first learned astrology, modern was what there was. I used the modern outers as sign rulers, and thought they worked well. I subsequently added the traditional sign rulers, and thought they worked well. But this was entirely for natal charts and their derivatives.

My main criticism of modern astrology (besides the rulership issue) is its focus on personality/psychology. People already know themselves better than any astrologer could tell them, I don't see practical value in this. From a practical standpoint, the most useful forms of astrology are horary, event, electional (which is really event astrology in reverse) and medical (but one must possess medical knowledge as well to successfully practice it). I don't need astrology to assist me in my spiritual endeavors, there are much more potent techniques for that, such as meditation and yoga.

Alas, many people do not know themselves well. That's why they consult an astrologer. If you peruse the OPs here, many people come for career counseling, insights into their relationships or lack thereof. "Psychology" is kind of misnomer for modern astrology. What a Ph. D. clinical psychologist does today and Liz Greene's brand of Jungian interpretations are very different. Very few people on astrology boards actually inquire about their spiritual lives.

I also balk a little at converting astrology into a type of fortune-telling.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Look up his Posts.
He was (is) a really cool guy
with an amazing amount of Astrological knowledge,
and a very open-minded approach to Astrology.
Well said :smile:
dr. farr himself commented
on one of the many threads
to which he contributed
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=335303#post335303


Open minded is the attitude I've had for many years;


but for me, the most important element is whether or not the material I am using works well and reliably FOR ME:
that's what has made me an eclectic. A utilitarian eclectic.
Who do I regard as authors having had the greatest influences upon my thinking?
Modernist pioneer Charles Carter, and the alchemical astrologer, Paracelsus.
But I've taken ideas and methods from everywhere, including Vedic and Chinese astrological traditions.
Now, I am not a system-maker, I am just a "blue collar" person
who only cares about what gives good results in prediction and analysis.
An author might make 99 statements which I consider baloney,
but one statement which I consider of real value-
so, I take the one statement, and reject the other 99;
that's especially what I have done with the oldtime Hellenist authors,
and in studying them I have found a FEW real gems,
most of which have been long forgotten.

So, yes, I absolutely believe in being open-minded,
and I consider this to be the best route to take
in the study and practice of the astrological arts...
 

HoldOrFold

Well-known member
I mean, just recently I understood the energy of Jupiter and therefore why Jupiter rules Pisces and Sagittarius, but what about Saturn?

Jupiter is like someone that wants to be optimistic and be generous. Jupiter believes that everyone should grow, that everyone should be rich and happy. This is why it's also related to justice, since Jupiter thinks that's justice. And it is. Everyone should be respected and everyone should have the same rights. Jupiter is a very progressive planet. This humanitarian side of Jupiter is related more to the Pisces energy, since Pisces is feels pity for the poverty of the world and feels compassion for everyone. So to be brief, Jupiter has two sides: Optimism and justice/being humanitarian. Optimism --> Sagittarius. Humanitarian and pity --> Pisces.

Buuut, isn't Aquarius also humanitarian? Shouldn't Jupiter rule that sign? Exactly why is Saturn in rulership when in Aquarius? Maybe it's related to the fact that Saturn wants to get to work on things and wants to slowly build its way toward high positions and therefore is serving society? I don't know... Maybe Jupiter isn't aloof like Aquarius and that's why it doesn't rule that sign.

Honestly, Uranus and Neptune seem to fit better as Aquarius and Pisces' rulers

I like to bring this picture out now and again because it perfectly illustrates the symmetry in the traditional planetary rulerships. Notice in the picture, the planets are in descending order and the signs follow one after the other. The co-rulerships are symmetrical.

VedicSignsFigure1.jpg


^ If you take some time to really think about that, it's pretty amazing.

Some points I have against using the modern outer planets as sign rulers:

- It doesn't make sense in terms of the symmetry above

- It means Scorpio, Aquarius and Pisces must have less diversity of expression within generations. e.g. it would imply that for instance Scorpio Risings in the Pluto in Sagittarius generation would look and act more similar to eachother than other signs since their ruling planet is generational. I have found this not to be the case.

- In general, I have found in personal cases that people tend to embody their traditional ruling planet

- When you look back at when the outer planets were in their own signs, it's arguable if they are functioning more powerfully or better in them. e.g. Pluto seemed to be at it's most powerful in Leo... Neptune is in Pisces and all I'm seeing it function in a more malefic way than usual to be honest.

As for Saturn ruling Aquarius, I agree it's somewhat counter-intuitive at first. But consider these points:

- Aquarius is cold and aloof
- Aquarius is about the community (community is structured, bound by traditions and regulations)
- Aquarius is opposite Leo, the ego, ruled by the Sun. Saturn is furthest away from the Sun. Opposite to ego (communal again)
- Just like Capricorn expands materially using Saturn's laws of boundaries and structures, Aquarius does so to but more so with ideas and concepts. These signs are not stagnating in Saturn, they understand and make use of it and there is growth happening in their sphere of influence.
- Saturn is exalted in Libra. Thinking about that for awhile helps you to break loose from the typical doom and gloom associated with Saturn and might help you understand it's rulership over Aquarius.
 

HarmonE

Well-known member
As for Saturn ruling Aquarius, I agree it's somewhat counter-intuitive at first. But consider these points:

- Aquarius is cold and aloof
- Aquarius is about the community (community is structured, bound by traditions and regulations)
- Aquarius is opposite Leo, the ego, ruled by the Sun. Saturn is furthest away from the Sun. Opposite to ego (communal again)
- Just like Capricorn expands materially using Saturn's laws of boundaries and structures, Aquarius does so to but more so with ideas and concepts. These signs are not stagnating in Saturn, they understand and make use of it and there is growth happening in their sphere of influence.
- Saturn is exalted in Libra. Thinking about that for awhile helps you to break loose from the typical doom and gloom associated with Saturn and might help you understand it's rulership over Aquarius.

All great points! And I would like to add one more
-Aquarius is a fixed sign. Saturn is fixed sure, but what is fixed about Uranus?! This never added up for me.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Some additional points re to thread topic:

-in Western traditional, Saturn is associated with the element earth (thus Saturn as dispositor of earthy Capricorn)
-in the Vedic tradition, however, Saturn is associated with the element air (thus Saturn as dispositor of airy Aquarius)
Could Saturn be a double-element planet (earth + air)? There is some tradition about Mercury being a double (earth + water; air + earth)...

-then there is the theory of the original attribution of sign "rulerships" based on planet's relationship to the Sun: ie,
: for the outward spread of planets going from the Sun:
Sun = Leo, next planet Mercury = next sign Virgo, then Venus = next sign Libra, then Mars = Scorpio, then Jupiter = Sagittarius, then (final on the outward spread) Saturn = Capricon

+Then starting from the outer limit coming back toward the Sun:
: outermost (traditional planet) Saturn = Aquarius, then next planet (coming back inward-sunward-from Saturn) is Jupiter = Pisces, then next planet coming sunward is Mars = Aries, then next planet coming sunward is Venus = Taurus, next planet coming sunward is Mercury = Gemini, and finally a jot toward the earth, with Moon = Cancer

(Sun to Moon via the circuit of the solar system, Leo outward through signs, then back inward through signs, Leo to Cancer)

Could be why (or another reason why) Saturn had been allocated to Capricorn and to Aquarius, in the olden times...
 

david starling

Well-known member
Some additional points re to thread topic:

-in Western traditional, Saturn is associated with the element earth (thus Saturn as dispositor of earthy Capricorn)
-in the Vedic tradition, however, Saturn is associated with the element air (thus Saturn as dispositor of airy Aquarius)
Could Saturn be a double-element planet (earth + air)? There is some tradition about Mercury being a double (earth + water; air + earth)...

-then there is the theory of the original attribution of sign "rulerships" based on planet's relationship to the Sun: ie,
: for the outward spread of planets going from the Sun:
Sun = Leo, next planet Mercury = next sign Virgo, then Venus = next sign Libra, then Mars = Scorpio, then Jupiter = Sagittarius, then (final on the outward spread) Saturn = Capricon

+Then starting from the outer limit coming back toward the Sun:
: outermost (traditional planet) Saturn = Aquarius, then next planet (coming back inward-sunward-from Saturn) is Jupiter = Pisces, then next planet coming sunward is Mars = Aries, then next planet coming sunward is Venus = Taurus, next planet coming sunward is Mercury = Gemini, and finally a jot toward the earth, with Moon = Cancer

(Sun to Moon via the circuit of the solar system, Leo outward through signs, then back inward through signs, Leo to Cancer)

Could be why (or another reason why) Saturn had been allocated to Capricorn and to Aquarius, in the olden times...

Apropos of my belief that we're currently in the culminating stage of the (TROPICAL) Age of Capricorn, to be immediately followed by the most effective stage of the (TROPICAL) Age of Aquarius: Traditionally, both Ages would then be ruled by the Greater Malefic, Saturn. In which case there would be no improvement in the "human condition", as many (myself included) expect there will be, once the Aquarian Age does take effect. Leaving aside the Modern debate over the nature of Uranian influence being beneficial, as many (myself included) contend it is, it seems to me that having one planet rule two Signs requires a change in the Quality of the planet's effect from one Sign to the other. In the case of Saturn, applying the Alchemical metaphor of "changing Lead into Gold", I see no Modern reason why Saturn couldn't be extremely problematic in Capricorn and extremely beneficial in Aquarius, due to the change in Quality, and "As different as Night and Day".
 
Last edited:

Horus

Well-known member
Apropos of my belief that we're currently in the culminating stage of the (TROPICAL) Age of Capricorn, to be immediately followed by the most effective stage of the (TROPICAL) Age of Aquarius: Traditionally, both Ages would then be ruled by the Greater Malefic, Saturn. In which case there would be no improvement in the "human condition", as many (myself included) expect there will be, once the Aquarian Age does take effect. Leaving aside the Modern debate over the nature of Uranian influence being beneficial, as many (myself included) contend it is, it seems to me that having one planet rule two Signs requires a change in the Quality of the planet's effect from one Sign to the other. In the case of Saturn, applying the Alchemical metaphor of "changing Lead into Gold", I see no Modern reason why Saturn couldn't be extremely problematic in Capricorn and extremely beneficial in Aquarius, due to the change in Quality, and "As different as Night and Day".

We're actually in the transition period between the Ages of Pisces -not Capricorn- and Aquarius. It's retrograde through the zodiac because of the motion of precession. Just before dawn on the vernal equinox, Pisces and Aquarius can both be seen on the eastern horizon. Pisces won't be completely out of the picture til about 2700 AD?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

But there's a lot of different opinions as to when the Age of Aquarius is supposed to start (or has started).
 

david starling

Well-known member
We're actually in the transition period between the Ages of Pisces -not Capricorn- and Aquarius. It's retrograde through the zodiac because of the motion of precession. Just before dawn on the vernal equinox, Pisces and Aquarius can both be seen on the eastern horizon. Pisces won't be completely out of the picture til about 2700 AD?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession

But there's a lot of different opinions as to when the Age of Aquarius is supposed to start (or has started).

Tropical Ages are real, and more influential than Sidereal Ages on the mundane level. The major reason for the differences regarding when the Sidereal Ages start is the different settings of the Sidereal Signs. Tropical Signs, on the other hand, are located precisely in an agreed-upon manner, so the starting time for the Age of TROPICAL Aquarius depends only on the astronomical calculations regarding the Anomalistic Year (the time it takes Earth's Point of Perihelion to circumnavigate the Seasons), not Precession of the Equinoxes. Mean start year for the Tropical Age of Aquarius is 2149. First Nutational year is 2034. Tropical Ages unfold with Direct motion, Sidereal Ages with Retrograde motion, so the Tropical Aquarian Age is preceded by the Tropical Age of Capricorn, and the Sidereal Aquarian Age is preceded by the Sidereal Age of Pisces.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
While Origen (2nd/3rd century CE) mentioned that "the ancients" had calculated Astrological (or World) Ages, he did not mention how they were astrologically calculated (whether via sidereal or tropical criteria); however, with the Greco-Roman and later Arabic astrologers, World "Ages" (or long time period rulerships) were calculated exclusively using the tropical signs (rather than the sidereal constellations); see for example, Abu-Mashar's "The Thousands" (c.7th/8th century CE; also see references to this subject in al-Birunni's "Elements of Astrology" (11th century CE) and Ibn Ezra's "Beginning of Wisdom" (12th century CE)...
 

Arena

Well-known member
Nice to see you back dr. farr, hope you're feeling good :)

I got interested in this because you are discussing the astrological ages.
I think it is such a horrible reversed "development" of astrology that keeps ignoring the actual sky. To me that is like walking away from the truth and decide to do it blindfolded. That is the reason I use sidereal SSRs (I am not saying everything in sidereal astrology is right though)...and look for sources to tell me how the ancients actually observed the sky to know more about astrology.

I find this of enormous importance regarding the Aquarius age:
I am not the only researcher who acknowledges the heliacal rising of the zodiacal constellations at the spring equinox as the astronomical framework for the ages. The archeo-astronomer Sepp Rothwangl in Considerations About the Start of the Age of Aquarius[11] claims that, in ancient times, a new constellation rising on the eastern horizon before Sunrise on the morning of the Northern Hemisphere spring equinox was the main criterion for the start of a New Age. Rothwangl also states that such a change from Pisces to Aquarius has already occurred, thus indicating the arrival of the new Age of Aquarius.
https://macroastro.wordpress.com/tag/visible-heliacal-rising/
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Nice to see you back dr. farr, hope you're feeling good :)

I got interested in this because you are discussing the astrological ages.
I think it is such a horrible reversed "development" of astrology that keeps ignoring the actual sky. To me that is like walking away from the truth and decide to do it blindfolded. That is the reason I use sidereal SSRs (I am not saying everything in sidereal astrology is right though)...and look for sources to tell me how the ancients actually observed the sky to know more about astrology.

I find this of enormous importance regarding the Aquarius age:

https://macroastro.wordpress.com/tag/visible-heliacal-rising/

I was hoping someone else was aware of Terry MacKinnell's view of the Ages. I'm including his angle of view in the "Gaia's Trident" method (it's in the Mundane forum), because by centering the Trident on the Equinoctial Line used by Tropical-astrologers ala Hipparchus, the first-point of the Trident (which is "the Age of" point), is then 15 degrees in advance of where nearly everyone else has it. This is very close to MacKinnell's calculated Age-Indicator, arrived at by studying Ancient-Babylonian Astrology, and leads to the Aquarian Age beginning in the 15th Century C.E. His expectations for the Age of Aquarius are quite low, incidentally.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Staff member
Arena, This was most likely true for the Ages of Taurus and Aries. But around 500 BC the Babylonians switched from a constellation-based astrology to a sign-based astrology. The Hellenistic astrologers followed suit. Although both groups as well as the ancient Egyptians were very interested in heliacal risings, they certainly had additional major concerns, as the ancient star lore indicates.
 
Last edited:

aquarius7000

Well-known member
If a Planet orbits the Sun, and no one's there who can see it, does it have an Astrological effect?
According to a very reliably Fake News source, the outer Planets DON'T really exist--they're just holograms embedded in those fancy telescopes!
LOL, I really laughed hard after reading that.:p

Anyway, I am not going to lecture here on the importance of traditional Astrology, but, believe me, it is not due to the non-discovery of the outer planets, that astrologers assigned dual rulership to Saturn or Mars. All planets, with the only exception of the two luminaries, the Sun and the Moon, had dual rulerships of a Diurnal, Masculine and Nocturnal, Feminine domiciles.

With Saturn it was Aquarius (Diurnal and Masculine) and Capricorn (Nocturnal and Feminine).

There is a thread somewhere on this forum by Kaiousei No Sensi with a detailed explanation on traditional rulerships.

You might also want to read up here: http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=254
 

graay ghost

Well-known member
It's a bit odd whenever I see arguments about Saturn and Aquarius. It makes me think that nobody who argues about these thins have never studied math or physics at a deeper level than high school. It works perfectly well. Saturn sets up the boundaries of reality, and the fact is that reality is a lot stranger than most people care to admit. Saturn is perfectly at home among Aquarius and Uranus.
 

david starling

Well-known member
It's a bit odd whenever I see arguments about Saturn and Aquarius. It makes me think that nobody who argues about these thins have never studied math or physics at a deeper level than high school. It works perfectly well. Saturn sets up the boundaries of reality, and the fact is that reality is a lot stranger than most people care to admit. Saturn is perfectly at home among Aquarius and Uranus.

Malefic Saturn RESTRICTS our ability to comprehend the true nature of Reality, with potentially disastrous consequences. Aquarius defies those restrictions. So, if Saturn is "perfectly at home" in Aquarius, it either enjoys living in a hostile environment, or the Quality of its nature changes in that Sign, and it is no longer a Malefic.
 
Last edited:

AppLeo

Well-known member
I honestly think that Saturn rules Aquarius because astrologers were just like: "Well we 12 signs, and only 7 planets...uhh...let's just give Saturn to Aquarius because it's just as cold and detached as Capricorn.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
I honestly think that Saturn rules Aquarius because astrologers were just like: "Well we 12 signs, and only 7 planets...uhh...let's just give Saturn to Aquarius because it's just as cold and detached as Capricorn.

Thankfully, the astrologers who devised the system thought deeper than that.
 
Top