The Aquarius Arcanum ?!?

aquarius7000 said:

Many (contemporary) astrologers work on a two-ruler basis for Aquarius: Uranus & Saturn. With other zodiac signs though, as per modern or traditional rulership that the astrologer might work with, a single planet is granted sole rulership of that sign (eg: Pisces:- Neptune or Jupiter). Even here Aquarius seems to be dancing out of line.

Click to expand...

Hi Aquarius7000,

You pose a question that has interested me quite a lot. 1stly you say that it's only Aquarius --- I think that's ok, I will stick to the sign, but will also protest that Scorpio and Pisces, and indeed any other sign which is under scrutiny now for having co-rulership is relevant.

aquarius7000 said:

I, for my part, have often wondered about the rather contradictory ‘duo’ ruling this sign; the serious, consistent and conservative Saturn – always a stickler for rules, on the one hand; and the outrageous, erratic and progressive Uranus – invariably endeavouring to disrupt the status quo and work against any established norms, on the other.

Click to expand...

What I've come to realise is two things:

1. These planets Saturn and Uranus may seem like chalk and cheese, but there are some similarities which I think might be interesting: Saturn and Uranus are both involved in structures.



Saturn, has traditional association with walls, buildings, physical constructions...cement, concrete, bricks, - and this is in accordance with its Earth sign Capricorn.

Uranus we now know has rulership over ideas. But once an idea is brought into the air, it doesn't exactly go away, a Gemini Newspaper article lasts a day, a Libran song lasts maybe a few years and then it goes out of fashion....But with a Uranus idea.... and I think a good example would a democratic constitution (even a communist or fascist one) that is an IDEA based on principles of ruling people --- or people ruling...... Is not something that can be changed without completely demolishing it.


That's just an example and a not very well explained one at that, perhaps it is more contradicting that anything saying that the two planets have more in common than not.


The second thing I can think of which relates more to a natal or horary chart is just how I read it and this could be wrong since we haven't fully come to a clear cut consensus on the modern planets:

If Aquarius is rising.... which planet is the AScendant ruler? Uranus or Saturn? Traditionalists will say Saturn, modernists will say Uranus.


In my chart analysis I ask is this chart more Aquarian or more Capricornian? Which planet is strongest? Ok you can work out which energy is going to show itself more than the other.

But, say it's a horary chart, you want specifics right? There are now three entire signs on house cusps which potentially lead in two different directions... so by following Neptune you get one answer, and by following jupiter you get a completely different answer, even though Jupiter still has rulership over Pisces.


My incling is to say Uranus, and Neptune are big planets and probably should not need to share --- (although sharing is probably second nature to them anyway), and Pluto.... Pluto has dark matter which you can't even see.

Ok, get back to me Aquarius, I thought I was going to "solve" this one, but feel that I've done a whole circle.

Hi Night Sky!

Found your thoughts rather interesting.

Night Sky said:

1.These planets Saturn and Uranus may seem like chalk and cheese, but there are some similarities which I think might be interesting: Saturn and Uranus are both involved in structures. Saturn, has traditional association with walls, buildings, physical.... Uranus we now know has rulership over ideas...

Click to expand...

Very true, so we are saying that one is involved more with structures on the physical/ material level (Sat), whereas the other on a more mental/ transcendental or abstract level (Ura).
Also, perhaps one is involved in making structures (Sat), whereas the other in breaking/renewing them (Ura).

..That's just an example and a not very well explained one at that, perhaps it is more contradicting that anything saying that the two planets have more in common than not.

Click to expand...

But this is the whole point of this discussion, as I too have often tried to understand this connection, and then, sometimes, arrived at more dis-connections or rather contradictions later. So, it is very interesting to know what others think about this. In any case, how can you have Aquarian energy completely free of contradictions - that's the challenge and the fun part.

In my chart analysis I ask is this chart more Aquarian or more Capricornian? Which planet is strongest? Ok you can work out which energy is going to show itself more than the other.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is what I strive to do, too...see what suits and fits best in a particular case, as each chart is so different that going simply by some set rules, esp in such cases, seems a bit too trivial. For eg, I am Aquarius, but my Saturn is anytime more strongly aspected in my chart than my Uranus (sometimes though I wish I could have had it the other way round).

But, say it's a horary chart, you want specifics right?
There are now three entire signs on house cusps which potentially lead in two different directions... so by following Neptune you get one answer, and by following jupiter you get a completely different answer, even though Jupiter still has rulership over Pisces.

Click to expand...

In horary, IMO, things are more simplified, at least in this respect, as we normally only use traditional rulerships, so there Aquarius is ruled by Saturn, Pisces by Jupiter, and Scorpio by Mars.

My incling is to say Uranus, and Neptune are big planets and probably should not need to share --- (although sharing is probably second nature to them anyway), and Pluto.... Pluto has dark matter which you can't even see.

Click to expand...

Night Sky, can you explain/clarify your quote above, I don't really underatand what you mean by big planets not needing to share. Did you mean that the big planets do not need to share their rulerships, or that they do not affect our daily lives as closely as inner planets do, which of course is the case? Maybe it is just something simple I am simply not able to get my head around.

Ok, get back to me Aquarius, I thought I was going to "solve" this one, but feel that I've done a whole circle.

Click to expand...

Thanks again, and don't bother about having done a whole circle Night Sky, I think and hope that we will get some rather nice valuable input on this topic, so we will get to know, at the end of the day, how concretely Saturn fares here, or what new ideas Uranus brings in.

aquarius7000

Aquarius7000,

Your reply is very much in the line of "this is a unsolvable yet interesting piece of the Astrological road to enlightenment as there is no so called right way."

However, even though I love discussion, I also like to get the heart of things.

What I meant by the modern planets being "big" is that they have been found to have real affinity with those signs that they have been ascribed. Surely if everyone is agreed that neptune belongs to Pisces, then it should always be read as a significator of that sign? Uranus and Neptune are Gas Giants and should therefore carry the same weight as Saturn and Jupiter.... When someone says a tiny asteroid should be given co-rulership over a sign probably shouldn't, and as for Pluto- the planetoid I am in agreement that it's energy is more in line with Scorpio than Mars.

Here's a little analogy that just dawned on me:

Traditional astrology for thousands of years has had 7 planets, there are 7 days of creation, 7 colours, it's a magic formula 7 chakras etc. These planets were established in a system, and they all had symmetrical rulership, the ancients worked out a PERFECT SYSTEM, something which sounds extremely Capricornian. In this system also, we've got Mercury opposite Jupiter speading four entire signs, and Mars and Venus in opposition in another set of four signs. + The Sun and Moon, only one sign for each, a bit like a King and Queen on a chess board, opposed by Saturn.

The opposite of Moon in Cancer was Saturn in Cap, the opposite of Sun in Leo was Saturn in Aquarius.

This system was really symetrical, and if you look at exaltations, detriments, faces, triplicities and all the less important degrees, it's all got a DESIGN which is structurally sound, and its a beautiful thing.



The discovery of Uranus has disrupted this system, along with the modern planets and asteroids, we have moved to a dual system halfway between. Uranus under modern rulership takes up one Saturn sign, Pluto-one Mars, and Neptune- one Jupiter. The ancients had humours for the planets- Saturn was cold, damp and of the night --- all characteristics of the sign of Capricorn but not of the sign Aquarius, likewise, Mars was hot and dry, and Scorpio is definitely not, therefore it made total sense that Pluto have rulership.



The problem is that the symmetry is totally disrupted. I believe that the old system is still respected and used because of this. Capricorns will prefere it, as it's tried and tested.

Aquarians though are looking though to replace that system once we can truly VERIFY real rulership. Mercury still rules Virgo and Gemini, Venus still rules Libra. Yet we have found some circumstancial evidence that certain planetoids have more affinity in these signs.... Vesta in Virgo.... Pallas in Libra.... But then again there are so many asteroids.... And I'm sure that there are people who are busy writing books trying to state these things.


And here is my idea:

Perhaps Planets don't RULE signs, but are RULED by signs. Turn it on its head.

Saturn never stopped being dignified in Aquarius. We have all of these new asteroids, planetoids, dwarf planets and possibly more to come the further out we look.

Chiron belongs to Saggittarius, he's a centaur who shot himelf with an arrow. It doesn't need much more analysis than that. Juno, belongs to Scorpio, she's jealous, but so is Pluto, and Mars is dignified though a little scoffing and cynical for my liking.

So to SOLVE your mystery Aquarius7000. I would say that Aquarius rules Saturn and Uranus: They are two different songs out of the same album. In combination they create Aquarian energy.

aquarius7000 said:

Many (contemporary) astrologers work on a two-ruler basis for Aquarius: Uranus & Saturn. With other zodiac signs though, as per modern or traditional rulership that the astrologer might work with, a single planet is granted sole rulership of that sign (eg: Pisces:- Neptune or Jupiter). Even here Aquarius seems to be dancing out of line.

Anyways, there are just certain astroLogical elementary ‘theories/facts’, as you will also see below, that I have time and again pondered over, and am rather interested in hearing your views on.
How do you think Saturn manifests itself as ruler of Aquarius? This point is of particular interest especially while comparing the role Saturn plays as ruler of both Capricorn and Aquarius (going by traditional rulerships). Your thoughts on modern rulership of Aquarius by Uranus are equally welcome. (I do hope that the perhaps inevitably ‘interesting’ discussion of traditional vs modern rulers of signs will be applied here exclusively in relation to the topic of this thread and/or where it helps to clear up the mystery). Maybe your personal experiences with Solar/Lunar Aquarians could be used to throw in some practical information, too. (Needless to say that the whole chart always needs to be considered.)

I, for my part, have often wondered about the rather contradictory ‘duo’ ruling this sign; the serious, consistent and conservative Saturn – always a stickler for rules, on the one hand; and the outrageous, erratic and progressive Uranus – invariably endeavouring to disrupt the status quo and work against any established norms, on the other. Thereof, perhaps, seem to emerge the general attributes attached to Aquarius, which, completely in keeping with the incongruity of the rulership-duo, are just as contradictory themselves. To give a few eg.s: Aquarius is said to be empathic and kind, yet unemotional; friendly, humanitarian and interested in groups, yet emotionally detached and aloof; determined and opinionated yet changing, flexible and tolerant...

Alone, having to accept basics like Aquarius, an Air sign, is to be Fixed in nature, is hard to understand, and seems to be just an inevitable rule of astrology, which had to be applied to an air sign, too, for the sake of symmetry, if you so will (as it has been to earth, water and fire signs). Also, the Sun (source of light and life), which rules our being, inner self/nature, is said to be in detriment in this (otherwise) innovative, progressive and humanitarian sign, for Saturn – ruler of the outer darkness is said to reside (or at least co-reside) here.

Thank you, and look forward to an interesting and inspiring discussion here and now.J

Click to expand...

I totally agree with what you say about Aquarius. I guess it is all part of its quirky nature. I have a problem with having Saturn involved with it at all. Aquarius is essentially a modern futuristic sign and Capricorn Saturn are essentially of keeping time and the past. I think it is just the old view and used before Uranus came along. Fixed air, yes, another conundrum. Well aeorplanes are fixed i.e. substantial, I guess. I think we have to look at the term "fixed" in a broader context. I dont think Aquarians are kind so much as concerned with human rights and on a global scale. They are not concerned with the personal or the individual but rather humanity in general. Also Aqua - means water and some think it a water sign but it represents the waters of humanity, i.e. providing the essentials for survival but of the masses rather. Air signs are essentially intellectually biased and therefore rather detached and objective.

They are ahead of their time and uncon ventional, can be genius or totally mad. There is a castration complex with some and those with afflicted Uranus or Aquarius can have health issues relating to that area. i.e. the myth or archetype of Saturn and Ouranos.

This discussion is based on the idea that planets and Signs share similiar characteristics and rub off on one another, which isn't the case in the traditional scheme where planets and Signs developed as separate entities. You are all well aware of the Aquarius of the modern era, being the Aquarius that was itself shifted in meaning and significations just because it was given under "unpredictable" Uranus, but personally, I find the modern significations to be quite contradictory. Like, somehow, Aquarians are outsiders and rebellious people who go against the status quo, but who are also somehow related to large groups of people. So, we have ourselves a rebellious guy who likes to volunteer, which doesn't sound very rebellious at all. Heaven forbid he volunteer at that animal shelter! How socially backwards of him!! :O

Another thought is that perhaps it's best to research and learn about how the traditional associations of Fixed, Sanguine, and Humane work and apply them to Aquarius. As well as the nature of the stars in Aquarius and what their rising at the time of the year signifies.

There is a castration complex with some and those with afflicted Uranus or Aquarius can have health issues relating to that area. i.e. the myth or archetype of Saturn and Ouranos.

Click to expand...

None of those three have signification over "that area".

Charm, while I do find the coorelations between the tarot and astrology interesting, I do think we should confine this conversation soley to astrology. Astrology was developing a long time before the tarot was ever thought up, and to suggest that astrological significations and associations are derived from the tarot (or anything else that isn't astronomical), is misleading.

Kaiousei no Senshi said:

while I do find the coorelations between the tarot and astrology interesting, I do think we should confine this conversation soley to astrology. Astrology was developing a long time before the tarot was ever thought up, and to suggest that astrological significations and associations are derived from the tarot (or anything else that isn't astronomical), is misleading.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with you on that one. I don't know tarot, so perhaps I'm not entitled to but in and say: not.

But maybe we are missing the point, which is that the ancients created a system which was pretty symetrical and just looked good.

That system still stands, even though we are all in accord that the modern planets, DO exert an energy and HAVE a big enough influence to affect things on the ground just as much as the traditional 7.

thank you.

But maybe we are missing the point, which is that the ancients created a system which was pretty symetrical and just looked good.

Click to expand...

Pretty and useful. How nice.

That system still stands, even though we are all in accord that the modern planets, DO exert an energy and HAVE a big enough influence to affect things on the ground just as much as the traditional 7

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with you. I've always felt the Outers had influence, just that they were a different class of planet compared to the traditional seven. I think that trying to make the Outers similar to the Seven is overstepping a necessary boundary that separates influence and significance.

I have thought about this problem a lot. I have a 5th house Aquarius sun [trine Uranus in Gemini] plus Mercury and Venus in Aquarius.

If we look at house cusp rulers, however, using a non-whole sign system such as Placidus, we often find Capricorn as the sign on the cusp of the house containing the Aquarius planets. This makes Saturn the so-called accidental ruler of their house. I use a system expressed by the well-known Dutch astrologer, Karen Hamaker-Zondag in her book The House Connection, although others pre-date her on this. Basically she says, "The house over which a planet rules serves the purposes of the house in which that planet stands."

In most house systems, I have Capricorn on the cusp of my 5th house, making my 12th-house Saturn in Virgo the house ruler of my Aquarian planets, including my sun. So this placement might make Saturn a lot more important in my chart. But with my Aquarian sun (plus Mars in Pisces) trine Uranus, I think I am pretty Uranian as well.

So I think looking at individual charts might suggest the relative power of Saturn vs. Uranus in an Aquarian chart.

Then there are siderealists, who note that most Aquarians under the tropical zodiac are actually Capricorns, after all, using the sideral chart!

Have you tried searching for some of the earlier threads on Uranus?

On thing that has always puzzled me is how quickly self-styled alternatives, revolutionaries, rebels and the like always so quickly become rigidly and fanatically conformist, with the strictest criteria for deciding who is 'in' and who is 'out' within their particular cliques. I don't know know if this is 'true'manifestation of Uranus, or whether or not some kind of Saturnine crystallisation quicls takes place almost as soon as any deviation from Saturnian norms takes place.

The biggest cryers for freedom can quickly become tyrants in their own turn once the System' is overthrown - something that Orwell noted anyway, who anyway had Saturn in Aquarius natally. However, what Orwell drew attention might have been more a Saturn/Pluto thing rather than a Saturn/Uranus thing, at least according to Tarnas.

One thing that has been on my mind a lot is the movement across Europe that spawned the rise one particularly Uranian - Promethean - residence: the tower block. I have come across forums that now nickname them as 'Commie Blocks' and they were supposed to usher in a Brave New World free of slums and want for Everyone in ecologically sound environments - but the vision there quickly became tarnished, as the infrastructures to support these buildings broke down. They are buildings again - so once again, where does Uranss start and Saturn begin? And it was Saturnian cost-cutting that caused many of the problems linked to tower blocks to get out of hand, now in the UK they are all being demolished. As I rather like living in commie blocks, I hope it doesn't happen here. It might, if this country ever gets richer and some mad bugger in power decides to create a new Brave New Wall - whoops - World - here. Now, it seems - and this is what happened to my old residence in the UK - the Powers that Be may decide that your 'Home Sweet Home' to which you have so many fond and lunar sentimental attachments, whilst not a slum, could be deemed as 'obselete' a nice, Uranian word that could be given a multitude of meanings if, for example, someone has decided to knock your estate down to make way for a new college or a car park, or whatever.

OK, that is Pluto transiting my Saturn in Capricorn. Which is exact sesquisquare Uranus and exact semi-square an Aquarian Moon. I found out this year that most of an estate of high-rise flats I used to live in was razed to he ground 2-4 years ago. Boo-hoo.

But is Uranus a dual ruler of Aquarius, does this sign mysteriously combine both steady and erratic qualities together, and how would this work exactly?
I find this quite contradictory in my head.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and I'm actually a little distressed over the fact that more astrologers don't seem to find this contradictory as well. Unfortunately, we're just not all that aware of the pre-Uranus Aquarius because we weren't alive back then.

I don't agree that astrology is based on archetypes, but I do acknowledge its use of symbolism. Using a non-astrological mediums to gain insight into astrology is dangerous and is what gets people confused and onto the wrong tracks. While I do agree there are some interesting cross overs, I would be cautious before getting the idea too far into one's mind. Astrology is mostly based off of astronomy, that's all I'm asking for you to keep in mind.

charmvirgo said:

Description of Star card:
A bleak and empty landscape, devoid of material importance and filled with cold stones where once stood an influential tower. In the clear night sky above, a bright star shines its distant but cheerful rays.

Click to expand...

Hi CharmVirgo,

While I was answering Aquarius's question, I hadn't really given much thought to your tarot explanation. And I've read it now. This makes sense in an elemental way as well.... the bleakness is an antithesis of what Leo is meant to symbolise.

charmvirgo said:

The ruined tower shows the broken symbol of man’s arrogance, the structure of grandeur and authority, reduced to a pile of stones. Earthly values have dissolved and turned to dust, and that’s when the meaningless of their existence becomes most apparent.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the meaninglesness of existence, but Aquarius is meant to be the detriment of the Sun, I guess it also fits with the "broken symbol of man's arrogance".

Imagery is alway good and useful in anything astrological, as long as it sticks to the core meaning. I don't think it's a fresh approach though as Crowley used astrology in his tarot. If anything Tarot is based on astrology?

On another note I am curious as to the particular descriptive "story" that the other ten signs have. What have you got for Scorpio and Aries, and how are they related?

aquarius7000 said:

How do you think Saturn manifests itself as ruler of Aquarius? This point is of particular interest especially while comparing the role Saturn plays as ruler of both Capricorn and Aquarius (going by traditional rulerships).

Click to expand...

Saturn rules Capricorn exclusively; and also primarily rules Aquarius, with Uranus as it's co-ruler.

My Capricorn man with an Aquarius Moon, Venus and Jupiter all conjunct is a suit-wearing business person by day and under all of that is full-sleeved and back (tattooed). Saturn continues to manifest through his ink by being nouveau and old school at the same time by using exclusively black ink in a sea of available color. Again, Capricorn and Aquarius, both Saturn for the skin.

My dearest friend, an Aquarius, is another who keeps the Saturnian and Uranian mold, as well. He is an openly (think proud, not flamboyant) gay man running a multi-million dollar company. His public life is Saturnian, with him being the biggest of industry daddies in a Capricornian fashion; whereas in his private life, he is an Aquarian daddy in an alternative, Uranian sense.

The theme for Aquarius being ruled by both Saturn and Uranus is that it proverbially, "Makes what is old new again."

MamaMinnee said:

The theme for Aquarius being ruled by both Saturn and Uranus is that it proverbially, "Makes what is old new again."

Click to expand...

Hi Mamaminne,

You said something which was interesting about Time, and I think that this is the key to understanding the two signs and planets.

Saturn is said to have ownership, or at least association with "TIME" as in Chronus time, how much time we have on the Earth is depicted by Capricorn.

Uranus is time outside of time, this is similar to that time when the aboriginals go into a trance and "escape" the normal confines of time, because in that mode of reality, there is no past, no present and no future, there is no thought, no awareness of the physical existence, it is transcendence.


How does that interpretation work itself out into in relevent language of Capricorn and Aquarius? Like you said Minnee, Capricorn loves the PAST, history, tradition and doing things according to how they have been done by their forefathers... Because the Past is real and proveable, it's got substance and there is Evidence to prove and show its existence..... Aquarius, and I think this is the reason why Astrology is very Aquarian, is a sign which is FUTURE oriented.

So Saturn in Capricorn builds on the past, builds on tradition but doesn't want to make things different. Saturn in Aquarius still has that same constructive bent, but is oriented towards creating new things, and improving on the past without destroying it. And Uranus is the planet that completely disregards the past, and thinks about the future, even if its thoughts are completely unimplimentable.

Tell me what you think Aquarius.

I don't agree that astrology is based on archetypes, but I do acknowledge its use of symbolism. Using a non-astrological mediums to gain insight into astrology is dangerous and is what gets people confused and onto the wrong tracks. While I do agree there are some interesting cross overs, I would be cautious before getting the idea too far into one's mind. Astrology is mostly based off of astronomy, that's all I'm asking for you to keep in mind.

Click to expand...

Oh come on Kai,

Tarot, though a different discipline (one I know very little about), seems to be quite connected to Astrology, as Charm's posts have shown. Since this is the case, it can hardly then be non-astrological completely. Of course, it takes a different turn perhaps in practice, but it can hardly confuse people, especially as Astrology is so ancient and well-established already, but like all other fields (hopefully) also growing further. Like you, I too have found the cross-overs between Astrology and Tarot, and esp the symbolism and imagery rather interesting in the context of this discussion, and all this just shows things from a slightly different angle making this discussion versatile, don't you think.

aquarius7000

Night Sky said:

How does that interpretation work itself out into in relevent language of Capricorn and Aquarius? Like you said Minnee, Capricorn loves the PAST, history, tradition and doing things according to how they have been done by their forefathers... Because the Past is real and proveable, it's got substance and there is Evidence to prove and show its existence..... Aquarius, and I think this is the reason why Astrology is very Aquarian, is a sign which is FUTURE oriented.

Click to expand...

Hi Night Sky! Astrology studies the future based on past happenings, again Saturn with Uranus: Aquarius. If Astrology were exclusively Saturn as Capricorn, then we would study the history of experiences occurred, period. Being Aquarian, Astrology extrapolates.

Night Sky said:

And Uranus is the planet that completely disregards the past, and thinks about the future, even if its thoughts are completely unimplimentable.

Tell me what you think Aquarius.

Click to expand...

To clarify, I am a Plutonian Virgo, albeit Aquarianly in the 11th, with a full Virgo stellium there, as well. FYI. To me (Libra Asc.), Uranus does not completely disregard the past. Is anything REALLY new? Style... music... language... astrology???

MamaMinnee said:

..To me (Libra Asc.), Uranus does not completely disregard the past. Is anything REALLY new? Style... music... language... astrology???

Click to expand...

That is an observation that I second, too. Firstly, you can only separate the new from the old, if the past/old/existing has been re-done as in bettered or even worsened; or re'new'ed, so new is created out of the existing; or of course, if something, which never existed is 'invented'.
I think this is where Uranus steps in - to re'new' the stale/old/stagnant/established around us and so creating the new, and thereby disturbing, even disrupting the status quo, and taking us into the future. If Aquarius is said to have these futuristic/progressive tendencies, and those of disrupting the order etc.., then again Uranus seems to co-rule the sign (Aqu), which is what perhaps distinguishes Aquarius from the completely Saturn-ruled Capricorn.
Sadly, I can't spend much time on this right now due to work, but do keep the ball rolling and I'll join in later again in this most interesting discussion.

aquarius7000

Tarot, though a different discipline (one I know very little about), seems to be quite connected to Astrology, as Charm's posts have shown. Since this is the case, it can hardly then be non-astrological completely.

Click to expand...

There is nothing that can be shown in the tarot's connection of astrology that is not already shown in astrology itself. I suppose it may be useful to some who are new to astrology but who already have an existing knowledge of the tarot. That way they can connect the unfamiliar astrological significations to the tarot ideas they are already versed in.

Of course, it takes a different turn perhaps in practice, but it can hardly confuse people...

Click to expand...

I would hope it wouldn't confuse people either, but when you already have so few people (in comparison to those who are in astrology and don't) who know the foundations of astrology it can't help things. The more I read the more I realize that some popular astrological methods are not based on astrology, which is disturbing. I have no problem with using the tarot as a mirror of some sort, or to explore further symbolism within the tarot as it relates to astrology to see how much of an influence astrological philosophy has had on the tarot system. I'm just wanting people to remember that the tarot and astrology are two completely different divinatory systems and I don't think we can discover the problem proposed in this thread in the cards.

It seems this discussion is deviating from its original topic just a tad. It's moving more and more towards another discussion on Uranus and then connecting that to Aquarius, when in fact I think we should take the time to dissect classical associations of Aquarius, before it was remodeled to fit under the rulership of Uranus.

I think the first point to consider about Aquarius is what it is exactly: the waterbearer. In other words, Aquarius is immediately associated with service to others by its act of carrying and giving water - a necessary component for life - to others. You have to consider what happens during this time, it's very rainy and several of the stars in the constellation of Aquarius are related to rain and floods, so it's with this in mind that Aquarius became associated with rain and cleansing, perhaps this is the beginning of the ever-spoken "humanitarian" keyword for Aquarius in modern astrology. Air Signs are related to light, and it's this association which Aquarius has obtained its hold over documented and reasoned logic. Used in combination with the modesty and service attributed to this Sign and you are given a Sign with an emphasis on clear-thinking and independant analysis, which make it almost impossible for an Aquarius to be forced into a position of prejudice or talked into anything as they have their own means of reasoning things out to find out if it makes sense for them. They are quick to speak out against instances where assumption and speculation trumps fact and logic. Hopefully you'll all have caught on to how this connects to Aquarius' classical association as a Fixed sign as well. They think things through their way.

Let's dive into this fixed association just a little more deeply, shall we? This offers stability and resistance to the Sign. While it may seem philosophically unsound for an Air Sign to be "fixed" (as one cannot contain the air), we see it as an employment in deep concentration and application and response to mental challenges.

Sol is in detriment in the Sign of Aquarius and as such the ego concept cannot express itself comfortably. This is why Aquarius is able to detach itself from itself and focus on broader, more wide-reaching ideas and concerns. Saturn also makes Aquarius more objective and restrained than the other Air Signs who are probably more likely to meddle. The problem is that the detached Aquarian is often uncomfortable in intimate relationships and is usually seen as cold and uncaring when they don't perform with the exuberant excitability other Signs expect them to.

Aquarius being a sanguine Sign should also be explored a bit to understand the Sign. the sanguine association may seem backwards to some people, as Saturn is quite the opposite being a melancholic planet. However, the sanguine Air Signs (of which all of them are) have a certain level of social graces, charm, grace, and attractiveness. Aquarius is also a humane Sign, which makes them civil and carrying tact and overall well-mannered. This humane signification also makes them shun vulgarity, crudeness, and extremes.


Concerning more astrological ideas, the main stars in the constellation of Aquarius's names are translated to "The lucky one of the king" and "the luckiest of the lucky". Rain is good, and the rising and culminating of these stars is associated with the rainy seasons. This reinforces the idea of Aquarius as a humantarian and servent to mankind. I also find it interesting that there is no Lunar mansion in Aquarius that is fortunate for marriage, but the two whose entirety is held within the Sign are both associated with success in medical treatment.

I have more to say, but it is very late and I'm very tired. I hope that this has been somewhat helpful, but most of all I hope it is coherent.

What I meant by my comments about Uranus was that it signified "Time" spent in the mental world, where past and future have the same quality and are not concepts which have any difference.... Something like dreamtime.

And Saturnian time is what is measured, because it's made relative to the passing away of human flesh. Not unlike what CharmVirgo described in that tarot card "people in chains at the foot of the mountain". The chains must signify that relativising of time.... The fact that to them it is "running out", but in reality (the Uranian reality) Time is INFINITE and immeasurable.... but you have to leave your Capricorn body to experience it!

p.s. In the light of this analysis, Uranus + Neptune + Pluto take on qualities which are BEYOND the Earthly realm, and therefore I think that the traditional rulerships ought to be interpretes first, in order to attempt a reading of "Earthly matters".

There is definitely a discernment to be made between the "inner" including Jupiter and Saturn and the "outer" including asteroids, in that they don't play by the same rules, they are concerned with what's beyond human existence.