© Terry MacKinnell 2008 All Rights Reserved
The most commonly stated myth about the Aquarian age is that it commenced in the 1960’s or ’70s. Blogs from one end of the world to the other repeatedly discuss the arrival of the Aquarian age in those rebellious and drug fuelled times. Just because the musical Hair proclaimed that `this is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius…’ does not make it so. If all the people in the world jumped up and down in unison declaring this is the beginning of the Age of Aquarius, Aquarius could not care less, even if everyone sang it in key!
When it comes to the Aquarian age, astrologers want to eat their cake and keep it. The most common statement on the subject, from those few research astrologers that examine the ages, is that the previous age, the Age of Pisces, arrived with the birth of Jesus Christ. Pisces is the sign of two fish. Since early times Christians preferred the fish symbol for Christianity, so astrologers behave like Homer Simpson and say d’oh – `Jesus must have started the Pisces age’.
However if Jesus commenced the Pisces age, the earliest the Aquarian age can arrive is around 2150. Why? Because the cycle of ages takes approximately 26,000 years to make one revolution. In the approx. 26,000 years cycle each age appears for approximately 2150 years each. Therefore if the Pisces age commenced with Jesus then the Aquarian age cannot commence before approx. 2150.
The problem with the Aquarian age arriving in the middle of the 22nd century is how to explain all the Aquarian developments in the world today. Such Aquarian developments include electricity, computers, flight, space travel and democracy. What do these have to do with the Pisces age?
To get around this awkward question the solution is easy – just state that we are approaching the cusp of the Pisces and Aquarian ages, and at the cusp there is a blurring of the two influences. Unfortunately no experienced astrologer to my knowledge has ever experienced cusps. Cusps are an urban myth popular with those members of the general public with a little knowledge of astrology and with novice astrologers who do not know any better. In over three decades of studying astrology, I have never encountered a factual explanation of cusps that justify their existence nor heard from any experienced astrologer that cusps have any validity.
The above is a good demonstration of irrationality at work. When no justification for the arrival of the Aquarian age before 2150 can be supplied, astrologers have invented a solution that no one has proved or can substantiate. In past times this is called `building your house on sand rather than rock’. The house is going to fall down if built upon the sand. Cusps are made of sand.
What else is sand here? Something very simple and totally overlooked. There is no doubt that Christianity has a relationship with Pisces. Pisces shares the fish symbol with Christianity and Pisces is also associated with mysticism and mystical religions, and religions based on salvation. But the BIG question is, why should the Pisces age begin with the arrival of the avatar of Western culture? Who said that ages must begin with a famous person? What about Buddha, why could not the Pisces age be already in place when Buddha appear around six centuries earlier?
The whole mess of an Aquarian age not arriving before 2150 is dependent on the unsubstantiated assumption that Jesus began the Pisces age. When I have confronted some astrologers about this anomaly their eyes turn blank and their aura recedes because astrologers are not accustomed to think about the ages in general and the Aquarian age in particular. Astrologers are deep thinkers, but not when it comes to the ages. The ages is that one area in astrology where astrologers can dream up all manner of unsubstantiated nonsense and pretend it is true. If this is how astrologers behave, no wonder the urban myths on the Aquarian age are in lala land.
If the Aquarian age arrived say at 1970, then the Pisces age should have arrived at around 181 BC (1970 AD – 2150 = 181 BC). What happened around 181 BC to indicate a major historical shift in gears? Nothing! There is no reason to believe that the Pisces age arrived around 181 BC. However this does not mean that 181 BC was not in the Pisces age.
The upshot of all this is that from a simplistic and obvious point of view the Age of Aquarius has arrived. What have ipods, cell phones, large-screen LCD TVs, super-jumbo jets, Facebook and blogs got to do with Pisces? What astrologers have failed to recognise here is that unless astrology ‘works’ it is useless. Unless the ages ‘work’ why even refer to them. If the evidence suggests that the Aquarian age has arrived, why not investigate this to discover the real truth about the ages in general and the Age of Aquarius in particular? Why not look at the evidence and avoid the idle and unfounded speculation?
If the Aquarian age has arrived – when did it arrive? This is the Holy Grail amongst researchers in this field. All I have presented here is two practical points:
Firstly the Aquarian age did not arrive in the 1960’s or ’70’s.
The Aquarian age is obviously here – so when did it arrive?
Stay tuned for the next episode.