Age of Aquarius

What is the source for people claiming this is the Age of Aquarius?

It’s clearly meant to be astrological, but unclear what actual astrological factor this is referring to. As I wrote of in my journal, the Star of the Head of Aries is currently in Taurus, so this is referring to some other factor.


From my understanding from the book the great initiates (might be translated wrong from the original French), eras are characterized by shifts/changes from an old way of thinking to a new one. Roughly 2000 years give or take a few hundred more. They say that with each new era a new avatar of our “creator” comes to earth to inspire new thought. For example take Jesus….some say his sign of a fish is from some of his apostles being fisherman, but it was the influence of the era of piscis hence the fish symbol. So if you look at the symbology of some of the religious practices you’ll find clues as to the era they were from.

So the age of Aquarius a new avatar “should” come and we should see some new religions forming.

Edit: I’ll add this some people are still not sure if we are already in Aquarius or if we are starting our clock towards Aquarius (hope I make sense)


Very interesting! Thanks for this! So It’s not really astrological. More of a guessing game, trying to tie itself to one aspect of astrology. I wonder then, why the originator even chose to tie this to astrology in the first place.

1 Like

No problem.

Also interesting to note, Jesus being portrayed as the sacrificial lamb or the slaughtered lamb is also symbolic of “death” for the old religion and the beginning of the new one.

So it may be a guessing game, but it is interesting that the book I mentioned is from 1800s maybe late 1800s, which is surprising how people researched before the internet lol….I know I used libraries with actual books, but being that reading wasn’t an everyday thing for the “common” people is what I mean.

Edit: added portrayed


It’s referring to precession of the equinoxes. The Aries Point will drift backwards throughout the zodiac over the years because of the axial wobble. The Piscean Age began around 290 AD (depending on the ayanamsa). Constantine gave in to the Fish 20 years later.

The Age of Aquarius will begin when the Sun enters siderealan Aquarius on the Vernal Equinox, which will be around 2499 AD.

There is a crude mundane technique to predict how’s the new age gonna look like, if you make a mental leap and assign houses to signs (Aries - 1st House, Taurus - 2nd House, etc.), and overlay it on top of the zodiacal wheel with the Ascendant in the sign of the current age. Read it by seeing which sign belongs to which area of life (symbolized by the houses), and compare which houses (“signs”) exchange with the Aries Age template.


Oh no, what I mean by the guessing game is that since there’s seemingly no astrological factor to base it on, you have to kind of guess when the turn of the age was, and make predictions based on that.

But I want to note that in traditional astrology, Aquarius is NOT seen as revolutionary. That is a modern association. In fact, in traditional astrology, Aquarius can rather uphold tradition. But, uphold tradition to such an extent that it can be unconventional. But otherwise, he signifies farming. His Lord, Saturn, is friendly to plants, but harsh to other life, because of his cold nature.

The method of calculation that @hypn0s speaks about here immediately makes more sense to me. It’s not like Christianity is going anywhere anytime soon. It’s still extremely strong, despite many Christian countries being very secular today. While percieved threats only make it stronger. And the occult is niche, very niche. More free-spirited religions like Thelema are even more niche.

So it makes sense that the Age of Aquarius is actually still quite a while ahead. Now, I reckon with it starting in a few hundred years, it signifies a more harsh farming and agriculture focused society after industrial society has collapsed. And with that, wise-men and women could very well become a bit more common as they were before in most cultures.

Very good thought to bring up! I know for at least the Middle-Ages and the early Renaissance, a lot of works circulated widely in manuscript form, even banned works (The church banning works did not stop them from being rather well-read!). That is, you’d have a friend or someone you know with a manuscript you’re interested in, and you’d copy it by hand. Studying at universities, it seems it wasn’t too hard to get ahold of certain manuscripts. Agrippa’s Three Books of Occult Philosophy is a very remarkable work that used quite a lot of different sources, some of which were also banned at the time (so, they could not be printed), and Agrippa wrote his TBOP in his early twenties! (Although early drafts differ quite a bit with the final version I’ve read)

So, it seems at least in those days it wasn’t too extremely difficult to get a hold of a lot of different texts through good contacts.

Thanks a lot for this! That method of calculation certainly makes a lot of sense.