Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

by SteveS on Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:14 pm

Jim-

Your book 'Interpreting Solar Returns' has taught me so much pertaining to Fagan's works. At one time, you were considereing writing another book about Lunar Returns with the different delineation methods versus SSR. When you have time, could you post in Lunar Return topics, a summary between the two pertaining to the differences.

by Jim Eshelman on Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:41 am

SteveS wrote:
Your book 'Interpreting Solar Returns' has taught me so much pertaining to Fagan's works. At one time, you were considereing writing another book about Lunar Returns with the different delineation methods versus SSR. When you have time, could you post in Lunar Return topics, a summary between the two pertaining to the differences.

In Interpreting Solar Returns, I recommended reading the SSR twice: Once by itself, as the "new natal" of the year, and once in classic "return style." The first pass follows more or less the same rules as one would apply in natal astrology - the second pass (with the natal planets added on an inner ring) becomes much more tightly focused and uses more narrow and concentrated rules.

The first difference between SSRs and SLRs is that, for the Lunar Return, skip that first "secondary natal" pass. Start with the two-ring chart and read it using the narrower, return-oriented rules.

Signs are of no importance in reading the SLR. Neither are houses (although differentiation between the individual angles does show itself, though as a secondary level of meaning). Angularity is the primary issue: Planets in the foreground "rule" a Lunar Return (to which must be added tight conjunctions to the Eastpoint-Westpoint and Zenith-Nadir axes), and planets in the immediate background (proximity to the cadent cusps) need to be considered for their anti-presence. Only hard aspects are considered, generally within about 5° orbs. All partile hard aspects still have to be taken into consideration.

There are stylistic interpretation differences, too. SLR interpretation is punchier, less nuanced. I suspect this is because the SSR has a whole year to unfold itself, and a great deal more subtlety can work its way out. In any case, the first thing to do in looking at the SLR is to temporarily throw away all mature philosophical considerations about the relativity of good vs. bad events and, based on the weight of Jupiter and Venus (and secondarily Uranus) vs. the weight of Mars and Saturn (and secondarily Neptune) assess: Is this going to be a good month or a bad month?

This, of course, means: Is this going to FEEL like a good month or a bad month? That's the other most important difference about SLRs: The hit at a lunar level of our psyche. When I wrote the angular planet interpretations in Interpreting Solar Returns, the theoretical part was done by starting with basic inside-outside summaries of the planets (e.g., transiting Mars on an angle means aggression, attack, force coming from without; natal Mars foreground means the same coming from oneself) and then added that these were aspects to the Sun. (The actual Sun in the SSR has little distinctive importance, but the angles have a solar quality.) For the SLR, the interpretations would be written by combining the same core inside-outside meanings with the idea that these planets are aspecting the Moon. This changes the tone more than a little. (PS - I characterized the above as the "theoretical" part of writing those interpretations, because they were actually written against observed life circumstances - but the above is how the theoretical baseline was established for the written interpretations.)

The recommended procedure for reading the SLR would be pretty much what was written in Interpreting Solar Returns, Chapter 6, "Second Time Through - Wheels Within Wheels." Adapting the section "Procedure for Solar Return Analysis" on p. 94 of the ACS edition:

1. Note which planets are foreground, both natal and SLR. Frame the core of your delineation around these factors alone, trying to come to some kind of integrated assessment of the map's general tone. (This is the main part of the interpretation - probably 80-90% of it all.)
-- A. If the same planet is foreground in both the natal and SLR wheels, it takes on special significance as a theme planet.
-- B. The planets closest to the angles have the most to say. This will nearly always be the key to helping prioritize and weight planetary involvement.
-- C. Transiting (SLR) planets are interpreted as describing circumstances the world brings to the individual. Natal planets represent the individual's reactions to these circumstances, or, sometimes, the actions which invoke them.

2. Note aspects between/among foreground planets.
-- A. Aspects of foreground SLR planets help refine judgment on what to expect from the outside world.
-- B. Interpret foreground natal planets in terms of what they represent in the nativity (shown by their natal aspects and, to some extent, sign placements - in other words, this well-established part of a person's psyche is coming to the fore and means whatever it has come to mean in that person's life).
-- C. Note foreground transiting planets aspecting foreground natal planets - interpret them as you would transits in general.

3. I am no longer very impressed with the old rule that the SLR Sun is always important - that SLR Sun hard aspects count almost as secondary angles. It just doesn't jump out that strongly. Nonetheless, I always (by habit?) look there next and see whatever I see from it.

4. Observe which SLR planets are in the immediate background and how this colors the picture thus far.

5. Consider any remaining hard aspects within 1°, either in the SLR itself or, especially, as transits to the natal. These will have their voice, but it generally will be a quieter voice than the foregoing.


Does this help?

by gmugmble on Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:15 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote:
Note which planets are foreground, both natal and SLR.

So. We have Asc, Desc, MC, IC, Eastpoint, Westpoint, Zenith, and Nadir in the natal chart. We have the same in the re-located natal. We have the same in the SLR chart. A total of 24 significant points ("angles"). For a planet to be "foreground" means either its natal or SLR position is within 10° of one of the 12 Asc-Desc-MC-IC angles, or within a degree of one of the other 12. Can we maybe tighten this a bit?

by Jim Eshelman on Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:51 am

gmugmble wrote:
Jim Eshelman wrote:
Note which planets are foreground, both natal and SLR.

So. We have Asc, Desc, MC, IC, Eastpoint, Westpoint, Zenith, and Nadir in the natal chart. We have the same in the re-located natal. We have the same in the SLR chart. A total of 24 significant points ("angles"). For a planet to be "foreground" means either its natal or SLR position is within 10° of one of the 12 Asc-Desc-MC-IC angles, or within a degree of one of the other 12. Can we maybe tighten this a bit?

Interpreting the SLR has nothing to do with proximity to the natal angles (at either location), only the SLR angles (for locality). 10° is arbitrary, of course, like all orbs, and wider than you usually need to go. ("Foreground" is technically half a house in mundo either side of the angular cusps, though it tapers faster on the cadent side since it has to reach the quadrant low point by the cadent cusp. There are "drop-off" thresholds around 2°, 7°, 10°, etc.)

by SteveS on Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:03 am

Does this help?

Indeed, this helps--Thanks!

Question: The SSR Moon and its aspects to Solar and Natal planets are very important for interpreting the SSR. Does the Sun and its aspects to Lunar and Natal planets in the SLR have an equal importance (for interpretation purposes) as the SSR Moon?

by Jim Eshelman on Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:25 am

SteveS wrote:
Question: The SSR Moon and its aspects to Solar and Natal planets are very important for interpreting the SSR. Does the Sun and its aspects to Lunar and Natal planets in the SLR have an equal importance (for interpretation purposes) as the SSR Moon?

That was Fagan's theory. I did address it above: I've not been impressed with this for a long time. That is, the idea that, say, all conjunctions, oppositions, and squares of SLR Sun to natal and SLR planets acts much as if the planet were also angular - that doesn't really seem to be the case.

Nonetheless, from old habits I still look at this right after the angles - even after decades of formally ignoring it - and it does affect my thinking sometimes. Take a look and report.