Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

From Ken Bowser Web Site: Can't remember if this has already been posted.

https://www.westernsiderealastrology.co ... tober-1953

Very interesting, thanks. A few tweaks...

Minor errors by Fagan in describing the charts for the events, but nothing serious. For the Chatham incident, the exactly rising Uranus is indeed reasonably close to square Saturn, but not to Mars and Neptune. (7 or 8 degrees each). One could, perhaps, simply note that Mars, Saturn, and Neptune all were in Mercury-ruled Virgo (not sure if that was his point). Also, on the Harrow-Wealdstone Station incident, Saturn and Neptune are not in the 12th house but in the 1st; not that I think it matters much, though I'm surprised he didn't state the bigger point that Sun, Saturn, and Neptune are on Ascendant.

On Fagan's mention of the Grand Lunar Return, the editorial comment is wrong. Fagan was quite pointedly talking about the point, every 19 years, where the lunar nodal cycle (return of lunar nodes to their natal place) means that Moon returns not only to the same longitude but the same latitude in the lunar return. The editor wanted to reinterpret it as referring to the time (every 27 years) when progressed Moon returns to its natal place; but the article has no reference to progressions, and this 27-year-cycle does nothing to bring Moon back to its natal latitude. (The relevance is that Moon's conjunction is close or identical in the mundoscope as well as the horoscope.) [I wrote this really convolutedly, but it will be more obvious on reading the article.]

I was pleased at Fagan's opinion that the Demi-SLR is "equal in importance" to the SLR and "its calculation should never be neglected." On his statement (also given elsewhere) that "what is promised in the regular lunar return finds its fruition in the demi-lunar," I've never been able to come to a conclusion - it sounds good, I'm not saying it's not true, but I've never been able to substantiate it. Generally, they seem to be to be separate, independent charts, but there is at least the connection that the Demi occurs within the context of the still-operating SLR.

Thanks Jim, your 'tweaks' are always important for consumption/correctness, because in my mind your work was so important 'tweaking' with statistical data the early work of our early Sidereal colleagues, who I think were somewhat limited with the amount of statistical data without today's advantage with the PC. My experience with DSLR is very limited; it was not until a couple years ago that you pointed out to me the importance of the DSLR. This is when I started paying close(er) attention to them and correlated enough DSLR's to prove to my mind they were indeed important. But, I have not seen enough SLR's & DSLR's occurring in the same 27 day period to know if Fagan was absolutely correct on his early 1953 conclusions about the possibility of a DSLR's extending the symbolic effects/affects of a SLR within the same 27 period. So far, with my limited experience, I think a DSLR can, at times, rule & time a 2 week period with absolutely nothing noted as a significant symbolic effect/affect with SLR.

Steve, here is the thread where I recently compared the effective of SLRs and Demi-SLRs. I just gave conclusions, not the details, but you might look at the 20 in the second half of the month and do the charts yourself as a personal study.

http://solunars.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1791

Will do Jim. I need to get back to doing more of this now that I have time in my life. This type work/sight has always allowed Jupiter into my life.

Yes, this is the point that appeared in other early Fagan articles I've posted, and his meaning debated here for a while. Rightly or wrongly, he was convinced that all partile transits in the SLR are valid, without consideration of angularity.

As you may have noticed in, say, the monthly trump Watch, I use this as "fill in the details" or "background of the story' (pun intended) after I get a basic thrust of the period from the foreground content.

I've never been convinced that transits are otherwise invalid. it might well be that they don't otherwise produce outstanding events, but they seem day-to-day relevant to me. Silly example fresh in my mind: I almost never have insomnia, but it almost always occurs under strong Mercury factors. Last night I popped away around 3:30 AM after 2+ hours of sleep, and never got back to sleep. Mercury is today transiting my natal angles and natal Mercury (with other transits to one or another of my Mercuries, e.g., transiting Sun square SSR Mercury).

So I'm not convinced they are only valid if partile in the SLR or Demi-SLR, though I am convinced that such partility makes them valid contributors to the SLR even if not foreground. (In fact, they contribute background information.)

Jim wrote:

Rightly or wrongly, he was convinced that all partile transits in the SLR are valid, without consideration of angularity.

Your 'Interpreting Solar Return' book teach us that all partile transits to our natal planets in our solar returns have a "locked" in quality for the entire solar year,--correct?

SteveS wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:34 am Jim wrote:

Rightly or wrongly, he was convinced that all partile transits in the SLR are valid, without consideration of angularity.

Your 'Interpreting Solar Return' book teach us that all partile transits to our natal planets in our solar returns have a "locked" in quality for the entire solar year,--correct?

Yes. I've long been clear that this is true in the SSR, though it took longer to get clear that it was true in the SLR (which is read much more narrowly).

OK, now I have a question for you Jim. Do you know a short-cut way with Solar Fire where one could quickly identify these type 'Janma-Rasi' transits---without calculating all our SLR/DEMI's. In other words, is there a way we can run a list of transits to our natal planets for partile hits, then being able to see/know they were 'Janma-Rasi' type transits for significant monthly predictions, where partile transits to our natal planets fell on the day of our SLR/DEMI's?

SteveS wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:05 am OK, now I have a question for you Jim. Do you know a short-cut way with Solar Fire where one could quickly identify these type 'Janma-Rasi' transits---without calculating all our SLR/DEMI's. In other words, is there a way we can run a list of transits to our natal planets for partile hits, then being able to see/know they were 'Janma-Rasi' type transits for significant monthly predictions, where partile transits to our natal planets fell on the day of our SLR/DEMI's?

No idea what Janma-Rasi is. Or, rather, it means "Moon-sign," are you using it to mean "transits at time of the SLR," or have you dug into whatever the classic Janma-Rasi prediction method is that Fagan mentioned?

I suspect you are asking if there is a way to figure out what transits are partile at the time of the SLR, without doing the SLR. No, I don't. (And you probably don't want those that occur just on the fay, because they may be partile sometime on the SLR day but not at the time of the SLR.)

It's surely way easier to pull these from the SLR. (Run the SLRs, do a Synastry Grid between the natal and the SLR with an aspect set that only shows the aspects and orbs you want, then click the Chart button at the right and walk down the successive SLRs in a few seconds.)

Thanks Jim, I did not think there was a way to short-cut these type partile return hits could be listed, but I figured you would be one of the few in country to know if there were a short-cut way.