Moon aspects in a Lunar Return

[FlorencedeZ.]

Hi Jim,
I noticed there is not as much attention to lunar aspects in a LR or DLR as before.
Do you still consider them as very important or do they have validity only when there are no planets angular for instance?
Regards,
Flo

[Jim Eshelman]

Great question, Flo. I'm still juggling that one. In theory, one would think they have extra importance (though not for the same reason they always have importance in ingresses: for ingresses (in mundane astrology) we are dealing with mass-mind or herd movements, whereas for SLRs we have an ego-centered human as w4ell).

My current working premise is that only two sets of aspects are worth attention in a return chart:

1. Conjunctions, oppositions, or squares among two foreground planets.
2. Conjunctions, oppositions, or squares among other planets with a 1° orb or less.

These can be transit-to-transit, natal-to-natal, or transit-to-natal. They can be ecliptical or mundane aspects, which are equally effective.

For example, transiting Neptune is in reasonable orb of conjunct my Moon. This has been an observable effect each time it has been foreground or within 1°. (It's only been partile mundanely, it hasn't gotten there ecliptically yet.) However, the seas part and frailty backs off when it falls out of the foreground for two weeks and isn't partile mundanely. - Just as one example.

So I'm thinking Moon and Sun don't have the "special privileges" once thought in return charts. Often, though, I'll look at it much as Bradley did in his 1948 book just to get a different mental perspective on it - Sun house and aspects to see what you're doing, Moon house and aspects to see what's doing you, foreground planets and their aspects, then anything else that looks worthwhile. This isn't because I'm sold on it but because it shakes loose habitual, lay thinking by demanding I go down a road I don't think is particularly correct.