Reconsidering SLR Technique

General Discussion on Solar & Lunar Returns matters for which a specific forum does not exist
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:42 pm

By the word “reconsidering” in the title of this thread, I mean taking a fresh “from scratch” look at one detail of our usual method of interpreting Sidereal Lunar Returns. (Implicitly SSRs also but, to concentrate the inquiry, I’m only raising the question about SLRs at the moment.) I’m not raising the points below as a statement (i.e., I’m not saying, “I think we’ve been wrong about this.”); rather, I’m raising it as a question for us to share for a bit (“Does evidence available to you persuade you that we’ve been right about this?”). This is part of my reflection process while preparing to give a course on solar and lunar returns soon. (What follows is a long setup so settle back and enjoy the ride.)

My question is: Should we be interpreting the angularity of NATAL planets in Lunar Returns?

This may sound strange, since Siderealists’ core technique for roughly half a century has been (1) identify and interpret foreground transiting planets, (2) identify and interpret foreground natal planets, and (3) identify and interpret aspects between/among these (including transit-to-transit, transit-to-natal, and natal-to-natal aspects, provided the planets are foreground in the Lunar Return).

That’s pretty basic, yes? But I wonder… just wondering…

In contrast, the earliest technique by Fagan and Bradley (individually and collaboratively) was to interpret an SLR as (mostly) a stand-alone chart but, as a further step, consider aspects from SLR planets to natal planets. This is quite different from the above, even though the technical change is small. Fagan and Bradley eventually changed their mind – no surprise that they learned and grew over the first few decades. I’m raising the question of whether that “mind changing” was a correct shift or a misinterpretation of what they were seeing. (My habits suggest it is a correct shift, but I’d like to explore whether that’s true.)

What do statistics say? We have mixed results which, however, seem to support at least a little the importance of angularity of natal planets. Bradley’s report of statistics of SLRs, published in the early 1950s, seems mixed to me. On the one hand, he found that BOTH natal and transiting Jupiter tend to be foreground for weddings, and that BOTH natal and transiting Mars and Neptune tend to avoid the foreground and concentrate in the background for giving birth.

On the other hand, it appears that the prominence of Moon, Venus, and Jupiter in the foreground for women giving birth is ONLY transiting planets (except that natal Moon is the same as transiting Moon). At least, he didn’t say he was including both natal and transiting, and it was not like him to be evasive on such things. ONLY transiting Venus and Jupiter were found to avoid the foreground for serious accidents. ONLY transiting Mars and Saturn were found foreground a significant amount of the time (and avoiding the background) for serious accidents.

I’m sure we can all find favorite SLR examples that seem to contradict this – that have natal Venus angular for childbirth or natal Mars or Saturn angular for an accident. But that’s not what the published statistics say so, for the moment, I’m going to assume that this isn’t usual.

But what about those couple of situations (above) where both natal and transiting planets were angular or not angular a significant amount of time? Isn’t that sufficient to answer the question? Well, no… not really. This statistical behavior could be masking another affect. Suppose, for example, that the ASPECTS of these planets are relevant (just as in the 1940s’ version of the theory) but not their angularity.

For example: Donald Trump’s new SLR has transiting Sun on Descendant opposite natal Neptune on Ascendant. This has three separate components:
1. Transiting Sun is angular.
2. Natal Neptune is angular.
3. Transiting Sun opposes natal Neptune.

Suppose (just suppose) that only #1 and #3 are valid? (That was the original approach from the first decade or two of F&B’ writings on the topic.) Could you tell the difference? Or might you think that the already-Neptunian month was due to natal Neptune angular?

To take another (more elaborate) example, see my current Demi-SLR. There is plenty to interpret without considering natal planets, and plenty more to consider WITH the natal planets. Two transiting planets are closely angular and three others more widely foreground: Mercury 0°29', Neptune 2°04', Jupiter 5°37', Moon 7°58', and Sun 8°17'. These form numerous aspects either ecliptically or (in most cases) mundanely: Moon-Sun 0°19', Mercury-Neptune 1°34', Sun-Jupiter 2°42', Moon-Mercury 3°09', Jupiter-Neptune 3°31'. All of this is visible without considering any natal planets.

But we also have high confidence that transits to natal planets (if in the foreground) are important – that view goes back to the very beginning – so that adds the following:
t Mercury op. r Moon 0°08'
t Mercury op. r Pluto 0°30'
t Jupiter sq. r Moon 1°15'
t Neptune op. r Moon 1°43'
t Neptune op. r Pluto 3°03'
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:45 pm

With all of this… the question I’m asking you to consider is whether, in addition to the foreground transiting Moon we also should consider the angularity of NATAL Moon (which is much more angular than transiting Moon despite having the same longitude) and natal Pluto: r Moon on Asc 0°21' and r Pluto on Dsc 0°59'.

To repeat: This question distinguishes the issue of TRANSITS to foreground natal planets from the issue of the angularity of natal planets per se. In simple terms: Would this be a fortnight in which people would reasonably expect me to be more Plutonian?

Finally, if we ARE continuing to interpret foreground natal planets, does this also mean that natal ASPECTS (between the natal planets foreground in the SLR) are also considered? This would include new mundane aspects that only exist because of the orientation of the SLR. For example, in this Demi I get a partile natal Moon-Pluto mundane opposition (0°38'). In my current full SLR, my natal Jupiter-Uranus-Neptune is foreground.



I invite all of you to do a couple of things. (1) Discuss this topic as you wish. (2) Provide us with your favorite examples of lunar returns which make a strong statement, either pro or con, to the interpretation of foreground natal planets outside of the separate consideration of their aspects. (I will do the same. I'll go start looking now.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2772
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by SteveS » Wed Mar 27, 2019 3:37 pm

A very interesting topic and a most interesting DSLR you experienced Jim. The only new question your DSLR raised in my mind are your words:
This would include new mundane aspects that only exist because of the orientation of the SLR. For example, in this Demi I get a partile natal Moon-Pluto mundane opposition (0°38').
This very rare natal aspect (Mo-Pl) mundanely ON your DSLR Horizon is completely hidden except to expert Siderealists such as yourself, but it appears to me to be the key aspect in determining how you ‘Reacted’ to the transiting tight foreground planets of Mercury-Neptune? But only you know for sure since you lived this DSLR relative as a major part of your immediate psychological environment. Looking from the outside, it appears to me this Natal Mo-Pluto on your DSLR Horizon acted as a ‘stunning/shock to your psychological make-up relative to your living environment??

Regardless, I think your DSLR has discovered a new type of mundo Natal Aspect relative to the primary angles of a SLR/SSR. I have more to discuss but wanted to start with this post.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:08 pm

I've used these "discovered" natal mundane aspects in (say) my monthly forecasts from Trump's chart for quite a while. In particular, there were a couple of months (I'd have to go back to dig them out) where the SLR put his natal Venus-Saturn conjunction on Asc and his natal Neptune on IC so that Venus-Saturn square Neptune was a NEW ("discovered") set of natal aspects. During these months, reports were that he was morbidly depressed and brooding. One could take this as only "Venus-Saturn rising + Neptune angular," but seeing it as including Venus-Neptune and Saturn-Neptune aspects not otherwise in his natal is more exactly on target and let me put the right spin on his state of being.

As for my Demi-SLR, I wouldn't say I was shocked etc. Much more puzzled (clearly the Mercury-Neptune). It was also a critical day because the head of the firm was due in our office for a very important meeting and that always has everyone rolling out the best for him - it would not have done to have our network down and the office resources seriously impaired, so this was in the back of my mind. Mostly, though, I was walking through the paces of getting things checked out and back running.

The cause of the outage, btw, is not confirmed as interference by construction workers under the adjacent street working on a new subway line that will be arriving out our corner in a couple of years.

One side of natal Moon-Pluto that I definitely wasn't was lone-wolf, resisting authority and hierarchy, etc. since this was definitely a team effort with a great deal of cooperation from various skilled people (though I was the point person, being on-site). Of the most common transits of natal Moon-Pluto, the only ones that seem to fit are the "questioning, investigative" side, though that could easily be the Mercury (or Moon-Mercury) more obviously.

Of common interpretations of Moon-Pluto for events (which I usually think of as t Moon to t Pluto), the most fitting traits would be tension (but not quite "crisis"), being required to be present with no BS and just get on with the job, etc.

So... I don't know. Maybe. It;s what I would expect. Except I would have expected it, therefore, to be an event that drive me to be isolating, uncooperative, an outsider.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:14 pm

I'm looking back through my favorite events with a new eye on the return charts. So far (but it's only been a few), the natal planets foreground have been so tightly connected with transits to them that I haven't found them in isolation. For example, John Lennon's Demi-SLR for his murder has transiting Mars square natal Mars right on the angles (close ecliptically, closer mundanely) and a surprise: It looked like natal Sun was foreground (moderate orb) which only made sense because he is a celebrity (and his celebrity was pivotal to his murder), but on closer examination the closely setting Saturn was mundanely less than 3° from conjunct his Sun.

So, in his case, the foreground natal Sun wasn't there in isolation, it was there under close aspect by Saturn. At the moment, I haven't found an event where a natal planet angular in the SLR was alone a key to an event.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:36 pm

Donald Bradley (born May 16, 1925, 2:40 AM CST, Bruning, NE) returned home to his New York City apartment January 1, 1963, at 8:00 AM to find it burgled, including the theft of something irreplaceable of great practical value to him. His SLR set up the prior afternoon with the following angularities:

t Neptune on Dsc +0°03'
t Mercury on MC -1°25'
-- Mercury sq. Neptune 1°28' in munndo
t Venus n Dsc -7°40'

The Mercury-Neptune is easily descriptive, and Neptune 0°03' from Descendant surely shows the horrible pit in his stomach. (The weaker Venus probably shows that this involved something dear to him. In comparison, we can ignore it.) Other factors of interest in the chart include a partile Moon-Jupiter conjunction background opposed by Pluto and (more widely) Uranus - showing the loss, the removal of value from him. (Jupiter was 0°29' from Uranus/Pluto.)

How about the natal planets? They were there also. Here are their angularities i nthe SLR, adjusted for precession:

r Saturn on Dsc +1°18'
r Sun on Asc -4°20'
r Mercury on Asc +6°21'
r Venus on Asc -8°21'

What catches my eye most strongly about these is, of course, the very close natal Saturn. Natal Saturn so closely setting is, of course, descriptive; however, it isn't alone. It is conjoined by transiting Neptune, which makes it even better at describing the event. Ecliptically, Neptune is 4°36' from conjunct Saturn, but look at them mundanely: Natal Saturn is 1°18' past Dsc, transiting Neptune is 0°03' past, so they are 1°15' from conjunction - clearly the defining aspect of sorrowful the SLR. Even transiting Mercury is only 2°43' from square natal Saturn in mundo.

Natal Mercury catches my attention next-most. This was a Mercury event, both as thievery and because it was a data-related item that was stolen. But we don't have just angular natal Mercury: It is square transiting Mercury on MC (1°36'), both foreground, so that's activated as a transit.

What about that rising natal Sun? One place it is NOT appropriate is that he wasn't "in charge," wasn't "driving the car of his own destiny." It was something that happened TO him, not a matter of initiative. This, too, is recipient of a key transit: Transiting Mars squared the rising natal Sun 0°52'. It was a very personal sense of attack.

So, again, we line up a lot of natal planets and find that none of them speak on their own merely because they are angular. One could argue against natal Sun being angular; but the transit it received is quite clear.

This is... interesting.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

SteveS
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2772
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by SteveS » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:56 pm

Jim wrote:
So, again, we line up a lot of natal planets and find that none of them speak on their own merely because they are angular. One could argue against natal Sun being angular; but the transit it received is quite clear.
Exactly, you need a 0,90,180 transit to the angular natal factor! Whenever I am running out my 26 SLR’s including Demi’s with my new solar years, the first SLR aspect I look for is a partile transiting 0,90,180 to one of my natal planets, in the immediate foreground, (within 5 degrees) These are the type SLR’s through my personal experience with SLR’s I know will manifest an ‘outstanding incident,’ within the context, relative, to my living psychological environment.

Jim, maybe Av is correct with his usage of the word ‘dramatic’ and this is how your r. mundane Mo-Pl on DSLR horizon manifested. I mean, if I was responsible for IT in my work environment, and with the IT systems going down in an unexplained manner---that’s Pluto ‘dramatic,’ especially with an important figure head being in the office. And that tight foreground Me-Nep transit to the r. Mo-Pl in the DSLR throws a fog-bank over the ‘Reaction' of the r Mo-Pl angular 'dramatic' manifested incident.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:57 pm

John Kennedy, born May 29, 1917, 3:00 PM, Brookline, MA was murdered November 22, 1963, 12:30 PM, Dallas, TX. His final SLR occurred before he got to Texas (with a Jupiter-Pluto mundane opposition across the horizon for Washington, DC), which always looks to me like a coup)., but his SLR for the event location - Dallas - is one of the great classics.

The SLR itself has the following:

t Uranus on Dsc +0°05'
t Mars sq. Asc 0°29'
t Moon on Dsc -7°03'
t Pluto on WP 2°31'
-- Mars-Pluto sq. 2°11'
-- Mars-Uranus sq. 2°12'
-- -- Ma = Ur/Pl 0°00'
-- Moon-Pluto conj. 3°58'
-- Uranus-Pluto conj. 4°23'

The exactly angular Mars and Uranus, Mars squares to Uranus and Pluto, make this a classic. Moon isn't a problem but, at its wider angularity, doesn't seem as big a player.

How about natal planets?

r Moon on Dsc +0°43'
r Venus on IC +3°02'

Notice how much closer natal Moon is to the angle than transiting Moon. (They have the same longitude but very different latitude.) Surely the most important thing about natal Moon's angularity is that Moon (0°43' past Dsc) conjoins transiting Uranus (0°05' past Dsc) by only 0°38' mundanely! (Ecliptically, they aren't in range.)

But how about that natal Venus? Much of Kennedy's charisma was his natal 0°28' Moon-Venus square (plus his Taurus-Leo luminaries). but this Venus does not seem to be a player in the SLR. That is, having natal Venus angular doesn't describe the event directly. (It might describe it indirectly by showing he was loved, but we would primarily expect that to be transiting Venus - love coming in toward him.)

Unlike his Moon, which has a super-close mundane conjunction by transiting Uranus, his natal Venus' only claim to activity in this chart is that it is 3° off IC. Surely that's close enough for angularity to count, yet it seems left out of the event. It gets no transits. (Even his much less angular natal Sun is aspected by several transiting planets including the Mars-Uranus: That makes much sense.)

So here we have a foreground natal Venus not aspected by any transiting planets and not seeming to directly describe the event. This is the sort of SLR I think we need to confront and ask: Is the fact of natal Venus' angularity a real factor?
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:05 pm

SteveS wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:56 pm
Exactly, you need a 0,90,180 transit to the angular natal factor!
As, but it that's true then it says that the fact a natal planet is foreground does not operate as a factor on its own! If that's true, then that's at odds with half a century of how we've been doing things.

Steve, take a look at the Kennedy assassination SLR that I posted a minute after your post. It has a similar (but more "pure") example with natal Venus.

I don't know if what you wrote is true or not, but I'm looking at the possibility that it is. If it's true, it changes something fundamental in how to look at SLRs.
Jim, maybe Av is correct with his usage of the word ‘dramatic’ and this is how your r. mundane Mo-Pl on DSLR horizon manifested.
Or maybe - I'm just playing Devil's advocate so far - maybe the fact that my natal Moon and Pluto are angular don't matter at all BUT the fact that both Moon and Pluto are transited by Mercury and Pluto does matter (plus the Moon-Sun-Jupiter mundane T-square to show that everything would come out fine).

Interpreting Neptune to Moon, Neptune to Pluto, Mercury to Moon, and Mercury to Pluto is VERY descriptive (except, of course, that I think we're a little vague on what Neptune transit to means Pluto). OTOH the mere angularity of natal Pluto isn't obvious. We've historically said it means separation, isolation, retreat or withdrawal from the world, escape from demands and pressures, confrontational introspection, culmination of something, and decisions forced. That doesn't really describe the event, I think.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:21 pm

A policeman born July 5, 1936, 10:45 AM, Washington, DC was shot and killed in the line of duty May 2 1963, 1:00 AM, also Washington. His SLR just over two weeks earlier had the following obvious angular planets:

t Neptune sq. MC 0°01' (on Asc -5°54')
t Mars on MC +3°38'
t Mercury on Dsc -5°55'
t Saturn on IC -7°06'

The three malefics are quite clear. Notice that Mars squares Neptune 4°21', and Mercury opposes Neptune 0°01', Mercury squares Saturn 1°01', and Saturn squares Neptune 1°12' (all mundane). Mercury squares Mars 2°48' Altogether quite malefic, deceitful (gunman lying in wait), and criminogenic.

His one foreground natal planet was Uranus, 111' before Dsc. What does this mean? If he is acting rather than reacting, we would expect him to be seeking freedom or surprising others. It wouldn't mean that he was himself surprised - that would be transiting Uranus. It might mean that he was taking risks.

But it certainly means he is taking risks and perhaps acting less cautious than usual when we see that transiting Mars squares natal Uranus 0°08'. (Mercury and Neptune are involved, too, but not closely).

I would say that the very fact of natal Uranus being foreground might be relevant, though it isn't all as obvious as the transiting planets. However, as the recipient of a transit, it is quite important in describing the event.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:48 pm

The police officer's wife was born July 7, 1938, 11:34 AM, Washington, DC. When he was shot, she lost her husband. (She was pregnant at the time.) Both her SLR and her Demi-SLR are tragic. Both SLR and Demi-SLR, besides having a Moon-Saturn square on angles, has all three natal benefics angular! In the SLR, these are obviously present primarily as receiving transits. The Demi is a little less obvious, so it;s a better chart to investigate.

Here Demi-SLR has the following transiting factors angular:

t Moon on Dsc +0°42'
t Uranus on MC -1°24'
t Saturn sq. Asc 2°03' (on IC +9°08)
t Mercury on Dsc -5°41'
t Neptune on Asc +6°01'

Moon-Saturn sq. 0°40'
Moon-Uranus sq. 2°06' in mundo
Saturn-Neptune sq. 2°07' in mundo
Mercury-Saturn sq. 2°26'
Moon-Mercury conj. 3°05'
Mercury-Uranus sq. 4°17' in mundo

It all fits. It's a fine, descriptive instrument. (There are a couple of other close aspects worth mentioning that involve at least one non-foreground planet, like the fact that Mars squares that rising Neptune 1°38'). We have no problem understanding the loss, the shock, the sad news, the deep grieving.

However, her natal planets - taken by themselves - do not seem fitting at all. Here are their angularities.

r Moon on Asc -1°35'
r Jupiter on IC -2°30'
r Uranus on Dsc +2°42'
r Venus on MC +6°57'

Moon and three benefics! At the very least, we can be pretty sure that - taken by themselves - these do not describe her reaction to the events, including the 0°55' Moon-Jupiter mundane square. At the very least, we need to check out their aspects.

Moon is easy. It is ecliptically square Saturn 0°40', just like transiting Moon. Venus falls in this also: She has a < 2° natal Moon-Venus square and transiting Saturn was clubbing both of them, opposing her Venus by 0°51'. (In fact, this puts transiting Saturn 40' past square to her Moon and 51' short of opposite her Venus, or 0°06' from their midpoint: Sa = Mo/Ve).

Jupiter is also caught up in transits, though a little less obviously: Transiting Uranus on MC opposes natal Jupiter 0°56'.

Natal Uranus is widely squared by transiting Saturn, which isn't exactly convincing. It doesn't seem very connected to anything. I hardly object to any amount of Uranus in the chart for the shock she surely got on the news, though transiting Uranus is plenty strong by itself (and BTW is in mundane square to natal Moon 0°11'). With Uranus on Desc we might first think "surprise about her husband," but that would be a transiting Uranus thing (surprise coming in from without). Her loss of her husband wasn't a divorce - it doesn't fit Uranus setting in that way.

So I'm left thinking that I can take it or leave it. It doesn't add anything new but it's not offensive.

I am not inclined to credit her "discovered" natal Moon-Jupiter aspect ( 0°55' mundane square on the angles) at all. It doesn't describe the event at all.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:14 pm

Robert Kennedy was born November 20, 1925, 3:11 PM, Brookline, MA. He was murdered June 5, 1968, 0:15 AM, Los Angeles, CA.

His May 31 Demi-SLR isn't an example where angularities are as close as usual, and the one close angularity isn't the most relevant planet. Here are the transiting planets:

t Moon sq. MC 0°40'
t Saturn on MC +5°50'

Natal planets add something quite serious this time!

r Mars sq. Asc 1°38' (on IC -7°16')
r Moon on Dsc +7°57'

Transiting Saturn is in mundane square to natal Moon (2°07') but the one standout here is natal Mars. It closely squares Asc. While there is Saturn style harm clearly shown, the only violence is from a natal planet. This is unusual (I'd expect transiting Mars). Nonetheless, it is the first chart I've stumbled across in today's looking where a natal planet - angular on its own and without aspects - fits the theme of the event.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:28 pm

Mahatma Gandhi was born October 2, 1869, 7:08:11 AM LMT, Porbandar, India. He was murdered January 30, 1948, 5:12 PM, New Delhi, India. His SLR from a few days earlier is very complicated just in terms of the number of aspects.

Looking first at the transiting planets, we have, I think, a complete picture.

t Mars sq. Asc 1°06'
t Pluto on IC +2°06'
t Saturn on IC -3°57'
t Mercury on MC -5°45'
t Moon on IC -6°59'

Moon-Mercury op. 0°37'
Mercury-Saturn op. 0°46'
Moon-Saturn conj. 1°23'

Everything about it is quite good. At worst, the Mercury seems irrelevant, but it's not wrong.

Adding natal planets adds a lot of complication, generally not bad at all.

r Venus sq. MC 0°10'
r Pluto on Asc +0°54'
r Moon on IC -4°58'
r Saturn on Dsc -8°58'
r Mars sq. MC 1°48'
r Jupiter on Asc +9°03'

This is enormously complicated. It brings all the important structures of his natal chart forward so, in that sense alone, is at least interesting and probably correct. But, besides Moon, which has already been pivotal, it brings two malefics, two benefics, and Pluto, which is confusing data. Let's see if the secret is in the aspects - both natal aspects brought foreground and transiting aspects in the foreground.

t Mercury sq. r Jupiter 0°23'
t Mercury op. r Moon 0°37'
t Saturn conj. r Moon 0°46'
t Saturn sq. r Mars 0°47'
t Saturn sq. r Jupiter 1°00'
t Pluto sq. r Pluto 1°12' in mundo
t Saturn sq. r Pluto 1°31'
t Mercury sq. r Mars 2°09'
t Saturn sq. r Venus 2°45'
t Mercury sq. r Pluto 2°54'
t Mercury sq. r Saturn 3°13' in mundo
t Pluto sq. r Venus 3°35'
t Mercury sq. r Venus 4°07'

This is enormously complicated. We can simplify it: Some of these orbs represent weaker aspects. Furthermore, when you have a lot of aspects (natal chart or any other kind), the wider ones are less important - they don't tell the main story, at best they fill in details. So, to start simplifying, let's chop the list at about 3°. Other than the Mercury transit to his Jupiter (which is closest), there isn't a single kind aspect in the set. In an already bad SLR, these at least suggest there aren't any hidden reprieves. The Mercury at MC to his natal Moon-Jupiter (in hindsight) surely is the instant worldwide acclaim and praise and, looking in advance, I'd have probably thought it meant important diplomatic or other negotiation activities. (At the time of his murder, he was about to begin a routine daily multi-faith prayer meeting.)

The main point, though, is that (other than this Mercury transit to Jupiter) everything else is on target and descriptive. Transits within 1° are otherwise flawless, those within 2° are completely accurate, those up to 3° begin to add details and, for that matter, those within the pentade give no complaints (other than that obscure Mercury-Jupiter).

Conclusion from this chart: Yes, transits to natal planets in the SLR foreground are descriptive within the pentade, with the closest aspects defining the event best. No surprise here.

For natal aspects:

Moon-Jupiter sq. 0°14'
Mars-Pluto sq. 0°44'
Venus-Pluto op. 1°14'
Moon-Mars sq. 1°32'
Mars-Jupiter op. 1°46'
Venus-Mars conj. 1°58'
Moon-Pluto sq. 2°17'
Jupiter-Pluto conj. 2°31'
Moon-Venus sq. 3°30'
Venus-Jupiter 3°45'
Moon-Saturn conj. 4°58' in mundo

This is harder to assess. Let's break it down a bit.

I've historically taken these as accurate because they bring forth what defined Gandhi most. One could say that all of these aspects (these parts of his character) were what the assassin was targeting.

Most of these aspects are confrontational. If we cut this long list at a 3° orb, nearly all the objectionable aspects go away. The one remaining is his very close natal Moon-Jupiter square (0°14') which came to solunar angles hundreds of times in his life and likely contributed to his fame and effective connection to people (his success overall). In this case, though, it is the most afflicted set of natal planets: Transiting Saturn aspecting his natal Moon-Jupiter is the primary aspect of the lunar return: an attack or diminishment of his Moon-Jupiter is shown.

The other natal aspects within 3° are all accurate for a politically motivated, highly passionate murder. The one confusing thing to me is that these are his natal planets, and what I just described were elements of his environment. I think it more likely a correct reading that Gandhi's entire life inspired this kind of response.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Arena
Synetic Member
Synetic Member
Posts: 1062
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 12:24 pm

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Arena » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:00 am

So if this is a real consideration for the lunar returns, it is also a consideration for the solar returns.

SteveS
Irish
Irish
Posts: 2772
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 5:11 am
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by SteveS » Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:59 am

Jim wrote:
As, but it that's true then it says that the fact a natal planet is foreground does not operate as a factor on its own! If that's true, then that's at odds with half a century of how we've been doing things.
Jim, I understand where you are coming from about a natal planet foreground possibly not operating on its own. I think the natal planet foreground must make sense in the context of the angular transiting planets involved in the return chart. If there are no angular transiting planets in the return chart itself which does not catch our attention—then yes, I think a natal planet foreground may not offer much for an observable impact. But, I have proved to myself with my return charts your following words about foreground natal planets are true. You write:
Natal planets signify the ingrained basic life pattern of an individual. As they come to the foreground in a Solar Return, these intrinsic factors are emphasized. Natal planets conjunct Solunar angles essentially show how an individual is reacting personally to the foreground transiting planets which dominate the Solunar.

Even more so than prominent transiting bodies, it is very important to observe what aspects a foreground natal planet makes. These condition its operation. Configuration with other natal planets reveal any complex aspect system in the geniture---which is to say, any complex character structure in the individual’s psyche---that is being focused through the angular planet. Dynamic aspects transits it receives will indicate the type of dynamic interaction with the environment which will bring the foreground natal planet into play.
I know no other return chart’s writings which better describe how to interrupt foreground natal planets in a return chart than your above quoted words. Let me offer a recent SLR example in my life which absolutely proves to my mind your above quoted words are true.

I was born with a partile Sun-Uranus square. When I reached a certain learning stage in my life with Astrology, I came to realize this Sun-Uranus primarily manifests in my life with SELF (Sun) DISCOVERY (Uranus) embodying tremendous amounts of excitement. In Jan 2019, I experience a SLR featuring this:

SLR IC 02,40 Sag
t. Me 02,05
SLR ASC 02,51 Vir
r Sun 02,50 Vir
SLR MC 02,40 Gem
r Uranus 02,06 Gem

This is how this SLR manifested: I came into contact with a female acupuncturist who told me with Chinese Medicine she could help start reversing my moderate Kidney disease which if I lived longed enough was going to lead me to major health problems. Of course t Mercury in this SLR is symbolizing communication with an acupuncturist allowing me tremendous Self (Sun) Discovery (Uranus) that my progressing kidney disease could possibly be healed, and at least by the improving symptoms of my kidney disease, the Chinese Medicine is working. I will not know the extent of my Kidney improvements until a blood test in July. We see here with this SLR angular t Mercury partile 90 & 180 my angular r Sun and Uranus, absolutely proving your above quoted words!

But, what we don’t know Jim for sure: Is your DSLR bringing your mundo r Moon-Pluto on the DSLR Horizon a major part of your ‘REACTION’ to the angular t. Me-Nep in your DSLR??? Only you can attempt to answer this for us, because I guarantee even if someone else has experience this type of SLR, they would not have been able to recognized this unique type of mundo r aspect falling on their primary angles of a return chart—there are no known program tools which allow the astrologer to easily recognize these type rare r aspects falling on the angles of a Solunar.

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:45 am

The Gandhi example is so complicated, and so potentially helpful in the current question, I feel I have to devote another posting to sorting through it more concisely. (It may be, though, that it is too complicated to be a clear example for the current question.)

First: The SLR itself, without reference to the natal planets, accurately described the basic event. It shows a bad month with three malefics on angles in addition to Moon and Mercury, and with partile Moon-Mercury-Saturn aspects. Mars is most angular, Pluto next angular, etc. It's an accurate, straightforward chart.

Second: Natal planets seriously complicate the chart just because there is so much going on. I have defended this complication by saying the natal plants bring most of what is important about Gandhi to the fore. One can argue that this "what is Gandhi about Gandhi" is what was attacked. However, I recognize this is a bit vague of me.

Third: side from this "what is most Gandhi about Gandhi," the natal planets don't give a clear picture of the event. Two malefics, two benefics, Pluto and Moon, at best say that this could be a very big event that involves all sides of his character - again, nothing definitive to say. With his Venus and Pluto the only partile angularities (and already knowing it is a negative event with Moon-Saturn etc.), we might have thought it mostly a relationship crisis or loss of someone close to him. (One can make sense out of this kind of interpretation, but it doesn't really zoom us in on the event.) - In short, the foreground transiting planets alone describe the kind of event sharply and clearly; the foreground natal planets alone do not. In fact, they probably would have misled us. (To the extent that they are responses, this is understandable, though under the Inside-Outside theory they are as likely to be his actions that draw a transiting (Outside) response as the other way around.

Fourth: Transits to natal planets (where both transit and natal are foreground) are highly descriptive. (The closest of these, Mercury to natal Jupiter, might be the one exception, though it is swamped by all the rest and isn't entirely out of place.) Consistent with everything else we know about aspects, the closest aspects are most reliable and (especially since there are so many aspects) the widest ones are least impressive.

Fifth: Natal aspects falling in the foreground are also quite descriptive. Part of this, though, is secondary to the transits, e.g., Saturn's transit to natal Moon-Jupiter is more important than that natal Moon-Jupiter is foreground. Most everything else is descriptive (but strangely so: they seem to describe outside elements, not Gandhi's own immediate actions; they might be showing complexly the parts of him that were attacked).

On this last point, one also could say that the malignant transits to these natal aspects tell us what we need to know, and we don't need to rely on the fact that he had these natal aspects foreground. Therefore, after all, this might not be a good example for decisively sorting out the place of natal planets in the mix.



If I were to rely on only this one chart (which, of course, I don't), I likely would conclude that (1) the SLR planets themselves give the main thrust of the event and (2) transits to natal planets (where these fall in the foreground) give us all the rest that we need. From this chart only, I might further conclude that (3) the fact that natal planets are foreground are, at best, ambiguous and (4) it is unclear whether natal aspects coming to the foreground are intrinsically expressed, or merely act as targets for the transits.

I think this one SLR is one of the most important for us to struggle with and wrestle picking its nits.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 10:48 am

Arena wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:00 am
So if this is a real consideration for the lunar returns, it is also a consideration for the solar returns.
Exactly. But lunar returns are so much time-and-event concentrated, that I think we would get wild and uncertain results trying to prove this behavior from examination of solars. I'm concentrating on lunars to wring every drop of insight out of them and then, if it leads to new conclusions, we can test them in solar returns to see if they continue to step up.

And, of course, I don;t know yet whether this is a warranted shift in how we look at them. Before going on public record through a class (a new generation of my "public record" and public position on the subject), I'm tearing apart everything I think I know and looking at it from scratch. This thread is about the biggest set of questions that are not self-evident to me.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:15 am

SteveS wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:59 am
Jim, I understand where you are coming from about a natal planet foreground possibly not operating on its own. I think the natal planet foreground must make sense in the context of the angular transiting planets involved in the return chart.
This might be correct. I just want to emphasize that this runs against at least 50 years of Sidereal practice as defined by its leaders. The way Bradley looked at it at the end, the way Fagan presented things in his last years, the way Gary Duncan and I were programming the SLR interpretation programs in 1975 (that never saw light of day), and what I represented in my Interpreting Solar Returns book would not have put this restriction on the natal planets.

The basic elements of the method gave three main factors to interpret: (1) transiting planets foreground, (2) natal planets foreground, (3) hard aspects between / among all of those,

In other words, an SLR with natal Venus angular and no transiting planets angular was as likely to produce a Venus month as the opposite, except that if natal Venus were the only thing angular it would mean one would express and seek love, stir social grace, etc., whereas if only transiting Venus were angular it would mean that others express love to the person and, in general, "the party comes to me."

Possibly you saw this way ahead of the rest of us (in which case, thanks for carrying the torch :) ). Either way, I need to look at it freshly now The traditional (seeming to work) theory for my entire (almost) half century in the subject has been that having a natal Jupiter-Neptune aspect foreground (and, for sake of argument, no transiting planets) is as important and vivid as having a transiting Jupiter-Neptune aspect foreground (and, for sake of argument, no natal planet).
If there are no angular transiting planets in the return chart itself which does not catch our attention—then yes, I think a natal planet foreground may not offer much for an observable impact.
That would be a novel theory. ("Novel" in the sense of "new" within the context of the literature of Sidereal astrology.) It might be quite correct but, in the formal record of our science it is a fringe perspective.

Of course, there is a perspective difference to weigh in. You are primarily interested in events. I don't care whether there is an event or not. What I expect of a Lunar Return is that it will accurately describe my fundamental experience of a two-to-four-week period. This can be outward events, psychological shifts, fantasy patterns, ways of reframing and examining events around me, or any other kind of experience. I don't draw hard boundaries between things that seem to happen inside what I call "me," and things that seem to happen outside what I call "me."

My current SLR is a great example. It has transiting Venus and Uranus exactly on its angles in mundane square. There are several other components, but this is the obvious main thing. A standard expectation for the month might be: "Giving free play to varied, unusual pleasure and social desires. Popularity, excitement, emotional thrills, emotional renewal. Unique erotic or pleasure experiences, particularly if taboo or against social convention: Opportunistic pleasures, exploring offbeat impulses, embracing temptations normally resisted. Changing choice of companions, preferring a different social scene. Refreshed appearance, renewed wardrobe, dolling up." Despite the fact that this is two transiting planets quite close to the angles, it seems the effect of this is primarily psychological, i.e., people on the "outside" might not think anything is happening at all. The main effect seems to be that, as Marion and I discuss the approaching wedding, conversation has branched into particular tributaries that have us revisiting what's magical about our relationship and, in a sense, "making it new again." I don't even know if this matches her perception - it may just be my psychological framework. (Uranus close transits to natal planets aren't even all that big a deal, except Uranus square my Jupiter-Uranus might be the SLR impetus for this current thread and its inquiry :) . But is that an inside event or an outside event?)
But, I have proved to myself with my return charts your following words about foreground natal planets are true. You write:
Natal planets signify the ingrained basic life pattern of an individual. As they come to the foreground in a Solar Return, these intrinsic factors are emphasized. Natal planets conjunct Solunar angles essentially show how an individual is reacting personally to the foreground transiting planets which dominate the Solunar.
Here is my current challenge to that statement of mine: Is that true merely of their angularity, or only when they have a transiting aspect? We easily could mistake the latter for the former.

Gandhi's SLR is a great example of, "Well, to the extent the natal planets appear important, maybe they are only important to the extent they are transited." Or JFK's final SLR raises the question, "Gosh, with everything going on, is his angular natal Venus actually doing anything in the chart? It is the only natal factor not involved in transits and the only natal factor that seems not to apply vividly to the event."

We easily could have confused these things and I'm asking questions to sort through whether, in fact, we have confused these things.
Even more so than prominent transiting bodies, it is very important to observe what aspects a foreground natal planet makes. These condition its operation. Configuration with other natal planets reveal any complex aspect system in the geniture---which is to say, any complex character structure in the individual’s psyche---that is being focused through the angular planet. Dynamic aspects transits it receives will indicate the type of dynamic interaction with the environment which will bring the foreground natal planet into play.
Yes. But let me break it down to one single question: Would the exact angularity of a natal planet mean anything in the SLR if it received NO ASPECTS from any other foreground planet? If the only thing about it was its angularity?

This is the main question about which I no longer have any certainty. (Thanks, you just helped me clarify which SLRs I should be looking at most.)
Let me offer a recent SLR example in my life which absolutely proves to my mind your above quoted words are true.

I was born with a partile Sun-Uranus square. When I reached a certain learning stage in my life with Astrology, I came to realize this Sun-Uranus primarily manifests in my life with SELF (Sun) DISCOVERY (Uranus) embodying tremendous amounts of excitement. In Jan 2019, I experience a SLR featuring this:

SLR IC 02,40 Sag
t. Me 02,05
SLR ASC 02,51 Vir
r Sun 02,50 Vir
SLR MC 02,40 Gem
r Uranus 02,06 Gem
Ah, but there is a transiting planet involved! (This is a great example.) Here is what I am trying to distinguish:

(A) What you describe would (it seems to me) be fully and completely described by two factors: (1) Transiting Mercury is exactly angular in the SLR. (2) Transiting Mercury makes exact foreground transits to natal Sun-Uranus. - No question that the transit of Mercury to natal Sun-Uranus is important. However...

(B) Does this mean that natal Sun-Uranus on an angle BY ITSELF is significant?

Is it the foreground transit that marks the event fully, or does your Sun-Uranus angular have a meaning of its own?

When you have your natal Sun-Uranus angular in a Lunar Return and no transiting aspects to it within 3-5°, do you have the same kind of Sun-Uranus experience? Or does a natal planet being foreground in the SLR contribute nothing at all other than make it more open to transit aspects?
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:12 pm

Charles Whitman was born June 24, 1941, 1:50 AM, Lake Worth, FL. On August 1, 1966, beginning at 11:48 AM, from a tower on a college campus in Austin, TX (specifically, 30N17, 97W44), he killed 14 people in America's first mass shooting on a college campus. He was mentally unbalanced, a former psychiatric patient of the university's health center, who killed his wife and mother a few hours before his shooting spree on the campus. In the end, he was killed by police.

His SLR and Demi-SLR are both remarkable charts. I think I may have to examine both of them for this study. I don't know (as I write this) whether either will help sort out the natl planet questions I'm asking.

His SLR (July 15) describes the event quite well on its own, without any help.

t Mars on IC -0°56'
t Saturn on Asc +1°05'
t Pluto on Dsc -1°19' (conj. non-angular Uranus 0°19')

t Mars-Pluto sq. 0°23' in mundo
t Mars-Saturn sq. 2°01' in mundo
t Saturn-Pluto op. 2°24' in mundo

The picture of mounting stress, pressure, dulled humanity, and violence is clear. What happens when we add natal planets?

r Sun on IC +0°19'
r Mars on Asc +2°52'
r Neptune on Dsc +4°28'
r Moon on IC +9°26'

r Mars-Neptune op. 0°17'
r Moon-Mars sq. 1°06'
r Moon-Neptune sq. 1°23'
r Sun-Mars sq. 2°33' in mundo
r Sun-Neptune sq. 4°09' in mundo

This is really gratifying! His most unstable natal aspect, a Moon-Mars-Neptune T-square, enters the foreground zone. This surely happened hundreds of times earlier in his life, but it's at least gratifying that it's here now. Furthermore, natal Sun becomes implicated mundanely, the strongest presence being the acquisition (or "discovery") of a natal Sun-Mars square.

This. alone, says natal planets foreground are important. We have yet to rule out, though, how much these were activated by transits. Let's tally the transits:

t Mars conj. r Sun 0°43'
t Saturn sq. r Sun 0°46' in mundo
t Pluto sq. r Sun 0°38' in mundo
t Saturn conj. r Mars 1°47' in mundo
t Mars sq. r Mars 1°56' in mundo
t Saturn sq. r Moon 2°56'
t Saturn op. r Neptune 3°23' in mundo
t Saturn sq r Mars 4°02'
t Pluto conj. r Mars 4°11' in mundo
t Saturn sq. r Neptune 4°19'

Immediately we see that the closest transit is Mars' conjunction with natal Sun, and that the natal Moon-Mars-Neptune is triggered by transiting Saturn. This at least distinguishes this month from all the other times in his life that his natal Moon-Mars-Neptune was foreground. In fact, Saturn's mundane square to the exactly angular natal Sun is as close as Mars' ecliptical conjunction to Sun, a super-powerful club on his Sun. (And Pluto is nearly as close.) The entire, ugly transiting Mars-Saturn-Pluto T-square is atop his exactly angular natal Sun. It goes on and on: The mundoscope view of the transits to natal planets is stunning.

Where I'm left with this chart is that there is hardly anything objectionable about the natal planets that are foreground - on first impression, his natal aspects and their angularity is quite important - but also, they weren't necessary. Were we only to interpret the foreground transiting planets and their transits to each other and to foreground natal planets, we'd have one of the best SLRs we've ever seen.

This chart, therefore, doesn't address the question being posed, but I leave it as a good example and to link up with the next one.

Notice, though, that as important as his natal Sun is in this chart, the event is not described alone by his natal Sun being angular. It doesn't seem to add anything by itself. It's aspects are quite another thing!
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:40 pm

Whitman's Demi-SLR occurred July 28 and has the following foreground transiting planets:

t Mars on Dsc -1°14'
t Venus on Dsc +2°27'
t Jupiter on Dsc -6°12'

t Venus-Mars conj. 3°12'
t Mars-Jupiter conj. 4°58' in mundo

Already we see that this chart is not as good as the full lunar. There is no problem with the angular Venus or its aspect - Venus-Mars aspects are the most common in murderers' charts, and Whitman is famous for having believed he was killing his wife and mother as acts of love and gentleness. But the (somewhat wider) foreground Jupiter still has to be explained. (There is also a Moon-Saturn aspect in both of these charts, but I'm currently concentrating on foreground planets.)

Let's add the natal planets:

r Mercury on Dsc -1°45'
r Sun on Dsc +7°48'
r Venus on Dsc -8°39'

By themselves, these don't add anything. OK, the Mercury is closest and he had to show skill and planning, but this wouldn't have helped us pin the event. I will say that the natal planets purely by being foreground didn't add anything to this chart. Let's check the transits:

t Venus conj. r Mars 1°13'
t Jupiter conj. r Venus 1°57'
t Jupiter conj. r Mercury 3°02'
t Mars conj. r Mercury 3°21'
t Venus conj. r Mercury 4°12'

These are not descriptive of the main event either. They do fine with the subplot, of how he treated and regarded his wife and mother, but (other than the somewhat wide-ish Mars transit to his Mercury) they do not describe the main event.

I'm inclined to think this is merely a lesser chart than the full SLR in this case. They are compatible, but this isn't the leader. The SLR itself was the best expression of the event. The natal planets added nothing at all merely from their angularity, and their transits were deflecting, misleading. One might easily (from this Demi alone) thought husband and wife were taking a nice, hot vacation together.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:04 pm

Harvey Milk was born May 22, 1930, 1:30 AM, Woodmere, NY. He was shot and killed November 27, 1978, 11:15 AM, San Francisco, CA three days after his Demi-SLR, which is the more striking (and, seemingly, directly applicable) return chart.

Transiting planets angular include three malefics plus Moon and Mercury:

t Mercury sq. Asc 0°58' (on IC -2°04')
t Neptune on IC +1°48'
t Moon sq. MC 1°05' (on Asc +2°05')
t Mars on IC +3°09'
t Saturn on Asc +7°36'

t Moon-Neptune sq. 0°18' in mundo
t Moon-Mars sq. 1°09' in mundo
t Mars-Neptune conj. 1°10'
t Mars-Saturn sq. 3°11'
t Moon-Mercury sq. 3°16'
t Mercury-Neptune conj. 3°52' in mundo
t Saturn-Neptune sq. 4°20'

This is phenomenal, one of the classics of late 20th century! It needs no comment. Three malefics plus Moon and Mercury fit, and almost everything is tied into almost everything else by aspect, with Moon-Mars-Neptune leading.

Let's add the foreground natal planets:

r Moon on Dsc +3°01'
r Jupiter on MC -3°35'
r Venus on MC -8°05'

r Moon-Jupiter sq. 4°22'
r Venus-Jupiter conj. 4°33'

May we agree at once that these planets do not describe the event at all? They do describe (or, if they were transiting planets, would describe) the honoring and outpouring of affection after the murder - but that's what we expect from natal planets. Perhaps the strong natal Moon shows him being on the victim side, i.e., more the receiving end than the actor (though transiting Moon already says that). In general, these three planets do not describe getting murdered.

Again, the impression is that the very act of angularity does not, by itself, describe the event. Let's check the transits:

t Mars sq r Moon 0°08' in mundo
t Neptune sq. r Moon 0°46'
t Mercury op. r Jupiter 1°06'
t Mercury sq. r Moon 3°16'
t Saturn sq. r Jupiter 4°01' in mundo

These are all fine. (Mercury to Jupiter is on-target for the honoring afterwards.) Notice, though, that most of these involve Moon, so they were already present in the SLR as a stand-alone chart, but Mars to natal Moon is closer than Mars to transiting Moon.

Natal Venus isn't in the transited mix at all and, in fact, is the least appropriate planet for the event. Again, this looks to me like the angular natal planet is irrelevant unless it receives a transit.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:35 pm

Franklin D. Roosevelt was born January 30, 1882, 8:46 PM LMT, Hydge Park, NY. He died of a brain aneurysm April 12, 1945, 3:35 PM, Warm Springs, GA. His Demi-SLR occurred eight days earlier with the following angular planets:

t Uranus on WP 0°47'
t Mars on IC 1°30'

t Mars-Uranus sq. 1°33'

There it is in a nutshell! That's the brain aneurysm. We can add Moon opposite Saturn and square Neptune a little over 2° but, for the present study, that's not even important besides emphasizing that this Demi-SLR is a solid chart for the event.

Adding natal planets:

r Mercury sq. Asc 0°01' (on IC +9°01')
r Pluto on Dsc +5°01'

r Mercury-Pluto sq. 0°10'

That radical Mercury-Pluto square (natally in the immediate background) was a ticking time-bomb his whole life for something like a brain aneurysm. It's extremely important here because it doesn't receive any transits! The natal Mercury-Pluto square appears to be operative on its own.

OTOH, the natal Mercury and Pluto alone, based just on their angularity, do not add much. With Mars-Uranus showing the bursting blood vessel, Mercury alone might point to the brain and Pluto is a reasonable expression of death were it not so wide from the angle. Neither impresses me. But the exact, symbolically accurate Mercury-Pluto itself on the angles impresses me as an aspect.

This is an instructive chart!
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:51 pm

Abraham Lincoln was born February 12, 1809, 6:54 am LMT (daybreak), Hodgesville, KY. He died April 15, 1865, 7:22 AM, Washington, DC after being shot the night before, only a few days after ending the Civil War.

Lincoln's Demi-SLR seems more about ending the war victoriously. Let's focus, for present purposes, on his March 22 SLR. Here are the transiting planet angularities:

t Pluto on Asc +0°13'
t Venus on EP 2°19'

It's basic, but it covers it. Pluto (which also squared MC exactly) was exactly rising. Again, we have a background Moon-Saturn square (we've seen a lot of those with these death charts), but that's not a point under immediate discussion.

Do the natals add anything? Oh, yes they do!

r Saturn on Dsc -1°49'
r Uranus sq. MC 0°58'
r Neptune on Dsc -3°57'

r Saturn-Neptune conj. 2°08' in mundo

This is quite expressive, bringing forth his most dour (and deposing) aspect. (Dare we say it? "Bad theater"! :)) However, these planets aren't sitting there without transits. I don't think they get to take credit all on their own. Notice the transits!

t Pluto op. r Uranus 1°24'
t Pluto op. r Saturn 2°02' in mundo

So, while the angular natal planets are in no sense objectionable, it is their aspects that bring things alive. Perhaps the natal aspects, certainly the transiting aspects.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:33 pm

Diana, Princess of Wales, was born July 1, 1961, 7:45 PM BST, in Sandringham, England. She died in an automobile accident August 31, 1997, 0:23 AM, Paris.

In her August 18 SLR, the following transiting planets are angular (in addition to the middleground 0°00' Moon-Sun opposition):

t Mars on Asc -1°21'
t Jupiter on IC -5°57'
t Uranus on IC +5°15'

t Mars-Uranus sq. 3°24'
t Mars-Jupiter sq. 4°36' in mundo

This is excellent! Mars owns the chart. It's foreground square to Uranus shows the accident. It's mundane square to Jupiter marks the extreme party environment of the car at the time of crash (and also plays off her aristocracy vs. irreverence).

What does the natal bring:

r Jupiter on IC +5°38'
r Neptune on Asc -5°55'

Nothing is objectionable about this depiction of a drunk royal. The angularities aren't close, it isn't a huge effect either way, it brings themes that are fine enough without (here is the point) actually identifying the event. Are we helped by transits?

t Jupiter sq. r Neptune 0°02' in mundo
t Uranus conj. r Jupiter 0°20'
t Mars sq. r Jupiter 3°04'
t Uranus sq. r Neptune 3°13'

Whereas natal Jupiter and Neptune themes (alone) fit in a vague way, the transits to these planets fit much better when awakened by this transits, especially the Mars-Uranus transits to Jupiter.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Marduk
Posts: 9268
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

Re: Reconsidering SLR Technique

Post by Jim Eshelman » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:46 pm

Diana married Prince Charles in a ceremony that climaxed July 29, 1981, 11;28 AM BST, 51N31, 0W06. Here July 19 SLR is splendid!

t Venus on MC -0°55'
t Moon on IC -2°44'
t Uranus on WP 2°09'

t Moon-Uranus sq. 0°50'
t Moon-Venus op. 1°22'
t Venus-Uranus sq. 2°12'

Splendid! This alone is sufficient to tell the story. Adding natal foreground planets:

r Uranus on MC -0°09'
r Neptune on Asc +1°30'
r Moon on IC -1°47'
r Venus sq. MC 0°57'

r Moon-Venus sq. 0°38'
r Venus-Uranus sq. 1°04'
r Uranus-Neptune sq. 1°39' in mundo
r Moon-Uranus sq. 1°42'
r Moon-Neptune sq. 3°17' in mundo

These are spectacular by themselves. They describe the event as well as the transiting planets (and repeat the Moon-Venus-Uranus T-square), and perhaps more personally. However, do they describe it on their own or specifically within the context of transits? Let's see what the transiting aspects add. Notice especially the interlocking of the two Moon-Venus-Uranus T-squares.

t Venus conj. r Uranus 0°20'
t Venus sq. r Neptune 0°35' in mundo
t Venus sq. r Venus 0°44'
t Uranus sq. r Moon 0°51'
t Venus op. r Moon 0°52' in mundo
t Uranus op. r Venus 1°29'
t Uranus sq. r Uranus 2°33'

Not one of those magnificent natal planets is foreground in isolation. They're all part of the transit pattern.

(It's very hard finding examples with a closely foreground natal planet that is not part of a transit aspect pattern; nonetheless, it's very interesting trying to do that.)
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests