Precessed vs. non-precessed SR

In your personal experience, which of the two is more accurate in predicting the events for year? I do understand that other things must be factored in, i.e. transits, progressions, etc., in order to predict trends.

Your thoughts?

I have always used non-precessed SR charts, and, although my approach to SR delineation is quite radical, I have been very satisfied with the results I have obtained using the non-precessed SR...

scorpika said:

In your personal experience, which of the two is more accurate in predicting the events for year? I do understand that other things must be factored in, i.e. transits, progressions, etc., in order to predict trends.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Sidereal astrology has no need to precess solar return chart

...because the sidereal matrix (basic sidereal chart) already includes precession (albeit according to varying criteria, the 2 predominant-and pretty close-precessional estimations being those of Lahiri and the of Fagan-Bradley, which are referred to as "ayanamsa")...

So sideral chart, whole signs house system, and Lord of the Year profection?

No-for me I follow the tropical zodiac in my delineations (not the sidereal) So for ME its non-precessed tropical SR, profection, in whole sign house format...

I use non-precessed.

For my own personal chart -- I'm 71 now -- this means a full degree's difference, or around a day in timing of the SR -- I find the same old natal position does just fine.

Using a precessed Sun, the assumption is that the imprinted point is sidereal -- it lies somewhere out there among the stars.

When a non-precessed chart is cast, the assumption is that the imprinted point is related to the equinoctial point.

Best way is to answer your own question by casting both types of chart for a sampling of significant years in the life and observing which chart best describes actual events, the same process you would use to test birthplace against relocated charts.

greybeard said:

I use non-precessed.Best way is to answer your own question by casting both types of chart for a sampling of significant years in the life and observing which chart best describes actual events, the same process you would use to test birthplace against relocated charts.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I'm attempting to do.

scorpika said:

So sideral chart, whole signs house system, and Lord of the Year profection?

Click to expand...

Opinions vary

For example:

Martin Gansten, a well known and respected astrologer with an excellent reputation says:

QUOTE

'....My personal preference is for a fixed or sidereal zodiac,
which (like Giuntini) I find both more theoretically valid and more useful in practice.
If employing such an ‘Indian’ zodiac with astrological techniques known today as ‘western’ seems strangely eclectic or untraditional to some,
it would not have appeared so in Baghdad or Saurashtra a millennium ago,
nor in Alexandria a millennium before that.... ' http://www.martingansten.com/ts.php

I spent some time not so long ago casting tropical non-precession-corrected solar & lunar returns and comparing them to precession-corrected solar and lunar returns. I focused primarily on the aspects the planets made with each other in the return charts, and on the aspects the return planets made to my natal chart. For most charts, the results seemed inconclusive until I was involved in a traffic accident and sustained a pretty serious injury that landed me in the hospital and on the operating table for the first time in my life in my early 50s. The tropical non-precession-corrected solar return and lunar returns for that period show "accident" much more clearly than the non-precessed positions.

So, I go with not "precession-correcting" solar or lunar returns.

Drsendero

Opinions do vary, indeed.

Thanks for the link!

JUPITERASC said:

Opinions vary

For example:

Martin Gansten, a well known and respected astrologer with an excellent reputation says:

QUOTE

'....My personal preference is for a fixed or sidereal zodiac,
which (like Giuntini) I find both more theoretically valid and more useful in practice.
If employing such an ‘Indian’ zodiac with astrological techniques known today as ‘western’ seems strangely eclectic or untraditional to some,
it would not have appeared so in Baghdad or Saurashtra a millennium ago,
nor in Alexandria a millennium before that.... ' http://www.martingansten.com/ts.php

Click to expand...

I'm finding this an interesting discussion, as I've used precession-corrected Solar and Lunar Returns for over a decade. An eminent astrologer got a group of us to check out Princess Diana's death using both kinds of charts - non-precessed and precessed. The Precessed Solar and Lunar Returns gave much clearer results (in hindsight of course, but hey. . . ) than the "vanilla plain" ones.
So I'm enjoying reading others' comments here, hearing their points of view.
Thanks to all contributors.
Justine