Are Non-precessed Return Charts Reliable?

[Guest guest]

Hello, everyone.

 

There is a new movement within tropical astrology which asserts that Solar

and Lunar Return charts that aren't precession-corrected can be useful

predicting tools.

 

I oppose this idea for the following reasons:

 

1) Prior to Cyril Fagan's rediscovery of the Sidereal Zodiac, Tropical

astrologers paid little or no attention to Solar and Lunar Returns.

 

As Siderealist Jim Eshelman wrote in _Interpreting Solar Returns_,

 

" Such brilliant astrologers in their times as Alan Leo, Elbert Benjamin and

Charles Carter either dismissed Solar Returns entirely, or gave them passing,

superficial attention in the midst of other techniques. Dr. Zipporah Dobyns

once told me that, after monitoring her own Solar Returns for a few years,

she was unable to credit them with any reliability. This is typical of the

opinions of many objective, thinking astrologers who have examined these

charts computed the commonly accepted way. "

 

The key words in the last sentence are " objective " and " thinking. "

 

Robert Hand, who is a Tropicalist, noted in _Planets in Transit_,

 

" . . . I recognize that it is possible to treat the tropical zodiac as if it

were moving. In other words, one should treat the natal positions of the

planets as if they were fixed stars. . . many astrologers agree that at the

very least, determining the positions of the natal chart corrected for

precession helps significantly in timing events. "

 

2) I have never seen a non-precessed Return chart that had the accuracy of a

precessed Return chart, and not because I didn't look. In Return charts of

friends, " case studies " found in astrology books, and my own, where the

non-precessed chart merely hints at best -- if it does anything at all -- the

precessed chart comes right out and says it.

 

3) For non-precessed charts to suddenly become reliable, when they were not

reliable before, there would have to be either a) a new way of looking at

them, or b) a change in the laws of the universe. I've seen no evidence of

the first, and the second simply can't be true. (If it could, gravity could

also cease to exist.)

 

Suppose we were alchemists instead of astrologers. For centuries, we've been

trying to convert lead into gold, but with no success whatsoever. Then, a

little over fifty years ago, one lone man, trying to figure out why, stumbles

upon a book about kundalini the chakras, and sees that lead is associated

with the lowest chakra (the one at the base of the spine), while gold is

associated with the heart chakra.

 

" Aha! " he says. " Alchemy isn't about turning physical lead into physical

gold after all. It's really about kundalini, but in a very symbolic form! "

So he and some other alchemists start doing kundalini exercises, and, unlike

those still trying to turn physical lead into physical gold, start getting

results. Additionally, they now have a form of alchemy that doesn't

contradict the laws of physics or chemistry, giving alchemy a shot of

becoming a real science.

 

Naturally, they write about these results, but, for some unknown reason,

these books don't stay in print, despite selling well. Newer books on

alchemy come out, saying " Using kundalini in alchemy is a matter of opinion, "

and, even worse, some old-school alchemists come out and say, " I've been

turning physical lead into physical gold for over twenty years, and anyone

who says I can't is a closed-minded bully. "

 

And they expect you to take their word for it, too.

 

Well, if you were one of the Kundalini alchemists -- to put it mildly --

you'd be very skeptical about such claims.

 

I invite you all to share your opinions on this with me.

 

Later,

Kevin/Baraka