My reasons for going with tropical rasis over sidereal rasis is simply everything. Every technique that I have tried, wether predictive, psychological, character, medical or Tajika all worked better tropically. Not a single technique tested out more accurate with the sidereal zodiac, no matter the ayanamsa being used.
Let's see if I can keep this post short enough so others will read it! So you've said that every technique you tested worked better in the tropical. If you tested 25 techniques, would it be asking too much for you to list those techniques? I'm having a little trouble understanding without specifics. There is a lot of truth in what you wrote in your post, and also a lot of strongly felt conviction. So, replying to some thoughts in your post:
[Ernst:]...The reason being that most techniques in circulation are just not that accurate. This may come as shocking, but the majority of astrological techniques in circulation are only 40% accurate!
[Therese:] Oh, I'd be surprised if they were even 40 percent accurate. With psychological astrology we never know if anything is accurate. Prediction wise, it may well be less than 40 percent. Chance is 50 percent, so 40 percent is below chance level.
[Ernst:] It is only through intuition that astrologers are able to make any progress with the majority of their techniques.
[Therese:] No argument there. I agree. (There may be a few exceptions among astrologers.)
[Ernst:] But try the same technique the same way on lots of charts and 90% of techiniques will be shown as not scientific nor statistically accurate.
[Therese:] Right. Again, no argument. (I've copied your entire post in my word processor in order to reply, but since it's on the forum, I'm leaving out parts in my reply. But I appreciate you detailed explanation.)
[Ernst:] The kids just started to sleep after three years of keeping us up all night long and we were just exhausted, did not want to go into that research...]
[Therese:] Ah, yes! I've been through it all!
[Ernst:] Another problem with testing for the correct zodiac is that the basics of astrology are in dissaray. The details of the Rasis and Planets are not clearly defined or poorly translated and so most astrologers have a lot of grey areas in these basic fundamentals.
[Therese:] Yes, I agree with you there. I've been saying for years that it's going to be up to us moderns to find the "true" astrology again.
[Ernst:] So to test zodiacs, everything has to have a completely logical basis. As Sri Yuktesvar says, if it is not logical, it is not true.
[Therese:] Speaking of Sri Yukteswar, I've almost memorized his chapter on astrology in AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI. But, it's almost one hundred percent sure that he used the sidereal zodiac in his predictions since that was the zodiac used in India. (But that's another topic. I'm just mentioning this as an aside.)
[Ernst:] In respect to an idea that there are two zodiacs with different meanings and that tropical cancer is similiar to sidereal leo, is that logical? Maybe today, but in 10,000 years when Tropical Cancer is Sidereal Capricorn all logic is lost. So now sidereal Cap and not sidreal leo is like tropical cancer?
[Therese:] It would seem logical that there's really only one astrological zodiac, wouldn't it?
[Ernst:] A lot of the reason that the sidereal zodiac is attractive to people is that idea that India and other such old cultures are perfect in their knowledge...
[Therese:] That doesn't apply in my case because today's astrology evolved in the dark ages, and it's up to us to figure it all out. We have no access at this time to "perfect knowledge." The Hellenistic texts that have recently been translated are much more clear and logical than some of India's texts.
[Ernst:] Everyone I have sat down with and talked about their specific reasons for thinking sidereal is more accurate have left agreeing that tropical is more accurate. Please give me an example of a chart that causes you to think that sidereal is spelling out the answer.
Ernst, isn't the proof with you? I still don't know all the techniques you tested, how they were tested, or whose charts were used. It all still seems vague to me because there are no specifics to work with. It would greatly help if you'd give a few example charts (birth data) and a few of the techniques that you tested that showed the tropical working well. Then I could check a few of my own charts with the same techniques. (I could do this on the forum.)
Any good scientist has to show his work so others can study it and replicate his experiments. So shall we follow the scientific model? The zodiac is really a critical issue that should be clearly aired and discussed. I'd like to know how to replicate some of your experiments.
Or if you like, I could give you birth data, and you could demonstrate how the tropical works. At this time I'm not arguing *for* a zodiac. I just need to have some specifics to work with.