Why Neptune, Uranus and Pluto are not taken into consideration by Classical Indian Astrology

Indian astrology primarily takes into account nine celestial entities that are in motion in regular orbits against the background of fixed stars lining the zodiac; these entities may be visible from Earth or can be notional in nature. These nine entities are together called the Navagrahas or the nine Grahas. Five of these nine grahas are planets as defined by the modern science of Astronomy namely the planets Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury. The rest of the four astronomical entities which complete the list of nine Navagrahas, are the star Sun, the Earth’s Moon and the two points of intersection of the Moon’s precessionary path with the ecliptic. These two intersection points are named Rahu and Ketu. In the absence of the appropriate understanding of the term Graha, some scholars tend to equate a planet to a graha. In fact the English word Planet is erroneously taken to mean Graha in Hindi or Sanskrit. The two words are not synonymous.

The meaning of the word planet has been given in the Oxford dictionary as: A celestial body moving in an elliptical orbit around a star. When this refers to our own solar system it refers to the celestial body orbiting the Sun. Thus as per this definition the celestial bodies such as the Earth, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are planets. The astronomical definition of planets as given by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in August 2006 states the following three conditions for a celestial body to qualify as a planet:

1. The celestial body should be in an orbit around the Sun;

2. The celestial body should have sufficient mass, for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces, so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly spherical) shape;

3. The celestial body has cleared its neighborhood around its orbit.

As per the IAU definition only eight celestial bodies are qualified to be called planets viz. Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus and Earth. The celestial body named Pluto did not pass the test of prerequisites and was therefore dropped from the list of planets

Western astrologers whose astrological systems are based purely on the astronomical considerations became obliged to include the planets Neptune and Uranus in their astrological matrix, even though these two planets were not a part of the classical western astrological premise. Some Indian astrologers too, have copied their western counterparts and followed suit, however the majority of Indian astrologers still do not consider Neptune and Uranus in their astrological matrix and rightly so, as shall be explained here-in-after:-

The western astrologers have been influenced by the understanding, that modern science is bringing to light, aspects of the universe hitherto unknown by humanity, which in turn is a fallout of the belief that the present generation is better informed and therefore wiser than our ancestors. Even a surface level research and investigation into the Rig- Veda, the Surya Sidhanta and other ancient Indian scientific literature will totally demolish this belief.  That the trans-Saturnian planets existed was known to Indian astronomers becomes evident from the references in some of the Indian epics, one of which is the Mahabharata. The complex and intricate mathematical calculations as well as the accuracy of the astronomical observations made and reported more than 5000 years ago, without the aid of sophisticated telescopes and computers, have been given with almost negligible variances in the observed data contained in the ancient Indian texts.

Indian astrology does not look upon the astronomical phenomena as the cause for the effects on life, as it happens on Earth, which is the understanding within western astrology. Instead, selected astronomical phenomena (grahas) are taken by the Indian astrological system, only to be indicative and not causative, for all the mundane and individual experiences on Earth.

Indian astronomers selected the Navagrahas (as already defined) as those dynamic entities whose apparent geocentric movement around the Earth, on the zodiac, against the fixed stars lining the zodiac, provided the necessary and sufficient clues, to correlate with the occurrence of events on Earth. Thus there was never a need to include any more grahas, within the existing Navagrahas which is why the trans-Saturnian planets Neptune, Uranus or even Pluto have been left out from the list of the grahas in classical Indian astrology.

In 1596 the German astronomer Johannes Kepler published his book Mysterium Cosmographicum (Cosmic Mystery) in which he explained the Cosmological principles based on the five Pythagorean regular 3-dimensional polyhedra. He claimed that these five regular 3-dimensional polyhedra (platonic solids) were elementary to the structure of the universe and in that way they reflected the Divine plan through geometry. He established that each of the possible five platonic solids could be uniquely inscribed and circumscribed by spherical orbits nesting these solids and that each of them can be encased in a sphere within one another to produce six layers corresponding to the orbits of the six planets viz. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. He also determined the correct order for the placement of the spheres concentrically at intervals corresponding to the relative sizes of each planet’s orbital path. The order found by Kepler in the ascending order from Mercury to Saturn was given as: Octahedron, Icosahedron, Dodecahedron, Tetrahedron and the Cube and was based on the principles of the heliocentric model.

                      Table showing the defining physical characteristics of each of the five Platonic solids

Polyhedron	Number of Vertices - V	Number of Edges – E	Number of Faces –F	Number of edges in each Face	Number of edges meeting at each Vertex
Octahedron	6	12	8	3	4
Icosahedron	12	30	20	3	5
Dodecahedron	20	30	12	5	3
Tetrahedron	4	6	4	3	3
Cube	8	12	6	4	3

Note: Polyhedrons follow the equation V – E + F = 2

Kepler published a revised edition of Mysterium Cosmographicum in 1621 where he fine tuned the Platonic polyhedral-spherical cosmology and accounted for the orbital eccentricities. As a corollary to the findings of Kepler, it followed that since there can only be five platonic solids which can be related to the five intervening gaps between planetary orbits leading to the placement of six planets around the Sun; it also followed that there cannot be any more planets within the solar system which can cause any consequential influence on matters of Earth. The discoveries of Neptune, Uranus and Pluto dealt a death blow to Kepler’s philosophy of cosmic harmony and it was shelved; however the fact remains, that science could not determine the role and contribution of planets to life on Earth since there was no scientific method to ascertain the metaphysical importance / unimportance of different planets of the solar system

There is a missing link between the Platonic polyhedral-spherical cosmological model of Kepler and the metaphysical relevance of planets in the solar system, which had been known to ancient Indian astrologers that would certainly come to light in future, when Kepler and other Pythagoreans, shall be proven right. Nevertheless, Kepler’s Platonic solids hypothesis supports the Indian astrological premise that only five planets of the solar system namely Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury are relevant for metaphysically correlating life on Earth, which gets reflected even in the building blocks of Earth through the five possible Platonic solids. This in turn confirms the universality of the hitherto unknown metaphysical principle of divine creation and therefore rules out any role for the trans-Saturnian planets Neptune, Uranus and Pluto.

Similar to Kepler’s finding through the Platonic-solids model, the ancient Indian astronomical text the ‘Surya Sidhant’ has enunciated the concept of angular diameters of planets by which a regular pattern of planetary diameters can be calculated for their imaginary location on the Moon’s orbit. In simpler terms, if the Moon’s orbit is considered to be a thread or a string on which all the planets are strung as beads, much like the beads in a garland, then the proportionate diameters of each planet as if it is located on the Moon’s orbit, can be calculated. The pattern that shall emerge shall have the on-Moon’s-orbit planetary diameters in the range of 30 to 60 units in steps of 7.5 units in the order of Mars, Saturn, Mercury, Jupiter and Venus; wherein Mars’ “on-Moon’s-orbit” diameter has been calculated to be of 30 units, that of Saturn to be 37.5 units, that of Mercury to be 45 units, that of Jupiter to be 52.5 units and that of Venus to be 60 units. This principle has been highlighted in the 13^th sloka of the seventh chapter’s of the Surya Sidhant which reads as follows when translated; “ The diameters of Mars, Saturn, Mercury and Jupiter, upon the Moon’s orbit, are declared to be 30, increased successively by half of half, with that of Venus being 60”. Half of half of 30 is 7.5 thus the series of on-Moon’s-orbit diameters of all planets in the given order is at the intervals of 7.5 beginning with 30 units and ending with 60 units. Noted astronomer-researcher Richard Thompson has actually worked out and reported his findings on this subject in his article published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 1997. He has established that the positions as per the principles enunciated in Surya Sidhant were quite a valid approximation of reality based on modern astronomical data. On the same lines the on-Moon-orbit position has been worked out for Neptune and Uranus and it is found that the on-moon orbit diameters of the two trans-Saturnian planets were an aberration to the Surya Sidhant rule with Uranus and Neptune ‘on-moon-diameter’ falling within the 30 to 60 units range but not in accordance to the Surya Sidhant pattern (steps of 7.5 units). The pattern enunciated by Surya Sidhant has not been explained in terms of the underlying connection or reasoning; and even though mathematically valid, is shrouded in mystery. Nevertheless for the purpose of the present context, it establishes a supportive premise for not including Neptune and Uranus in the graha matrix for Indian astrology.

 Neptune was discovered by Johann Galle in 1848 which is approximately 169 years from now (May 2017). Similarly Uranus was discovered by William Hershel in 1761 nearly 256 years from now. While it takes 164.8 earth years for Neptune to complete one orbit around the Sun, the planet Uranus takes 84 earth years for the same. Neptune is not visible to the naked eye from the Earth and is visible only through a telescope. It is the only planet in the solar system that was invented by mathematical prediction rather than by empirical observation. Uranus on the other hand is faintly visible to the naked eye from Earth but was the first planet to be discovered by using the telescope. 

Till date Neptune has just completed one orbit around the Sun, since its discovery whereas Uranus has completed three such rounds. These two planets may be important from the point of Astronomy but more needs to be known about their astrologically admissible effects on life on Earth, for them to be of any relevance to astrology. For a celestial entity to be relevant to astrology, that celestial entity has to be assigned certain characteristics or indications pertinent, applicable and related to processes on Earth both at the mundane level and at the individual being level. Moreover the new celestial entity has to be assigned appropriate space within the existing astrological matrix which shall be consistent and compatible with the rest of the factors making up the matrix, which also includes the parallel task of withdrawing some of the space and indications already assigned to some other grahas of the existing matrix.

The task of redefining the graha-matrix, as stated in the foregoing, is an enormously cumbersome one which cannot be carried out arbitrarily based on guesses but the task has to be based on empirical determination carried out through a fairly large number of repetitive observations and collation of the observed data. In the case of Neptune the cycle of repetitions is fairly long, transgressing even three productive durations of human life whereas in the case of Uranus too, the cycle is long enough to cover almost two productive durations of human life. Suffice it to say that it is an uphill, if not an impossible task. Even if only 10 cycles have to be taken into account for observations for empirical determination, a time span of almost 1648 years are required for Neptune and almost 840 years for Uranus, which shall entail the engagement of atleast thirty generations of dedicated astronomers for Neptune and approximately sixteen generations of dedicated astronomers for Uranus; notwithstanding that just 10 cycles are too less a number for deriving statistically reliable or dependable conclusions. Another important and critical prerequisite is that of the authenticity and monitoring of the process of such an empirical study. In my humble opinion the possibility of Neptune becoming a credible player in the practice of astrology is still some 5000 years away and some 2500 years away for the planet Uranus. For the present therefore, it is better that Neptune and Uranus are excluded from the matrix of astrological practice while the two planets can be kept on the watch-list of observations of astrological researchers. Indian astrologers need not bother about the trans-Saturnian planets at all.

Pragmatism, introduced by Aristotle and emphasized by Kant, demands that any process being developed for the determination of Reality should be guided by the considerations of Usefulness, Workability and Problem-solving-ability. The pragmatic view considers only that information as Knowledge that can be useful to some End. Whether an idea is true or gets at Reality is not considered to be of that much importance. Any proposition must therefore be guided by reason, experience and the test of observation. The pragmatist view also needs to be further fine-tuned by the ‘Principle of factor sparsity’ also called the ‘Law of vital few’ which comes into play for empirical determinations. The law of vital few states that there exists, a set of very few critical factors that largely determine the outcome of the process being studied. This law helps in economizing time, effort and resources without compromising on the efficiency, effectiveness and accuracy of any process or its outcomes. Integrating the pragmatist view with the law of vital few, the following considerations need to be adhered-to, for defining a set of critical factors while devising an effective and efficient process:

1.      1.    The set of factors is exhaustive in terms of covering the greatest range of possibilities within the domain being studied;  

2.      2.      The set of factors provides statistically accurate projections of the outcomes for any changes in the values of such identified variable factors;

3.       3.     The set of factors do not compromise the usefulness of the process and its outcomes;

4.       4.     The set of factors meets the requirement of sufficiency for making the process effective in problem-solving;

5.       5.      The set of factors promotes the ease of handling and the workability of the process;

6.      6.       The set of factors has passed the tests of applicability and reliability through repetitive observations.

The Navagraha model of Indian astrology has been in existence and has been extensively applied and used for many thousands of years by now. It satisfies all the six prerequisites of appropriateness, accuracy, efficiency, effectiveness, workability and problem-solving-ability. It has also withstood the tests of repeated applications and observations with respect both to the reliability of the process as well as to its outcomes. In fact, by this logic too, there is no case, need, scope or reason for considering the inclusion of the trans-Saturnian planets Neptune, Uranus or Pluto into the matrix of critical factors within the existing Classical Model of Indian astrology.