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.

The Pre-requisites for Existential Experiences: Space-Time Continuum, Causation, Observation & Motion

Life can be sensed only through activity. No activity indicates the absence of life. The three basic prerequisites for activity to take place are Space, Time and Causation. There is a fourth critical factor for the perception and registration of activity which has even been emphasized by modern physics is that of Observation. Without any observation the occurrence of ‘the activity cannot be known at all. The dimensions of Space, Time, Causation and Observation that together facilitate the process of experiencing Existence - as Life, in the way it happens - are being analyzed in this article.

SPACE

Space is the expanse or room around any reference point or around an observer whether occupied or unoccupied which-is or can-be, freely available for movement in any direction. Geometry describes Space in three dimensions viz. length, breadth and height whereas in terms of directions it has six dimensions viz. North, East, South, West, Above and Below. In Indian Astrology, Space has been directionally considered to be ten dimensional, namely Uttar (north), Ishaan (north-east), Poorva (east), Agni (south-east), Dakshin (south), Nairiti (south-west), Pashchim (west), Vayavya (north-west), Aakaash (upwards or above) and Paataal (downwards or below).

All things that exist in this universe exist-in and occupy space. Similarly all things that move in this universe do so in space alone. Without space there can be no existence or movement nor any activity. In other words one of the basic requirements for the play of life to happen in this universe is the Element of Space.

Modern science considers Space at the cosmic level to be ever expanding. Right from the big bang moment, space has rapidly expanded and is expanding continuously. Some scientists have likened space to an air balloon which expands all around as more and more air gets filled in the balloon however it has been found to be too simplistic and far from the true nature of space. It is generally presumed that space is homogenous and uniform throughout and can be mapped entirely by applying the Cartesian coordinates which is termed as the Galilean view but scientists such as Einstein and others who have studied space after him have found space to be non-uniform with its behavior and coordinates varying depending on the unique position of a ‘locality in space’. However the Galilean view holds true at the boundaries of space. Thus space can be visualized as a large container with standard Galilean properties on its surface and which ‘contains’ all entities of the universe within; however space also plays a part in the construction of all universal entities which gives it a special character in the vicinity of the location of each unique entity. In short, Space can be said to be a complex element which has yet to be fully deciphered in its true nature.

In Hindu philosophy the universe has been considered to have been created out of five elements. One of the five elements is the element of Space. In fact the pride of place in the order of importance and criticality has been assigned to the element of Space because Space houses the other four elements which are Air, Water, Fire and the Earth. Space called Kshitija in Sanskrit represents Sound denoted by the sacred sound of ‘Aum’ represented by the sacred symbol shown below :

Out of the five sensory perceptions, Space representing Sound is perceived through the Ears. Being the one critical element for existence to happen, Space is also identified as the ‘Principle’ of existence and is considered to be the closest approximation of Brahman (the potential or Infinity) and thus it is taken to be sacred for which reason all mantras in Hindu religious rituals begin with the sound Aum.

Note: The symbol of AUM has five segments viz. the three semi-circular limbs that are joined at the centre and the over-riding ‘chandra-bindu’ (representing the sound syllable called Pranav) that rests on the outwardly extended third limb. The chandra-bindu sign itself consists of an arc holding a dot on top making in all five segments. The three limbs represent the three geometric dimensions of Space; the three dimensions of eternal Time i.e. the past, present and future; the three states of ‘experiencing’ in life i.e. the waking state, the dream state and the deep sleep state as well as the three concurrent bodies of living beings i.e. the sthool sharira (physical body), the sookshma sharira (the subtle body) and the kaaran Sharira (the causal body). The chandra-bindu represents the Life principle wherein the dot holding arc represents Matter and the Dot itself represents the Spirit or Consciousness. AUM therefore represents the Life as it is experienced in the Space-Time continuum. In this way the symbol AUM represents Existence as a whole and that is why it is held so sacred by the Hindus.

TIME

Time is the notional experience of duration(s) marked by the irreversible continuous progression of successive Events in Existence from a reference point in the Past, through the Present, extrapolated into the Future counted or measured in terms of standard or relative intervals either subjectively by one observer; or else objectively by one or more observers with accepted preset standards / norms for observation and measurement.

The past, present and future can be either subjectively assigned nomenclature in a relative sense to the temporal and arbitrary considerations of the observer as notional experiences or in terms of measurable quantities of some standard units such as years, months, days, hours, minutes or seconds; Or else the past, present or future can be objectively assigned nomenclature through accepted preset norms of observation and measurement by one or more observers as per agreed relative notional experiences or in terms of measurable quantities of some standard units such as years, months or days etc.

Let us take an example to illustrate the foregoing definition of Time. A person states: “I am having tooth ache since some time which continues till now. I consulted a doctor who gave medicine and said it will go away soon.” In this case the event is tooth ache and the observer is the person experiencing it. He has been experiencing it since some time which is the notional reference point in the past from where the subjective observation started. It has been present in every successive ‘now’ since then and has irreversibly progressed in the intervening time interval till the present ‘now’. The interval / duration since the event was first observed by the subject (observer) till now is the experiential time that has passed, being expressed in relative terms as ‘since some time’ which is an arbitrary subjective expression of the observer. Further the assurance of the doctor ‘will go away soon’ is an extrapolation in to the future when the event is likely to pass out of the observer’s experience. The expression ‘soon’ also falls in the category of ‘arbitrary subjective’ expression. Thus the remarks of the observer in respect of the time durations expressed as ‘since some time’ (historical time) and ‘will go away soon’ (futuristic time) are arbitrary, subjective and relative in nature. Suppose the person had stated: “I am having tooth ache since ten days which continues till now. I consulted a doctor who gave medicine and said it will go away in two days.” There is a basic difference in the two statements; since both the historical and the futuristic dimensions of time are no more arbitrary and relative in nature being expressed in terms of standard units of time measurement (as days) however the assignment of time duration continues to be subjective being in the realm of the observer’s own experience alone.

As per the foregoing explanation of Time, it may appear that time is linear in nature however it is only as linear in nature as is the experience of the world being flat when one is walking on the road knowing full well that the globe is actually spherical. It is quite like the small arc on the circumference of a circle with a very large diameter which appears almost like a straight line. Time is actually cyclical in nature but the time-cycles of nature are quite large hence in the short run of our day to day experiences Time gets experienced as being linear. It can be argued that if time is cyclical then it should retrace its original path, howsoever large the cycle may be, but the experience is otherwise, since the time that has once passed is never known to have repeated itself. It is true that time once passed never retraces its original path from wherever it is measured however that would be the case if it was circular in nature. Time is cyclical as stated earlier but it is not circular otherwise it would retrace itself. It does not happen that way because time exists in three-dimensional space and the circle exists in two dimensions. Therefore time is cyclical as in a Spiral wherein the repetition of cycles happens continuously in the third dimension whereby there is never ever any retracing of the path taken earlier.

Time forms the component basis for the comparison and measurement of other dimensions of a phenomenon such as speed, span or rate of change etc as in Astronomy, Economics or Physics etc. It is useful in sequencing or planning of events such as for navigation or for recording conscious experiences of which History is an example. It is referred to as the fourth dimension on the Space-Time continuum along with the three dimensions of Space. The Newtonian view of Time as an essential dimension of the universal structure independent of events but in which events occur sequentially, called the Realist view has long been shelved in favor of the Leibnizian and Kant’s view that Time is neither a physical entity that ‘flows’ nor a ‘container’ through which events and objects move. It is not a thing that can be quantified or measured instead it is a notional structure within which human beings sequence and compare events.

Since our birth we get so conditioned by the clock-time in our day to day living that our understanding of time revolves around the clock time only. The clock time is Relative Time quite different from Real Time and the Absolute Time. In reality there is no fixed physical entity called Time. It exists in perception and therefore only in the mind. It is actually an interval or the duration between two reference points of experience (events) that is measured as time which can be expressed in relative terms or in terms of standard units as already explained. The clock time measures the duration or interval in standard units. The standard unit of the clock time is the Second in the internationally accepted standard measurement systems whether in the FPS system or in the MKS system. The letter ‘S’ in both systems stands for the basic unit of time – the Second. The measurement unit of time i.e. the second has been standardized as the duration of 919, 26, 31770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the  Caesium-133 atom at rest at a temperature of 0 deg. K. The astronomical definition of the second has been 1/ 24 x 60 x 60 of a day i.e. 0.00001157407^th part of a day. The astronomical definition of the second was shelved in favor of a more scientifically accurate definition since the length of the day could vary during observations as per location and time. That the ancients were very well aware of the concept of time is obvious from the term ‘second’ being used to name the unit of time. They knew that time can be experienced only when there is a second event following the first event otherwise there is no experience of time; that in all probability may be the reason why they named the unit of time as the ‘second’. The clock time is Relative time as it is standardized in relation to some well defined astronomical or atomic event in the universe and it does not have any locus standi of its own. Real Time is an expression for the ‘immediate and now’ and is used in the context of responsiveness of a system or an observer for registering an event as soon as it occurs or for reacting to the exigency immediately. It has no relation to the clock time or to the standard units of time.

The Absolute time is a concept that was first introduced by Newton, who defined it as the independent aspect of objective reality. According to him, absolute time exists independent of an observer and progresses at a constant pace throughout. He believed that absolute time was imperceptible which could be only understood mathematically. He held the view that the human beings could only perceive relative time based on the measurement of perceivable objects in motion such as the Sun and the Moon.

Newton’s view is the scientific view and understanding of absolute time. However the Hindu’s have closely studied time from antiquity. The Rig Veda has references to Kaal (time) and has well defined references to both the relative and the absolute time. The Hindu way of assigning symbols and deities to all universal concepts applied to the concepts of time as well. Whereas Mahaa-Kaal is associated with absolute time, the deity Kaal-Bhairava is associated with the relative time. In Hinduism absolute time (Mahaa-Kaal) has been defined as an aspect of the Supreme Consciousness – the Shiva tattwa. The un-manifested universe exists in absolute time. Only when the manifestation of the universe takes place does the relative time come into play. In other words the stillness in which the manifested universe recedes at the time of Pralaya (dissolution of the universe into potential energy) is the immeasurable and unperceivable absolute time. In this way the universe stays in the womb of stillness or absolute time (Mahaa-Kaal) till it manifests out of stillness in the Kinetic form as the splendorous manifested universe and is thereafter guided by relative time - Kaal-Bhairava. In this way the relative time is a subset of the absolute time. The duration of the manifestation of the dynamic universe between its emergence from the womb of absolute time until its dissolution back into the womb of absolute time is the domain of relative time i.e. the Kaal-Bhairava. The manifested universal form is a form of kinetic energy which is deified in Hinduism as Shakti (Energy), as a female form or as Devi (female deity). This is why there is a Kaal-Bhairava temple on the outskirts in close proximity of every ancient Hindu Devi temple. A pilgrimage to any such Devi temple is considered to be incomplete without paying respects to the Kaal-Bhairava temple guarding the Devi temple. The principle behind this order of Devi temples highlights that the manifested universe is bound and protected by relative time – Kaal-Bhairava. Yet another interesting fact about the Hindu understanding of time has been deified and coded in the location of the only temple dedicated to absolute time or Mahaa-Kaal in India located at Ujjain. In ancient India Ujjain was taken to be the zero point for the measurement of standard time somewhat like what Greenwich is today. Recent studies have revealed that the natural zero point the (geodetic datum) for the GPS navigation system for the Everest ellipsoid applicable to the Indian sub-continent falls close to Ujjain and probably would have been at the temple’s location itself when the temple of Mahaa-Kaal was built, from where it has shifted due to the continuous flattening of the Mount Everest.

The unperceivable and immeasurable absolute time (Mahaa-Kaal) is all that is. As and when the universe manifests out of the womb of nothingness, the big bang moment, the relative time begins in the play of Creation. With the manifestation of the universe emerges Space within which the dynamics of experiential existence happens. Thus space, like relative time, too is a product of absolute time and it can be conceptually taken to be hemmed in between absolute time and the relative time: Absolute time - Space - Relative Time. At the time of the dissolution of the manifested universe back into nothingness (Pralaya), the big crunch moment, the relative time and space lose their existence as they get absorbed into the absolute time. In this manner the cycle of unmanifest to manifest universe back to the unmanifest is repeated eternally which has been propounded by scientists as the String theory. The present subjective experience of existence for every living being happens in real time. Thus each ‘Now’ of our experience is the still picture of ‘our world’ in real time and all such stills together form the present picture of the universe in the ‘Now’ i.e. in real time which is also the concept of another scientific theory of the universal phenomenon called the Platonia model of the universe. Thus real time is a subset of the relative time.

Suffice it to say that time is the essence of all that is manifest as well as that which is unmanifest. Thus absolute time is Omnipresent which manifests as relative time when experienced with respect to intervals between successive events and which takes the form of real time in the closest approximation of the present as ‘now’. The entire play of the manifested universe happens within the three dimensional space and the realm of relative time which is together referred to as the Spatiotemporal frame or the Space-Time continuum that forms the four-dimensional framework for all experiences.

CAUSATION

Having established the framework for experiences in life in terms of space and time dimensions as the space-time continuum the question arises: ‘Why do events happen or actions are carried out?’ Newton’s first law of motion states ‘Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.’ This law explains that any change in a given situation occurs whenever there is a causation affecting that change. It follows therefore that whatever happens in the universe is an effect of some preceding cause. Since events keep on happening all the time, it can be easily inferred that each and every effect becomes a cause for subsequent effects. It shall be an overly simplistic understanding that an effect can be the result of one cause alone. Even a surface level analysis would establish more than one cause for any effect. It is however possible that the apparent role being played by one of the causes to an effect may seem to be most critical for the occurrence of the effect which in most cases is a subjective assessment. Thus it can be stated that every event is an effect of a set of causes and that the same event together with other such events / effects becomes the cause for other events or effects. In other words every event has a dual nature; one of being an effect and the other of being the cause. In this way every event that happens has a twofold role wherein the first role is that of an effect in the current scenario and the second role is in becoming a cause for another effect for another scenario. This fundamental principle forms the bedrock of the classical Theory of Cause and Effect. It follows from the foregoing that no effect can precede its cause / causes and similarly there cannot be an effect without a cause. In other words if there is an effect, the fact of the existence of atleast one cause for the effect is an undeniable reality.

In his Theory of Causality, Aristotle identified four types of causes for all events that happen in the universal phenomenon including actions carried by living beings. These four types of causes were termed by him as:

Material causes – ‘that out of which’ the effect happens;

Formal causes – ‘that which leads to a specific form or shape’;

Efficient causes – ‘the primary influence that brings about the change from the existing state’;

Teleological causes – ‘the final objective or the end for the sake of which some action was carried out’.

The above classification of causality presupposes the ‘presence’ of the causes that lead to the effect however it does not consider the fact that even the ‘absence’ of something(s) can be the cause of an effect. Those causes that create the effect due to their presence are called the Immanent causes whereas those factors which lead to an effect due to their absence are called Transcendent causes. Another aspect of causation which needs to be pointed out relates to the fact that sometimes what appears to be a cause for some effect may not be the real cause but actually it is something subtler which is latent within the apparent cause that is responsible for the effect. Such latent causes are called the ‘Fine grain’ causes.

The following example explains the categorization of causes:

A clay molder has created dolls of clay for selling in the market. In this case the clay used for making the dolls is the material cause, the dolls’ shape and form is the formal cause, the molder himself is the efficient cause and the selling of the dolls in the market is the teleological cause. The role played by these four causes is relatable to their being present in the event hence these are immanent causes however this whole process could get facilitated by the absence of rain hence the rain becomes the transcendental cause for the event to take place. The clay molder appears to be the efficient cause on the surface but the real efficient cause is his molding skill which is latent in his being the molder thus by the previous definition the molding skill is the fine-grain cause for the event.

The classification of causality or causation as described in the foregoing are all confined to the macro level observations and perceptions only. Causation at the atomic and sub-atomic levels as defined by modern physics follow an entirely different set of rules which is not the concern of the present narration.

It follows from the foregoing description of causality that for any event or action to take place within the dynamic universal phenomenon there is a fifth necessary prerequisite in addition to the four dimensions of the spatiotemporal frame or the space-time continuum that needs to be fulfilled which is the dimension of Causation. Thus an action or an event occurs in three dimensions of space, within the dimension of relative time as a consequence of some causation.

OBSERVATION

How can it be known whether an event happened or did not happen; Or whether something is present or absent in a given spatiotemporal setting? The simplest and the surest way for a deterministic conclusion to answer such a question can only happen through Observation. An event can be said to have occurred, if and only if, it has been observed by an observer. Such an observation can be direct or indirect. The direct observation is the observation made through one’s own sensory perception whereas the same becomes indirect for another agency to which such an observation is conveyed or reported for perusal. An example of the direct observation is the watching of a sports event in the field whereas listening to its commentary on the radio is an example of indirect observation. An observation can be qualitative when it is for the purpose for determining the occurrence of an event or it can be quantitative when it is for measuring or quantifying the observed phenomenon or an aspect thereof; however some of the observations can very well serve both - the qualitative and the quantitative objectives.

Observations can be identifiable or alien. An identifiable observation is one that falls within the realm of existing knowledge of the observer; in other words the observer carries the memory of a similar or identical observation made earlier, be it direct or indirect; On the contrary an alien observation is the one which does not belong to the realm of previous knowledge of the observer. The best example of an alien observation is when we encounter a word the meaning of which is not known to us.

Sometimes observations of the cause(s) lead to an assumption on the basis of past experiences that a certain effect is most likely to follow or shall certainly follow. In such cases the effect itself has not been observed but is presumed to have been observed. Such presumed observations can be termed as derivable observations. Derivable observations remain in the domain of uncertainty till confirmed by subsequent direct or indirect observations. Derivable observations have an important role to play in planning and allocation of resources.

Needless to say, the observer is a necessary element in the process of observation. The reality of an event cannot get established without observation, therefore it follows that an observer is necessary to establish the occurrence of an event. This observer can be a part of the phenomenon being observed or he may remain outside it; for example, the participant in a sports event is very much within the phenomenon while observing the event whereas the spectator is outside the phenomenon while observing the same. All observations are subjective in nature and therefore get influenced or colored by the prejudices and biases of the individual observer. Moreover all observations take place through the sense perceptions of some observer and since the senses of each individual have varying degrees of efficiency and effectiveness due to unique limitations of the individual’s sense organs, the observations too get influenced subjectively in each case. The spatiotemporal factors including relativity also play an important role in the quality of observations made by an observer.

Whether the observations are direct or indirect; qualifying or quantifying; accurate, biased or derivable in nature, there cannot be any denial of the reality that it is the fact of observation that finally establishes the existence of any entity or of the happening of any event in this universe. In other words all experiences are but observations in the spatiotemporal framework (space-time continuum) occurring as a consequence to some causation. 

MOTION

Motion has been defined as a change in position of an object over time. It is usually described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, speed and time. Generally motion signifies a continuous state of change in the position of an entity with respect to some frame of reference but since there can never be an absolute frame of reference, all observations of motion are relative in nature e.g. the observed motion of planets from earth are relative to the motion of the earth. Even if something appears to be stationary in the relative sense, it only signifies that the thing being observed is moving at the same speed as the reference frame itself and its apparent stationary status is not factual. In this sense everything in the universe is actually in motion. The earth is encircling the Sun at approx. 30 kms./sec. while the Sun itself is moving at approx. 200 kms./sec. and our galaxy= the Milky Way- is moving at approx. 600 kms./sec. It can thus be seen that every observation of motion can only be relative, whichever be the reference frame.

The dynamics of the universal phenomenon is always a consequence of ‘energy exchanges’ in varying time cycles however always maintaining the universal reality of ‘conservation of energy’. Whenever an exchange of energy occurs, there is motion and activity. The visible universe is observed as ‘a snapshot frozen in a moment of time’, although it actually consists of all its constituent entities in continuous motion.

The obvious question that arises at this juncture is: Why is the whole universe dynamic in nature? The answer to the question lies in the fact that the total cosmic energy transforms itself from the potential state of nothingness into the kinetic state when the universe manifests; however the total cosmic energy remains conserved in both the states. The cause for the repetitive manifestation and annihilation of the material vesture of the universe is to maintain the equilibrium of the two energy states on an eternal time scale. The manifested universe is a kinetic energy state which is identified by its inherent dynamism only. Therefore it is an essential necessity of the universe to maintain its dynamic character. This dynamism permeates all aspects and dimensions of universal existence in the form of motion and activity. This explains the fact as to why all phenomena of the universe, right from the largest galaxies to the tiniest subatomic particles, are in motion all the time. Life on earth both at the mundane level as well as at the individual level is experienced in a dynamic state in varying time cycles whether experienced as changes in seasons, as day and night, as blood circulation, as the beating heart, as growth and decay or as birth and death. These dynamic existential experiences of all living beings are consequences of the dynamics of the universal phenomenon as explained in the foregoing narration. Motion in the universe is what heart beat is in a living being. In short motion is Life itself.

There are five basic types of identifiable motions which may appear as the fundamental building blocks of all activity. These are:

      1. Linear motion which is the movement or progress in any single direction e.g. the flight of an arrow.
2.   Rotary motion which is a circular movement either on a circular or a spiral path e.g. the motion of the wheel;
3.      Oscillating motion which is a swinging motion from one end to another on a fixed path e.g. the motion of a clock pendulum.
4.  Reciprocatory motion which is the repetitive forward and backward movement e.g. the movement of the saw.
5. Random motion which does not follow any pattern in movement e.g. the flight of a bird.

Motion is fundamental to all activities and as described in the foregoing paragraphs occurs within the six-dimensional reference frame of the Space-Time continuum, Causation and Observation.

The three motions of Earth: Like all other entities in the universe our own planet Earth is always in motion which obviously affects life on earth. There are three distinctly identifiable motions of the planet Earth which are being described here-in-after:

Rotation around its Axis: The Earth spins on its axis from West to East (counter-clockwise). It takes the Earth 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.09 seconds to complete one full turn. Day and night are produced by the rotation of the Earth. The speed of rotation at any point upon the equator is at the rate of approximately 1,038 miles per hour, decreasing to zero at the poles.

Revolution around the Sun: While the Earth is spinning on its axis, it is revolving around the Sun in a counter-clockwise direction. It takes the Earth one full year to complete one full revolution around the Sun. This path is known as the Earth's orbit which is elliptical and very nearly a circle. The mean distance of the Earth from the Sun is about 93 million miles and the distance varies by 3 million miles, forming a slightly oval (elliptical) path.

The revolution of the Earth around the Sun traverses a distance of 595 million miles in 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes and 9.5 seconds. This means a speed of 18 miles a second (or 66,000 miles per hour) while at the same time rotating once each (approx.) twenty-four hours.

The wobbling motion of the earth around its polar axis: This effect is called Precession and one full turn lasts almost 26000 years. The effect of this motion of earth is not generally perceivable even in a life time however it is an important factor for the purposes of Astrology particularly Indian astrology.