A Critique of Dennis M. Harness’ Pluto: A Neo-Vedic View — Part I

Dennis M. Harness’ article, Pluto: A Neo-Vedic View, is a well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed attempt to retroactively legitimize the inclusion of Pluto within the framework of Jyotisha.

While his observations are rooted in personal anecdote and Western astrological influence, they reveal a deep misunderstanding of what Jyotisha actually is a metaphysical science grounded in a coherent cosmological and ontological vision, not a flexible symbolic grab-bag open to arbitrary addition.

This critique addresses the philosophical, observational, and structural incoherence of Harness’ proposal, beginning with the foundational principles of Jyotisha. Professor Harness is simply articulating what many astrologers today intuitively believe—yet it reflects a wider disconnection from Jyotisha’s original metaphysical foundations.

1. Jyotisha Is Not a Symbolic Playground. Is a Meta-Psychology of Time, Consciousness, and Reality

Dennis Harness’ fundamental error is treating Jyotisha as a symbolic system that can expand by simply adding new mythic figures like Pluto. This perspective is not only inaccurate, it is reductive.

It confuses Jyotisha with modern symbolic astrology, where celestial bodies are assigned meanings based on archetypes, synchronicities, or psychological metaphors. Jyotisha is none of those things, not in its foundation.

Yes, Jyotisha uses symbols, myths, and archetypes, but it does not depend on them. Jyotisha utilizes symbols, myths, and archetypes functionally, but it does not depend on them. It does not emerge from metaphor; it is the ground into which metaphor is born, lives, and is made real. Let me say this again please: Jyotisha is not constructed through metaphor; it is the ground through which metaphor becomes reality. It does not rely on symbolic projection, it grounds symbolism in cosmic law and experiential truth.

Symbolism needs Jyotisha. Jyotisha does not need symbolism.

Jyotisha is a deeply metaphysical epistemology, yes, but even more than that, it is a meta-psychology of space-time, karma, and consciousness. It is not merely interpretive, it is ontological, revealing how lived experience is structured by lawful rhythms in time and space.

Its foundations lie not in speculation or collective mythology, but in:

• Samkhya metaphysics, not limited to a historical Kapila, but revealed through refined yogic perception, those who have attained the capacity to perceive subtle realities beyond sensory input

• The Panchamahabhutas, the five great elements that constitute all matter and mind

• Pratyakṣa, direct perception, especially in the yogic sense: the inner seeing born from disciplined cultivation of awareness, not mere belief or faith in the unseen

• The solar-lunar cycle and its relationship to the rest of the psychostructure, which constructs the very matrix of karma and time

• Proper methods of study and realization, grounded in śastra and teacher-student transmission, not casual association or intuitive projection
  

The Grahas in this tradition are not planetary placeholders, they are structural forces within the psycho-cosmic architecture. They are necessary for mapping the relationship between time, karma, embodiment, and liberation.

To propose the addition of Pluto, without anchoring it in any of these ontological foundations, is to break the inner symmetry of the system. It is not about a rigid system refuting a plausible idea, it is a robust system unable to assimialte a make-believe concept.

Harness’ approach, by treating Jyotisha as a system of mutable archetypes rather than a science of karmic structuring, reflects a Western orientation that lacks the soteriological and metaphysical depth required to engage Jyotisha meaningfully. Jyotisha does not evolve by accretion of new symbols, it evolves by deepening one’s perception of what is already present, through inner clarity and disciplined inquiry.

2. Samkhya, Panchamahabhutas, and the Grahas: The Complete Cosmic Structure

Jyotisha is not just a system of Graha correspondences, it is a structured metaphysical framework where each Graha represents a key principle of experience, perception, and karma.

Graha (there are various Sanskrit names for each Graha)	Panchamahabhūta	Psycho-Metaphysical Role
Sun (Sūrya)	Agni (Fire of Awareness), Atman, Purusha	Illumination, Self, Purusha manifest in Time
Moon (Chandra)	Jala (Water of Conditioned Mind), Manas	Adaptation, Perception, Fluctuation, Mind (Manas)
Mars (Maṇgala)	Agni (Fire of Perception/Action)	Will, Conflict, Directional Movement
Mercury (Budha)	Prithvi (Earth of Logic)	Speech, Logic, Analytical Intelligence (Buddhi)
Jupiter (Guru)	Ākāśa (Ether)	Wisdom, Meaning-Making, Cosmic Order
Venus (Śukra)	Jala (Water of Generation)	Harmonization, Sensory Fulfillment, Aesthetic Structure
Saturn (Śani)	Vāyu (Air of Restriction)	Order, Consequence, Time’s Slowing Force
Rahu	Disruptive Vāyu	Illusion, Obsession, Amplification
Ketu	Disruptive Agni	Moksha, Detachment, Disintegration

This is not a system that "needs" additional Grahas. The inclusion of Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto is not an expansion—it is an ideological intrusion into a complete structure.

• Pluto has no elemental correspondence.

• Pluto has no role in structuring perception, time, or karma.

• Pluto’s Western astrological meaning (“power, control, transformation”) is already accounted for by Rahu, Ketu, Mars, and Saturn, and overall general metaphysics of Time, Space, and Consciousness in the East.
  

By failing to integrate Pluto into this ontological foundation, Harness’ argument collapses. The Grahas in Jyotisha were never placeholders for future astronomical discoveries, they were deliberately chosen for their ontological necessity.

3. The Absurdity of Pluto’s Name and Its Arbitrary Astrological Meaning

Harness, like most Western astrologers, treats Pluto’s meaning as if it were an inherent cosmic truth. This ignores the reality of Pluto’s naming and the arbitrary assignment of its symbolism.

• Pluto was named by an 11-year-old English girl, Venetia Burney, in 1930. The name was based on the Roman god of the underworld, not on any astronomical or metaphysical rationale.

• Its symbolism in Western astrology (death, rebirth, transformation, nuclear power, etc.) was retroactively justified by events like the discovery of atomic energy, western psychoanalysis, etc.

• If Pluto had been named differently, its symbolic content would also have been different—revealing how contingent and constructed its meaning truly is.
  

• The naming of Uranus and Neptune is no less arbitrary than Pluto’s. Uranus was named in the 19th century, nearly 70 years after its discovery in 1781, and even then, only to maintain mythological consistency with the Roman pantheon. The name was proposed not by a seer or a philosopher, but by Johann Bode, who chose Uranus, the mythological father of Saturn, to preserve the symbolic hierarchy of Saturn (Chronos), Jupiter (Zeus), and Uranus (Ouranos). Neptune’s naming followed suit in 1846, chosen by French astronomers simply because of its bluish color and to continue the Greco-Roman lineage of celestial names.
  

  Their astrological meanings were retroactively fitted to these mythic figures, Uranus became associated with revolution and innovation, Neptune with dreams and illusion, not because of any metaphysical discovery, but because of circumstantial cultural associations. In other words, the names shaped their meanings, not the other way around. Culture does not shape metaphysics. Metaphysics shapes Culture. If this is not grasped by an Astrologer of any kind...I am just speechless.
  

Each name in Jyotisha is embedded in a coherent system of language, philosophy, and direct observation—not borrowed mythology. Take Jupiter, for instance. In Jyotisha, he is called Guru, meaning “heavy”, not only in the physical weight (which can Ayurvedically hold true for someone with a certain Jupiter influence in the psychostructure designed via proper Jyotish, but also and most importantly in the gravity of wisdom, insight, and spiritual clarity.

A Guru is anything that draws us into deeper understanding, knowledge that liberates (on every level of analysus), not merely informs. It is this function that defines the Graha.

Mythology in this tradition arises as an after-effect of refined observation. The Vamana Avatāra, for example, can be understood as a socio-cultural expression of the psycho-metaphysical force that we observe through Guru (as told by Jyotish), so the expansive wisdom that assumes a humble form to test the wisdom of Bali. In this sense, mythology emerges after metaphysical realization, not before.

Jyotisha names its Grahas based on what they do in the field of consciousness and time, not based on the stories we tell. Myth is the poetics of their psycho-cosmic function, not its foundation. The Western method of naming planets first and assigning significance later is exactly the inverse of the Jyotishic method, where meaning arises from cosmic function, not cultural poetry. Cultural Poetry instead is understood and clearly perceived through the Eyes of the Vedas, that us, Jyotish.

4. The Deliberate Selection of Grahas in Jyotisha: Pluto (and even Uranus and Neptune) Was Never Meant to Be Included

Harness assumes Pluto’s exclusion from Jyotisha is an oversight, a result of ancient ignorance. This is both historically and philosophically false.

The classical texts of Jyotisha, such as the Bṛhat Parāśara Horā Śāstra, explicitly codify the relevant Grahas:

अथ खेटा रविचन्द्रो मङ्गलश्च बुधस्तथा। गुरु शुक्रः शनी राहुः केतुश्चेते यथाक्रमः॥ Now, the wanderers: the Sun, Moon, Mars, and Mercury, so also Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Rahu, and Ketu, in this order.

This is not a casual list. It is a deliberately stated passage. I also understand and totally accept that BPHS has some inconsistencies and corruptions, but this is not one of them. Those corruptions are of a different nature (such as sudden appearance of an unrelated sutra, or some philosophical biases rooted in probably the deity that the compiler of that given era was worshipping, and other ones that are more technical/mathematical).

Moreover:

• Upagrahas like Gulika and Mandi are non-physical and mathematically derived, showing that ancient Jyotishis had the conceptual tools to include non-visible forces. There are other Sutras that deliberate and carefully tell us how to calculate these invisible but Astrolgically/Psycho-metpahysically significent things (for the lack of a better term).

• Rahu and Ketu, too, are not physical Grahas. They are mathematical points, the lunar nodes, that cause eclipses and hold immense significance.
  

In fact, Rahu and Ketu give us the method to calculate eclipses, a feat that modern astronomy only caught up with thousands of years later.

The western error lies in assuming that visibility is the only valid criterion for epistemological inclusion. But in the subtle methods of the East, the highest form of perception is Pratyaksha, direct yogic cognition/perception, not just sensory observation.

What cannot be seen can still be known, through refined awareness, tapas, inner discipline, and meditative vision. The ancients weren’t limited, they were liberated from the narrowness of sense-based empiricism. This is repeatedly stated in every method/path of the east and various mysticisms of the West as well as the middle-east.

The exclusion of Pluto is not a lapse in knowledge. It is a conscious omission based on philosophical discrimination, metaphysical integration, and experiential verification. It simply has no Astrological purpose. Astronomically, they are deeply relevant.

So let me say this again, Pluto Has No Place in Jyotisha

Dennis Harness’ attempt to retrofit Pluto into Jyotisha fails on every meaningful level:

• It contradicts the ontological clarity of Samkhya (foundation of Jyotish, Ayurveda, and other eastern metaphysical knowledge systems).

• It ignores the psycho-physical coherence of the Panchamahabhutas (rooted again in Samkhya).

• It assigns symbolic meaning based on name and historical coincidence, not on cosmic function.
  

Pluto’s exclusion is not an omission, it is a necessity. Its inclusion would not be a step forward for Jyotisha, but a regression into confusion.