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

Exorcising the Last Ghosts: Clearing the Residual Errors

In the previous three parts of this critique, we have thoroughly addressed the foundational, metaphysical, symbolic, and observational flaws in Dennis Harness' proposal to include Pluto in the Jyotishic framework.

However, several residual themes linger in his article that warrant further dismantling. These include the invocation of spiritual open-mindedness, the speculative palm-leaf prophecy, and the idea of Pluto providing spiritual sādhana prescriptions.

This part will clear these fragments and demonstrate how such arguments not only fail epistemologically but risk misrepresenting Jyotisha as a system. Harness is not alone in this, his views echo a broader sentiment in postmodern astrology, one that too often confuses poetic archetypes with ontological necessity.

1. "Open-Mindedness" is Not an Epistemology: The Misuse of Vedantic Spirit

Harness appeals to the “true spirit of the Vedas” as an open-minded willingness to explore new possibilities, including the outer planets. This rhetorical move frames his argument as progressive and inclusive, but it is philosophically and epistemologically naive.

Open-mindedness is not the criterion for truth.

In the Vedic tradition, the mind must be open, yes, but it must also be trained, purified, and guided by viveka (discrimination), this Viveka itself give birth to all other virtues such as open-mindedness. Open-mindedness arises naturally from right seeing, right-seeing does not arises from open-mindedness. For instance, make someone see enough and their doubt naturally dissolves, and one entertains things previously rejected.

The pramāṇas (means of valid knowledge) in Indian epistemology are not subject to modern pluralism. They include:

• Śabda (authoritative testimony)

• Pratyakṣa (direct perception)

• Anumāna (inference)

Jyotish also fundamentally entertains pluralism. The fact that each birth chart, that is, psychostructure within which Awareness is trapped is unique but at the same time subject to non-unique rules and laws is a form of pluralism. Nothing in Harness' defense of Pluto satisfies any of these. Instead, he appeals to anecdote, symbolic projection, and subjective resonance. That is not open-mindedness; it is epistemic sentimentality.

True openness in the Vedic sense means being open to discipline, to adhikāra (eligibility), and to the gradual unfolding of understanding through proper sādhana, not the inclusion of new gods in the pantheon every time a telescope finds something new.

2. The Palm Leaf of Vasiṣṭha: Modern Myth-Making Masquerading as Ancient Authority

Harness cites an anecdotal claim from Late Shri Narendra Desai about a palm leaf attributed to the sage Vasiṣṭha. This leaf supposedly predicted the discovery of three new grahas in the Kali Yuga: Prajāpati, Varuṇa, and Yama.

Even if such a palm leaf exists, its interpretation cannot override the established jyotiṣic methodology. The mere appearance of deity names, which in Vedic literature can refer to cosmic functions, not planets, does not necessitate astrological inclusion.

Moreover:

• There is no textual consistency across classical jyotiṣic literature supporting this leaf.

• Even if Vasiṣṭha mentioned these names, he may have referred to psychic functions or tattvas, not astronomical bodies.

• This "prophecy" is unverifiable, extra-textual, and used selectively to reinforce an already-desired belief.
  

Using it as a justification for Pluto's inclusion is methodologically equivalent to citing a horoscope in a tabloid magazine to explain karma.

3. Outer Planets as Prescriptive for Sādhana: A Confused Spiritual Psychology

Harness claims Pluto (and the other outer planets) can help guide individuals in spiritual practice, for example, by pointing one toward Kali or Yama worship. While poetic, this is not jyotiṣic. Jyotish requires the practice of Yoga, to respect the deities, but ultimately seek liberation from all psycho-physical and psycho-spiritual phenomena of all sorts. None of these necessitate or benefit from an outer planet.

To assign Pluto the role of death and transformation, as a reason to recommend Kali sādhana, is to reduce spiritual prescription to psychological metaphor. This is a grave misunderstanding of bhakti, tantra, and Vedic psycho-spiritual healing, all of which rest on śrauta authority and not symbolic resonance.

There are already precise methods in Jyotisha to determine one's spiritual tendencies, obstacles, and practices. Pluto adds nothing, and can actually distort the path by projecting pop-psychology onto sādhana. Rishi Jaimini gives very clear methods to discern these kinds of things.

4. The Internal Contradiction: "Goulash" While Stirring the Pot

Harness quotes Chakrapani Ullal warning about creating a “goulash” by mixing Jyotisha with Western astrology. Ironically, he proceeds to do exactly that.

He admits the potential dangers of this hybridization and continues to mix cosmologies, ontologies, and metaphysics. This is not integration; it is conflation.

To say, "We must be cautious," and then proceed with reckless inclusion is not open-mindedness. It is epistemic carelessness.

5. One Last Point on Relevance: Death, Destruction, and the Grahas

Harness argues that Pluto is necessary because it reflects death and destruction. But Jyotisha already has a complete architecture for this:

• Saturn for decay, disease, and karmic reaping

• Mars for violence, conflict, and rupture

• Ketu for loss, liberation, and psychic disintegration

• 8th House for death, sex, occult, and hidden karma

• Gulika for toxic or delayed karma

• There are various other things to consider to discern this
  

If one knows how to read charts properly, there is no existential domain Pluto accounts for that is not already more precisely described.

Pluto is redundant at best, misleading at worst.

Dennis Harness’ proposal does not reflect an evolution of Jyotisha but a regression into symbolic projection. What remains of his argument after three parts has now been cleared: vague prophecy, psychological overreach, poetic intuition, and spiritual misapplication.

Jyotisha is a science of consciousness, karma, and time, not a scrapbook of archetypes. It does not grow by ingestion. It deepens through clarity.

Let this be the final word: Pluto has no place in Jyotisha, not because Jyotisha is closed, but because it is already whole. There may be a Part V to this.