Like many people, I started off as a fanatical believer in God, and then became an atheist, an agnostic, and then a believer, but no longer fanatic. Somewhere in these phases, I was convinced that astrology was fallacy. However, I decided to learn astrology to prove to myself that astrology was just a lot of hot air.

The rest is history in that facet of my life. As I learned the fundamentals of vedic astrology, I was astounded by the depth and accuracy of the calculation methods used in vedic astrology. For those of you who may be interested, the planetary positions calculated by means of vedic calculations differ from those by modern astronomical calculations by only a fraction of a degree at the most. As I went in more into the effects of planets, the significance of houses, planetary aspects, and the infinite permutations made by planetary positions in each horoscope, I became like the non-believer in The Deserted Village – I came to scoff, but remained to pray.

Many people are vociferous in their assertion that astrology is without basis. I would urge them to learn the subject before expressing their scepticism. If somebody were to speak about relativistic mechanics based on a knowledge of the principles of Newtonian mechanics, he or she would easily find relativity to be a load of nonsense. However, somebody who has learned relativity would comprehend the truth behind the theory, but might still have doubts about some aspects of the theory. This is true of any scientific theory, and such doubting is healthy and the very essence of progressive thinking. But to dismiss a theory or branch of knowledge without studying is, in my opinion, tantamount to scientific sacrilege.

Among the several questions that people ask me on astrology (I wish to make it clear that I am no scholar on vedic astrology, though I have an innate interest in the subject, as well as some favourable support in my horoscope to astrological inclination) are two important ones:

1.       By looking at the position of nine planets, are we not categorising the entire human existence into a fixed set of circumstances? Those born under a particular sun sign will have their days and years similar to one another - In which case, is it not wrong?

2.       How does one justify the jump from the mathematical principles of Astronomy to the intuitive predictions of Astrology?

My answer to the first question is along the following lines: If we are categorising human existence based on the 12 signs and 9 planets, then we land up with a very limited set of permutations. Obviously, the plethora of human conditions is far beyond this limited set of permutations. If we extend our understanding to include the fact that each sign (or house) is of a 30 degree span, then we will be able to identify a significantly larger quantum of permutations based on the exact position occupied by each of the planets in each of the signs (or houses).  If we further consider the rising sign at the time of birth (Lagna), this increases the permutations even more. The rising sign is impacted by the date, place and time of birth. Then, as we move into the divisional charts, the possibilities start becoming boundless. Thus, two apparently similar basic charts would indicate substantially different patterns of fate and life, because several detailed features including divisional charts would be different. The native chart will also be impacted by the transit effects of planets. Therefore, under vedic astrology, the set of circumstances on the universal set of horoscopes in the world is neither fixed nor limited.

As far as the second question is concerned, I have to agree that there is a point at which the mathematical principles of astronomy have to give way to something less concrete. In predictive astrology, intuition plays a very important part. Thus a horoscope in the eyes of an intuitive astrologer will reveal more in a reading than the same horoscope when read by a less intuitive astrologer. However, exceptional trends can easily be seen by looking at the charts of eminent persons. Pancha maha purusha yogas fall in this category. For example, in the horoscope of a general, you are highly likely to find the Pancha maha purusha yoga caused by Mars – Ruchaka Yoga. Similarly, in the case of an eminent musician or a film star, Malaviya Yoga is highly likely. However, it is less easy to spot qualifications to these yogas present in a horoscope – for example, yoga bhangas, which destroy good yogas. Thus, if one is looking for a certain intuitive confirmation of astrological principles as a first step towards establishing a platform of reasonableness, one could look for pancha maha purusha yogas in eminent horoscopes. As a second step, one could look at the converse – of horoscopes of exceptional misfortune. Thus, gradually, by analysing more and more horoscopes, one could take the jump from mathematical astronomy (that helps us cast horoscopes) to intuitive astrology that helps us make predictions.

One thing is for sure, however. Astrology is not a science of absolutes, and is only a tool to predict trends. The difficulty in achieving the absolute correctness lies in the fact that there are innumerable factors affecting a horoscope at any particular point in time. It requires a certain greatness to achieve sustained and significant accuracy in predictions. Great minds have made such predictions – B V Raman (I am an Ekalavya disciple of his) is one among the greats.

Every theory or science or philosophical stream of thinking meets with scorn, disbelief and somtimes outright rejection from many quarters at the time it comes into existence.  Prof. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was driven to devastation when Eddington ridiculed his prediction of the existence of the upper limit (called the Chandrasekhar Limit) to the weight of a white dwarf. Neils Bohr and Wolfgang Pauli studied his theory and certified to its plausibility. (It took Chandrasekhar several years to restore the faith of the scientific community in his theory). Eddington was proved wrong. Prof Chandrasekhar went on to win the Nobel Prize (with W A Fowler) in Physics in 1983.  

When sceptics brush Astrology off their tables without a detailed study of the subject, in my opinion, they choose to act like Eddington. My request to such sceptics is: please do not jump to conclusions. Please give Astrology the same right to be studied and judged as much as other theories. Reject it if you should, but give it a hearing before you pass judgement. Remember, however, Astrology is not an accused in the court.