Rebuttal of "Sutra 176" from The Braha Sutras
By Gary O'Toole
The Braha Sutras, insights from a lifetime of Vedic Astrology, by James Braha has some real gems and insights, written by a respected Vedic astrologer with 40 years of experience. But to state that there are some gems suggests there are also some duds. In this article, I will focus on just one: “Sutra 176”.
This highlights a bigger problem within astrology, a problem in all fields of knowledge; that is, taking some seen as an authority taken at their word - every time.
This is what seems to be happening if reviews of the book are anything to go by, and why I feel the need to speak up (or write up) about one particular topic he brings up in relation to planetary aspects during dashas.
As he makes definitive statements in his sutras, it may make it sound as if a foregone conclusion, as if he has covered all ground. But he is actually revealing he hasn’t done all his research.
He states in Sutra 176: “Planets running their Dashas and bhuktis don’t throw aspects onto other planets and houses.”
Within this sutra, he asks the question: “How can we know the effects are caused by dasa and bhukti aspects unless they’re consistent during the entire period?”
It’s a fair question and one we should ask. But it also reveals he doesn't have the full picture. More on this in just a bit.
Braha gives two reasons for his statement. First, he states that he has “never seen dasa or bhukti planets throw aspects anywhere near 7 in 10 times.” Here he is referring to a figure he states in the introduction of his book, that if something doesn’t work at least 7 out of 10 times there’s something very wrong with the technique. Again, a fair point.
But is there something he’s missing out that would actually make the technique work? Yes.
He goes on to write, “At best, such results occurred in maybe… 30% or 40%” (referring to aspects).
What he is apparently unaware of is that planets’ aspects give their results in different portions of their dashas, depending on whether they are seen as ‘cruel’ or ‘kind’. This is laid out in Jātaka Pārijāta; a text I’m assuming he hasn’t read. According to Parāśara, Saturn is a krūra or ‘cruel’ planet. Jātaka Pārijāta divides krūra Saturn into three different phases, three sets of three bhuktis. This would indeed show the aspects having an impact for the range is has given: 30%-40% of the time.
While he is showing that he doesn't know the technique, at least it shows that he has figured this out for himself.
Saturn’s aspects are seen to be prominent during the last three bhuktis. Interestingly, Braha states that he is himself in the middle of his own Saturn dasha, which may suggest Saturn’s aspects may not be fully realised for him as yet.
He gives the example of Saturn in the 11th house, and asks, “does Saturn throw an aspect on the 5th house, thereby harming children and investments and peace of mind for 19 years?”
Planets' aspects do not necessarily show anything is going to happen. It's the planets desire for something that is activated, which is, essentially, our own desire. But just because we desire something, it doesn't mean it's going to happen!
Also, Saturn represents desires we would probably not consciously admit to. We may reject them off hand.
Planetary dasas - as opposed to sign dasas - do not a guarantee anything is going to happen. All they show is the desire for something, a desire of the soul that may not be conscious. Desire is what motivates us.
Saturn’s desires often motivate us to avoid something. The soul has desires the mind and body are sometimes unwilling to participate in.
Ask anyone about their life and pretty quickly you realise it’s their desires that they speak about, whatever is happening. And while most of us are likely to respond well to Venus and Jupiter dashas, not many of us are likely to cozy up to Saturn.
No planetary dasha is a guarantee you will experience what the planet suggests you desire, or that you experience something you would not consciously choose.
There is another way to read the dasha he refers to throughout the book. When the Moon is a house other than the angular or trinal houses, there is another script going on that may push the regular reading of the dasha into the unconscious all the more.
If someone has their Moon in the 2nd or 6th house, the sequence of cycles is read from the 4th lunar mansion of the person's Moon. If someone has their Moon in the 3rd or 11th, the count begins from the 5th. Moon in the 8th or 12th house? The count is from the 8th.
This way of reading dashas is veiled by much confusion, even amongst astrologers, but it offers a more accurate assessment of what the person desires, and what may be showing up in their experience.
This brings me to the second factor he uses to back up his claim; that “while exalted and fallen planets in the natal horoscope clearly throw aspects onto their opposite house (the 7th house aspect), creating extremely bad and extremely good effects (respectively) onto those houses, the same has positively never occurred during dasas and bhuktis.”
While he states that planet do aspect the 7th house, (“clearly throw aspects”) he suggests they do not during their dasas. Here he seems to contradict himself within the same sentence by stating they do (sometimes?) influence the 7th house, but not during their dashas.
Planets do indeed aspect the 7th house, but to suggest that this is not relevant in the period of the planet (dasa) is clearly misguided. It is precisely because a planet is active in a chart that its aspects are more active. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest a planetary dasha is something other than an activation of the planet in the birth chart.
He goes on, “When I’ve seen a fallen planet run its dasa, causing big problems to the house it occupies, I’ve never seen the opposite house significantly flourish. And that’s precisely what would happen if that fallen dasa or bhukti planet was throwing an aspect onto its exaltation house.”
Does James Braha understand the nature of exaltation and debilitation?!
A debilitated planet is weak. It’s not as effective. So, it’s quite obvious that unless there are other mitigating factors, the planet cannot influence the sign opposite in any great way. No matter how much you may desire (and that is what an aspect it, remember) to have a better situation, the debilitated planet is often ineffectual.
He goes on, “Likewise, when exalted planets have run their dasas or bhuktis, I’ve never seen the opposite house (or planets in that opposite house) suffer like crazy.” Again, he is showing his misunderstanding of debilitation, exaltation, and the basic nature of planetary aspects.
If you have a debilitated planet, you're obviously going to desire a better situation, which is reflected in the planet’s aspect to the opposite, exalted placement of the planet.
The exalted planet desires to bring the high ideals of the exalted position down to earth in its opposite debilitation sign. Sometimes, that means coming down to earth with a thud, of course. But an exalted planet is usually more effectual, and will not show the opposite sign "suffer like crazy".
Yet I've read enough charts of those with exalted planets who are unsatisfied with their lot to know that exalted planets' desires are not always met with the reality of their experience. Exalted planets show high ideals, which don't always land. Again, the aspects show desire, not the outcome.
Whatever the planet, and whatever its strength or position, aspects show desires. Planets' aspects are NOT a guarantee of anything happening. They simply show the desire. Sign dashas show whether these desires are fulfilled, what is available in the environment.
Another point he brings up, “In particular, I’ve seen dasa-bhuktis of two planets in conjunction with each other that appeared to do so. [aspect, that is]. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases where dasa or bhukti planets seemed to throw aspects, conjunctions were involved.”
Here he is demonstrating he is using a technique - but doesn’t actually know it! The technique is to take the dasa and bhukti planet and count from one to the other to see where in the chart is impacted. If you take two planets in conjunction, it throws the influence to the opposite sign as he has correctly ascertained from his experience.
Despite my assertion that James Braha is misguided in this particular ‘Sutra’, I encourage you to buy his book, as there are many gems from an astrologer consulting clients for many years. But don’t take my, or his, word for it. Research and test his many claims for yourself.
While we should approach any astrologer’s work with an open mind, we should also question what they write, no matter who they are - just as Braha himself questions tradition.
While we must be on guard for techniques that have been misinterpreted and used incorrectly - just as he suggests we do - we should also question the astrologer's ability to work with techniques that are beyond them.
We must be mindful of questioning so much that we don’t listen for the answers. Sometimes, the answers are not as clear-cut as we desire.
Om Tat Sat
This highlights a bigger problem within astrology, a problem in all fields of knowledge; that is, taking some seen as an authority taken at their word - every time.
This is what seems to be happening if reviews of the book are anything to go by, and why I feel the need to speak up (or write up) about one particular topic he brings up in relation to planetary aspects during dashas.
As he makes definitive statements in his sutras, it may make it sound as if a foregone conclusion, as if he has covered all ground. But he is actually revealing he hasn’t done all his research.
He states in Sutra 176: “Planets running their Dashas and bhuktis don’t throw aspects onto other planets and houses.”
Within this sutra, he asks the question: “How can we know the effects are caused by dasa and bhukti aspects unless they’re consistent during the entire period?”
It’s a fair question and one we should ask. But it also reveals he doesn't have the full picture. More on this in just a bit.
Braha gives two reasons for his statement. First, he states that he has “never seen dasa or bhukti planets throw aspects anywhere near 7 in 10 times.” Here he is referring to a figure he states in the introduction of his book, that if something doesn’t work at least 7 out of 10 times there’s something very wrong with the technique. Again, a fair point.
But is there something he’s missing out that would actually make the technique work? Yes.
He goes on to write, “At best, such results occurred in maybe… 30% or 40%” (referring to aspects).
What he is apparently unaware of is that planets’ aspects give their results in different portions of their dashas, depending on whether they are seen as ‘cruel’ or ‘kind’. This is laid out in Jātaka Pārijāta; a text I’m assuming he hasn’t read. According to Parāśara, Saturn is a krūra or ‘cruel’ planet. Jātaka Pārijāta divides krūra Saturn into three different phases, three sets of three bhuktis. This would indeed show the aspects having an impact for the range is has given: 30%-40% of the time.
While he is showing that he doesn't know the technique, at least it shows that he has figured this out for himself.
Saturn’s aspects are seen to be prominent during the last three bhuktis. Interestingly, Braha states that he is himself in the middle of his own Saturn dasha, which may suggest Saturn’s aspects may not be fully realised for him as yet.
He gives the example of Saturn in the 11th house, and asks, “does Saturn throw an aspect on the 5th house, thereby harming children and investments and peace of mind for 19 years?”
Planets' aspects do not necessarily show anything is going to happen. It's the planets desire for something that is activated, which is, essentially, our own desire. But just because we desire something, it doesn't mean it's going to happen!
Also, Saturn represents desires we would probably not consciously admit to. We may reject them off hand.
Planetary dasas - as opposed to sign dasas - do not a guarantee anything is going to happen. All they show is the desire for something, a desire of the soul that may not be conscious. Desire is what motivates us.
Saturn’s desires often motivate us to avoid something. The soul has desires the mind and body are sometimes unwilling to participate in.
Ask anyone about their life and pretty quickly you realise it’s their desires that they speak about, whatever is happening. And while most of us are likely to respond well to Venus and Jupiter dashas, not many of us are likely to cozy up to Saturn.
No planetary dasha is a guarantee you will experience what the planet suggests you desire, or that you experience something you would not consciously choose.
There is another way to read the dasha he refers to throughout the book. When the Moon is a house other than the angular or trinal houses, there is another script going on that may push the regular reading of the dasha into the unconscious all the more.
If someone has their Moon in the 2nd or 6th house, the sequence of cycles is read from the 4th lunar mansion of the person's Moon. If someone has their Moon in the 3rd or 11th, the count begins from the 5th. Moon in the 8th or 12th house? The count is from the 8th.
This way of reading dashas is veiled by much confusion, even amongst astrologers, but it offers a more accurate assessment of what the person desires, and what may be showing up in their experience.
This brings me to the second factor he uses to back up his claim; that “while exalted and fallen planets in the natal horoscope clearly throw aspects onto their opposite house (the 7th house aspect), creating extremely bad and extremely good effects (respectively) onto those houses, the same has positively never occurred during dasas and bhuktis.”
While he states that planet do aspect the 7th house, (“clearly throw aspects”) he suggests they do not during their dasas. Here he seems to contradict himself within the same sentence by stating they do (sometimes?) influence the 7th house, but not during their dashas.
Planets do indeed aspect the 7th house, but to suggest that this is not relevant in the period of the planet (dasa) is clearly misguided. It is precisely because a planet is active in a chart that its aspects are more active. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest a planetary dasha is something other than an activation of the planet in the birth chart.
He goes on, “When I’ve seen a fallen planet run its dasa, causing big problems to the house it occupies, I’ve never seen the opposite house significantly flourish. And that’s precisely what would happen if that fallen dasa or bhukti planet was throwing an aspect onto its exaltation house.”
Does James Braha understand the nature of exaltation and debilitation?!
A debilitated planet is weak. It’s not as effective. So, it’s quite obvious that unless there are other mitigating factors, the planet cannot influence the sign opposite in any great way. No matter how much you may desire (and that is what an aspect it, remember) to have a better situation, the debilitated planet is often ineffectual.
He goes on, “Likewise, when exalted planets have run their dasas or bhuktis, I’ve never seen the opposite house (or planets in that opposite house) suffer like crazy.” Again, he is showing his misunderstanding of debilitation, exaltation, and the basic nature of planetary aspects.
If you have a debilitated planet, you're obviously going to desire a better situation, which is reflected in the planet’s aspect to the opposite, exalted placement of the planet.
The exalted planet desires to bring the high ideals of the exalted position down to earth in its opposite debilitation sign. Sometimes, that means coming down to earth with a thud, of course. But an exalted planet is usually more effectual, and will not show the opposite sign "suffer like crazy".
Yet I've read enough charts of those with exalted planets who are unsatisfied with their lot to know that exalted planets' desires are not always met with the reality of their experience. Exalted planets show high ideals, which don't always land. Again, the aspects show desire, not the outcome.
Whatever the planet, and whatever its strength or position, aspects show desires. Planets' aspects are NOT a guarantee of anything happening. They simply show the desire. Sign dashas show whether these desires are fulfilled, what is available in the environment.
Another point he brings up, “In particular, I’ve seen dasa-bhuktis of two planets in conjunction with each other that appeared to do so. [aspect, that is]. Indeed, in the vast majority of cases where dasa or bhukti planets seemed to throw aspects, conjunctions were involved.”
Here he is demonstrating he is using a technique - but doesn’t actually know it! The technique is to take the dasa and bhukti planet and count from one to the other to see where in the chart is impacted. If you take two planets in conjunction, it throws the influence to the opposite sign as he has correctly ascertained from his experience.
Despite my assertion that James Braha is misguided in this particular ‘Sutra’, I encourage you to buy his book, as there are many gems from an astrologer consulting clients for many years. But don’t take my, or his, word for it. Research and test his many claims for yourself.
While we should approach any astrologer’s work with an open mind, we should also question what they write, no matter who they are - just as Braha himself questions tradition.
While we must be on guard for techniques that have been misinterpreted and used incorrectly - just as he suggests we do - we should also question the astrologer's ability to work with techniques that are beyond them.
We must be mindful of questioning so much that we don’t listen for the answers. Sometimes, the answers are not as clear-cut as we desire.
Om Tat Sat
