I want to learn astrophysics and astronomy, I'm very interested in it because there are many questions that popped up in my head, and really curious about things, but I'm afraid of a little bit on math, but I'm a fast learner, I can understand things quickly and easily especially if it is translated on my native language, I have learned basic trigonometric functions, special angles, trigonometry, algebra, quadratic equations, and some basic math but not calculus, will proceed on that later, and I have learned basic physics, until vertical dimension, but still afraid a little on math and equations, how can I counteract that fear? I mean I really want to learn astrophysics but I'm afraid of numbers, can you give me tips? And can you suggest me some book? Or can I learn astrophysics without interacting too much with math? Btw, I'm just taking advancement because I'm really curious and interested in astrophysics, I'm still at high school, hope you can help me.
Generally, astrophysics (and astronomy) is math-heavy. That should not discourage you, but rather act as a way of learning math: it is often easier to learn topics that you have a use for and are part of some personal project than just getting lectured about them.
Astrophysics is based on math because it is based on many forms of physics - mechanics, thermodynamics, nuclear physics, relativity theory and so on - plus chemistry. Mathematics is a common language that binds these fields together and allows you to combine them to build models to understand what is going on. Some parts just use some basic math, but in general calculus really is needed.
Mathematics in the more common "calculations with numbers" form also matters because it all starts with measuring things - where things are, how much they change, brightness and so on - and then we build and test our models and understanding from this. That also means that statistics is important for handling measurement noise and finding patterns in data.
One cannot really do astronomy and astrophysics without math. It would be just looking at things and making up explanations without actually checking if and how they hold true.
For most parts of astronomy and astrophysics the level of mathematics required is not very high, compared to what a mathematician would call mathematics. (You are not going to spend much time on proving theorems, for example). So that is the first reason for telling you not to be discouraged by feeling nervous about maths. Much of the time, you only need to understand it well enough to be comfortable with using it as a tool. (It depends on the field, obviously: the shape of black hole event horizons is going to be a lot more advanced than the orbits of exoplanets).
The second reason not to be discouraged is that not only is most of the mathematics easier, it also comes with a built-in relevance to real life. What I mean is this. When you are studying maths as maths, your teacher (or your book) gives you a problem and you have to find the answer, and the answer could be anything at all. When you are using maths as a tool in astrophysics, the answer can't be "anything at all". It has to make physical sense.
For example, a recent paper I was reading was trying to answer the question "When did the violent neutron-star merger occur in which our heavy elements (such as gold and uranium) were created?". They measured the relative abundance, in cosmic dust grains, of certain pairs of elements which would have been the ultimate decay products of the original radioactive elements which were created in the merger. If you did such a calculation, and came up with the answer "the neutron stars merged 400 years ago", you would know the answer was nonsense. If you did it, and came up with the answer "the neutron stars merged 4 trillion years ago", you would also know the answer was nonsense. This built-in sanity check is actually reassuring, when you compare it with theoretical, "mathematical" mathematics. You know in advance what sort of answer you ought to be getting.