(výtažek ze série pojednání Šjámasundara Dáse „Astrologické školy“, èást 5)

Mandi je považován za Saturnova syna s vysoce nepøíznivým vlivem. Oznaèuje se jako tzv. kála vela, neboli graha s pozicí zjiš�ovanou podle urèitého èasu (kála) bìhem dne. Jeho používání je typické pro astrology z Malabaru (oblast zahrnující jihoindický stát Kérala).
Malabarští astrologové, kteøí následují systém Prašna Márga, urèují jeho pozici takto: poèínaje nedìlí Mandiho pozice odpovídá stupni vycházení na konci 26, 22, 18, 14, 10, 6 a 2 ghati (1 ghati = 24 minut, 1 den = 60 ghati) po východu Slunce, za pøedpokladu, že Slunce vychází v 6 hodin ráno, jinými slovy, že délka dne a noci jsou stejné. Pokud nejsou stejné, musí se poèítat s úmìrnou hodnotou.
Za nocí bude Mandiho pozice odpovídat stupni vycházení na konci 10, 6, 2, 26, 22, 18, and 14 ghati po západu Slunce poèínaje nedìlí. Toto pravidlo se týká noci dlouhé 12 hodin a zmìny se vypoèítávají pro úmìrné hodnoty stejnì jako v pøípadì dnù.
Je tøeba si povšimnout, že Mandi není stejné fyzické tìleso jako Slunce, Mìsíc èi Mars, takzvané planety používané v astrologii. Proè by mìl být nìjaký bod zvìrokruhu zjiš�ovaný urèitým èasem bìhem dne èi noci nazýván planetou?
Odpovìï zní, že existuje mylná pøedstava o používání pojmu „planeta“ v astrologii. V sanskritu se používá slovo „graha“—pojem, který vyjadøuje zdroj síly a schopnost ovlivòovat, uchopit èi zmocnit se nìkoho. Slovo pro planetu je „lóka“ a jedná se o zcela jinou entitu. (Ne všechny grahy jsou lóky a ne všechny lóky jsou grahy. Je tøeba mít na pamìti, že zatímco urèité planety mohou být grahy v astrologickém smyslu, nejedná se o kauzální èinitele, protože samy o sobì nic nezpùsobují. Jako astrologické grahy však mohou být použity v astrologickém jazyce pro objasnìní vùle Boha, tak jako znamení osudu nic nezpùsobují, ale jedná se o Boží znamení. – pozn. red.) Proto se Prahláda Mahárádža v sedmém zpìvu Šrímad-Bhágavatamu modlí, aby získal útoèištì u „Krišna grahy“. Nemyslel si, že Krišna je „planeta,“ ale byl pro nìho nejvyšším zdrojem síly atd.
Védská astrologie (souèást Véd, která byla zjevena mudrcùm z vyšších zdrojù. Z koneèného hlediska toto poznání pochází od Šrí Krišny, Nejvyšší Osobnosti Božství. – pozn. red.) používá pøi svých výpoètech mnohé nefyzické grahy. Nìkteré jsou esoterické, jako Mandi a Gulika (obì jsou kála vely) a upa-grahy jako Dhúma, Jamaghantaka atd. (o všech se zmiòuje Parášara); existenci jiných, jako jsou lagna, Rahu a Ketu, vùbec nezpochybòujeme, i když jsou to zcela urèitì nefyzické, ale pøesto mocné grahy. Rahu a Ketu jsou body ležící na linii prùseèíku obìžných drah Slunce a Mìsíce. Lagna (ascendent) je prùmìt východního horizontu ve zkoumané dobì na zvìrokruh. Tento bod Øekové nazývali „horoscopus“, z nìhož je odvozeno slovo „horoskop“. Lagna je tedy nejdùležitìjším parametrem horoskopu, pøestože se nejedná o fyzickou planetu.
Malabarští astrologové Mandiho plnì integrují do všech svých metod, a� se jedná o džátaku (výpoèet založený na dobì zrození, což je vùbec nejrozšíøenejší astrologická metoda), prašnu (zodpovídání konkrétní otázky) nebo muhúrtu (urèování pøíznivého èasu pro zapoèetí urèité èinnosti), a jsou dnes prakticky jedinými indickými astrology, kteøí tak èiní. V pøípadech speciálních prašen týkajících se abhièáry (èerné magie) také zahrnuji Mandiho do výpoètu, nebo� se bez nìho nelze v takových pøípadech obejít.

What is Mandi? 
BY: SHYAMASUNDARA DASA 
Feb 05, 2012 — INDIA (SUN) — In an article entitled "Vedic "Shadowy Planet", Chaya-Graha Mandi" by Dharmapad Prabhu, he claims that he has discovered proof of the sighting of the "non-luminous planet Mandi." His proof revolves around his assertion that: 
"At this moment we may consider a sighting of what was apparently Mandi, one of the principal non-luminous planets. In the Vedic astronomical literature, all non-luminous planets are deemed to have an eclipsing function, in other words, the Puranas describe that these planets cover or 'swallow' the luminaries." 
(We note that nowhere has he cited any reference from the Puranas or Jyotish sastras to support this assertion regarding Mandi.) 
Then he tells us of an article he read in the Key Moments in Astronomy column called "A Very Singular Phenomenon", that tells of an interesting observation of some inexplicable "eclipsing" of the solar orb by an opaque spindle shaped body that occurred on August 9, 1762 in Lucerne, Switzerland. The author of this article, Ian Seymore, concludes thusly: "What could this object have been? ...Natural explanations do not readily come to mind ...." 
Now here is where Dharmapad Prabhu brings in Mandi as his explanation to the riddle: 
"At this point, I would like to offer an explanation for that which was witnessed by the two astronomers. It was the shadowy planet Mandi of Vedic astronomy. The celestial coordinates of the Sun and Mandi were synonymous, I repeat synonymous, during the time period under consideration. For example, on August 9, 1762, on the first day of M. Rostan´s observations, according to the Vedic Jyotish program Visual Jyotish, the Sun was in sidereal Cancer at 26*26', while Mandi was at 25* 45'of sidereal Cancer. On September 7th, the Sun was at sidereal Leo at 24*27' and Mandi was at 23*46'. The half a degree of divergence is negligible as the above-mentioned software program is not exactly research grade, and the Sun is nearly half a degree wide anyway, i.e., thirty minutes, which is wide enough to encompass the shadowy body; at least enough for the shadowy body to touch the Sun, so to speak. The reader may not have much experience with commercial astronomy or astrology programs, but anytime one takes such a program back several hundred years, errors of a few minutes or more start cropping up. For our purposes right now, however, the information at hand more than serves the purpose." 
Then Dharmapad Prabhu says: 
"Not only do we have a match in terms of coordinates, but we also have a match in terms of a description of the nature and activity of the shadowy planet Mandi -- it was performing its role as per the Puranas of engulfing the Sun with its shadow." 
And he concludes with: 
"The indulgence of the readers is duly appreciated and I hope that the reader's faith in the Vedic version has been solidified." 
Now let us discuss what the Jyotish sastras actually say about Mandi. First of all, nowhere is Mandi described as engulfing the Sun in its shadow, it doesn't have a shadow. The reason for this will become clear to the reader when the authentic method of calculating Mandi is understood. Second of all Mandi is not a Chaya graham (shadow planet) like Rahu and Ketu, but rather a ‘Kala Vela' or time dependent entity, as will soon be seen. Unlike other grahas (Sun, Moon, etc.) that have uniform motion, the position of Mandi (and other Kala Velas) will bounce around the zodiac and radically change its position when it changes from day to night and again back to day, this again will be seen by how it is defined. 
I do not know of any currently available Jyotisha programs that correctly calculate Mandi. They rely on definitions for the calculation of Mandi given by people who do not use Mandi in their daily Jyotisha practice. The only place in India where Mandi is used on a daily basis is Kerala and some parts of Tamil Nadu. (I studied jyotish in Kerala from 1981-83.) Thus only texts from this region give the correct definition of how to calculate Mandi. These would be texts such as Prasna Marga and the earlier work of Phaladipika by Mantresvara. In his translation of Prasna Marga Volume 1, page 160, B.V. Raman gives the same definition that is given in Phaladipika 25.2 which is: 
When the duration of the day is 30 ghatikas, [ghatika=24 minutes, 30 ghatikas =12 hours] the positions of Mandi on the week days counting from Sunday onwards is at the end of 26, 22, 18, 14, 10, 6, 2 ghatikas (from Sunrise) during day time. These figures have to be proportionately increased or diminished according to the duration of the day chosen is greater or less than 30 ghatikas. At night (from Sunset) the positions of the lord of the seven muhurtas are counted not from the lord of the week day chosen; but that of the 5th. The position of mandi at night will be different on the weekdays viz., at the end of 10, 6, 2, 26, 22, 18 and 14 respectively. 
Thus the position of Mandi would be equivalent to the ascendant rising at the time specified by the definition. Let us work out an example using the date of the observation of the mysterious phenomena to see how this works. 
On Monday, August 9, 1762 in Lucerne the Sun rose at 4:53:30 LMT and set at 19:15:39 LMT. The day was 14h 22m 09s long and the night 9h 37m 51s long and since the observation was made during the day which was Monday the number of ghatikas after Sunrise would be 22 (from list above). Hence the position of Mandi during the daytime would be found in the following manner as per the definition: 
Length of day/12 hours X ghatikas for that day. 
14h 22m 09s/12h x 22 gh =14.36916667h/12h x 22 gh = 1.19743 x 22 gh 
= 26.3434gh 
If we convert ghati to modern time equivalent by multiplying by 24 then it equals 10h 32m 14s after sunrise. 
Thus the position of Mandi would be the lagna rising at 4h 53m 30s + 10h 32m 14s = 15:25:14 LMT that is 23SC40 [SC=Scorpio]. Hence the position of Mandi during the day on August 9, 1762 is 23SC40. By using the same rules we can also find out the position of Mandi right after Sunset that would be 21PI52. And on the following day (Tuesday) Mandi would then jump to 02SC24. If we were to calculate the position of Mandi using the rules for a number of days we will see that Mandi has very erratic motion and that it can almost never conjoin the Sun (only at polar latitudes where day and night have extreme lengths) that would be required for an eclipse. 
The closest that Mandi can be to the Sun, by definition, is on a Saturday when Mandi would then be located at the point rising 2 ghatikas after sunrise. If we assume for the sake of argument that the day of the observation was a Saturday instead of a Monday then the position of Mandi would be worked out thusly: 
1.19743 x 2 gh = 57m 28s after sunrise, that is, 5:50:58. If we calculate the lagna for that time we get o6LE28 thus at that time Mandi would be at 06LE28. Thus the closest that Mandi could ever be to the Sun would be more than 10 degrees from the Sun and in a different sign and by no means an eclipse. 
Reverting back to our discussion we can see that the position of Mandi on the day in question is almost 120 degrees from the Sun, which is very far, and nowhere near an eclipse as the author asserts. Thus, whatever it was that was obscuring the Sun on that day it was definitely not Mandi. 
These type of mistakes arise because these days the vast majority of astrologers have never calculated a chart by hand and simply rely on the computer calculation not even knowing if what the computer is telling them is correct or not. In the past the astrologer had to learn mathematics and astronomy before getting to astrology. This meant that only the brightest people took up jyotish. But now anyone who can input data into a computer thinks they are an astrologer. This "dumbing down" of the subject is why astrology is in such a sad state these days. 
Your humble servant, 
Shyamasundara dasa 

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/02-12/editorials8232.htm