Chaya Graha Manid

[Guest guest]

List Members,

 

I was told by the editors of The Astrological Magazine that a certain

article of mine would be printed in the June issue of The

Astrological Magazine. I didn't see it, and I kept thinking that it

would come out at some other time.

 

Actually, it was there all the time, in the Letters to the Editor

section. Carramba! !Am I stoopid or what! They gave me two full pages

and I didn't even see it. Aaaaaaah!

 

Actually, I only received the issue about three weeks ago because my

subscription had lapsed, and I had to back order, so I have some

excuse. I received about five at one shot and had to read them over a

period of time.

 

The article was about a sighting of Mandi by astronomers at Lucerne

in 1762. At that time, the planetary longitude of Mandi was

synonamous with the longitude of the Sun, and a dark, spindle-shaped

cloud was seen to cover the Sun. Mandi, of course, is a chaya graha,

and shadowy globe.

 

It was pointed out by the astronomers that the phenomenon couldn't be

a sunspot because it didn't rotate with the Sun, it hung over the

Sun, so to speak.

 

I am going to include the article further down, do give it a read.

 

It is my opinion that, because the shadowy planets cause the

eclipses, and because there seems to be a leeching of light particles

from the surface of the Moon during eclipses, the shadowy planets are

positively charged. ( Don't worry about it ).

 

Yours,

 

Dharma/Dean

 

Vedic " Shadowy Planet, " Chaya-Graha Mandi, Observed by Astronomers

at Lucerne

 

In addition to the seven major planets, Vedic astrology recognises a

set of non-luminous, shadowy planets, the two most famous being Rahu

and Ketu, the Northern and Southern nodes of the Moon. Two others

which are often referred to in the Vedic astrological literature are

Gulika and Mandi. These-non luminous planets have never been

considered to have have physical shape or form, although there are

descriptions of them in the Puranas and calculations are given to

find their coordinates.

 

At this moment we shall consider a sighting of what is 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.

 

But the lack of any kind of evidence whatsoever of the existence of

the non-luminous planets has always grouped in their belief with the

stuff of fairy tales or imagination.However, the following article

from the August, 1999, edition of the British magazine Astronomy Now

seems to provide documented evidence which supports the existence of

the non-luminous planet Mandi. Such proof seems to be unwittingly

provided by the Western astronomical community itself, which is very

ironic as Western astronomers usually discount the Puranic

astronomical descriptions as being poppycock. At any rate, in the "

Key Moments in Astronomy " column, by Ian Seymour, the article

entitled " A Very Singular Phenomenon " appeared:

 

" Historical sources record many astonishing astronomical events, but

few remain as bewildering as' a very singular phenomenon seen in the

disk of the Sun,' reported by the Annual Register for 1766. The

journal's account warrants full repetition, for events of August 9,

1762, seem both well-attested and unique.

 

On that day ' M. de Rostan, of the economic society at Berne, and of

the medicophysical society a Basle, whilst he was taking the Sun's

altitude with a quadrant at Lucerne ... observed that the Sun gave

but a faint pale light, which he attributed to the vapors of the

Leman lake; however, happening to direct a 14 foot telesope armed

with a micrometer, to the Sun, he he was surprised to see the Eastern

side of the Sun, as it were eclipsed about three digits, taking in a

kind of nebulousity, which environed the opaque body, by which the

Sun was eclipsed. In the space of about two hours and a half, the

South side of the said body, whatever it was, appeared detached from

the limb of the Sun; but the limb, or more properly, the northern

extremity of this body, which had the shape of a spindle, in breadth

about three of the Sun's digits, and nine in length, did not quit the

Sun's northern limb. This spindle kept continually advancing on the

Sun's body, from East towards West, with no more than about half the

velocity with which the ordinary spots move; for it did not disappear

till the 7th of September ... M. Rostan, during that time observed it

almost every day: that is to say for near a month: and, by means of a

camera obscura, he delineated the figure of it, which he sent to the

Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris.'

 

The next paragraph raises this observation far above the usual run of

fantastic anecdotes, for ' the same phaenomenon was observed at Sole,

in the bishopric of Basle, situated about 5 and 40 German leagues

Northward of Lausanne. M. Coste ... observed it there, with a

telescope of 11 feet, , and found it of the same spindle-like

form ... only it was not quite so broad [ for ] the body began to

turn about, and present its edge. A more remarkable circumstance is,

that at Sole it did not answer to the same point of the Sun as it did

at Lausanne: it therefore had a considerable parallax: but what so

very extraordinary a body, placed between the Sun and us, should be,

is not easy to divine. It was no spot, since its motion was greatly

too slow, nor was it a planet or comet, its figure seemingly proving

the contrary. In a word, we know of nothing to have recourse to in

the heavens whereby to explain this phaenomenon; and, what adds to

the oddness of it, M. Messier, who constantly observed the Sun at

Paris during the same time, saw nothing of such an appearance.'"

 

The reader may note that the phenomenon was not preceived by Messier

observing in Paris. A modern parallel, which has been narrated by Jan

Lamprecht in his book " Hollow Planets," may offer an explanation for

this. In the 1950s, strange situation arose whereby one noted

astronomer, Richard Baum of the British Astronomical Association, and

Patrick Moore, perhaps Britain's most noted astronomer, disagreed on

their observations of the planet Venus. Richard Baum reported seeing

radial spokes emanate from a point on or near the Southern pole of

Venus while Patrick Moore never preceived them. They both had a

sensitivity check done on their eyes, and it was determined that

Richard Baum had quite a bit of sensitivity in the ultra violet band

while Patrick Moore did not. Visual sensitivity could also account

for the fact that Messier did not perceive what the other two did.

 

Ian Seymour concludes his article by commenting " What could this

object have been? ...Natural explanations do not readily come to

mind ...."

 

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 synonomous, I repeat synonomous, 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. 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 start cropping up. For our purposes right now, however, the

information at hand more than serves the purpose- this scribe will

leave it to somebody else to come along and do any double checking.

 

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

graha Mandi- it was performing its role as per the Puranas of

engulfing the Sun with its shadow.

 

Now, such an explanation will not probably sit well with the modern,

Western scientific temperament which tends to strongly discount Vedic

astronomical descriptions, maybe because such descriptions aren't

understood, and maybe because they seem to be too fantastic. But this

explanation must be dealt with nevertheless because such a close

astronomical correspondence in terms of coordinance cannot be chalked

up to merely chance; nor may a simultaneous correspondence between

the observed effect of the phenomenon and the Puranic descriptions of

the way in which Mandi is supposed to cover or " swallow " the Sun be

chalked up to chance. The correspondences pointed out justify and

even demand investigation by modern astronomers, in the same way that

they justify and demand that the Puranic astronomical descriptions be

revisited with new respect, even though such descriptions may not

tabulate with currently accepted parameters. The timeless wisdom of

Hamlet is very apropriate in this regard as he instructs his friend:"

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt

of in your philosophy." ( Hamlet, I, v, 166 )

 

The indulgence of the readers is duely appreciated and I hope that

the reader´s faith in the Vedic version has been solidified.

 

Yours Truly,

 

Dean De Lucia/Dharmapada Dasa

[Guest guest]

How does Mandi and Gulika function in one's chart ? It is not mentioned in the

text books that I have.

Regards

Sonia

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now