Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Dear Prabhu's and Maharaja We are not saying anywhere that one should not take Srimad-Bhagavatam literally "as it is", nor are we suggesting that one should accept them as simply allegorical stories that are open to be interpreted in any non-literal way that one can conjure up in one`s imagination. Rather we are convinced that many persons do not understand the figures in Srimad Bhagavatam and are not willing to study this subject matter thoroughly, like Sadaputa Prabhu did. All we wanted to do is to defend Sadaputa and his books, "Vedic Cosmology" and "Sacred Universe". We are convinced, like Sadaputa that the Bhagavatam gives a precise description of the universe. We would appreciate it if you would kindly explain the given qoute. ("“Krishna said, ‘Your particular universe has a diameter of four billion miles; therefore it is the smallest of all the universes. Consequently you have only four heads. PURPORT Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, one of the greatest astrologers of his time, gives information from the Siddhanta-siromani that this universe measures 18,712,069,200,000,000 x 8 miles. This is the circumference of this universe. According to some, this is only half the circumference. (Madhya 21.84)") We can not just cut out the Sri Caitanya Caritamrta, and refer only to Srimad Bhagavatam. As Prabhupada said, Sri Caitanya Cartitamrta is post graduate study. We should not substract the statements from Sri Caitanya Cartitamrta, because it suits our point of view. We should accept Prabhupada`s books "As it is" and not adding or substracting anything. Your servants Gauranga Premananda das and Madhu Gopal das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Dear Gauranga Premananda Prabhu Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. You have said: "We are not saying anywhere that one should not take Srimad-Bhagavatam literally "as it is", nor are we suggesting that one should accept them as simply allegorical stories that are open to be interpreted in any non-literal way that one can conjure up in one`s imagination." However you are supporting Sadaputa Prabhu and this is EXACTLY what he has done. His whole presentation is that we should not take the Bhagavatam literally, rather we should interpret it to make it fit in with the "correct" understanding of modern science. And to this end he has conjured up various non-literal explanations of the Bhagavatam from his imagination. (if not from his imagination where do you suggest his non-literal interpretations have come from?) You go on to say: "Rather we are convinced that many persons do not understand the figures in Srimad Bhagavatam...." This discussion is NOT about the figures in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. The figure you are talking about is not even in the Srimad-Bhagavatam!!! The point we are discussing is should we accept the Bhagavatam description AS IT IS or should we interpret it using our imagination to make it appear to agree with the current ideas of modern science. That is what Sadaputa has done in his most recent book. The result of all his non-literal interpretations is to make the Bhagavatam agree with modern science. His premise is modern science is correct and we will look silly if we say anything else. That is not Prabhupada's opinion and as followers of Srila Prabhupada we can not present these ideas in Prabhupada's Temple of the Vedic Planetarium. That would be blasphemy. I have discussed this further in my reply to your other letter included below. Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!! Your servant Madhudvisa dasa Dear Gauranga Premananda Prabhu Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! This is not at all a satisfactory reply. The main point I made is Danavir Maharaja's book is not about the size of the universe. It is about the principle that we should accept the Bhagavatam as a literal, actual description of the universe. Not that we should make many non-literal interpretations out of our imagination to try and make it appear that the Bhagavatam agrees with the "correct" view of modern science. So you should reply to this point. Either you should support your argument that we should make many non-literal interpretations of the Bhagavatam and present the Bhagavatam "as Sadaputa interprets it to be from his imagination" rather than the Bhagavatam As It Is [as given to us by Srila Prabhupada]. Or, admit that it is Srila Prabhupada's desire and therefore we are obliged to present the Bhagavatam "As It Is" in the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium. You are supporting Sadaputa Prabhu who accepts modern science as being correct and sees it as being important that the Vedic descriptions somehow support the conclusions of modern science. This is not Srila Prabhupada's opinion. Prabhupada's opinion is that the modern scientists are no better than frogs in a well. The example is that one frog has lived in a well for his whole life, while another frog has traveled outside the well and seen so many things, including the Atlantic Ocean. So the well-traveled frog is trying to explain the Atlantic Ocean to his frog friend who has never been out of the well. He is saying, "It is huge!" But for the "frog in the well" his well is the whole universe. So he has to compare everything with his experience in the well. So he is thinking, "perhaps it is twice as big as my well..." in this way he can go on trying to understand the Atlantic Ocean in terms of the universe as he knows it (his well) but he can never conceive of the Atlantic Ocean at all. Similarly modern science, with its frog-in-the-well like knowledge of the universe can never understand the universe. Because they can not see it. What can the frog see out of the well of the world? Very little. Sometimes a bit of blue sky, sometimes a cloud, sometimes he may even see the sun or some stars. Occasionally the moon may pass over the opening of his well. and even sometimes he may hear the farmers' tractor plowing the fields. Sometimes something may fall into the well. Just imagine what he would think if some children were playing and they dropped a ball in his well. How would he understand what was going on. How would he explain that ball falling into his universe??? You can be sure our Dr. Frog Ph.D. would come up with a perfectly good scientific explanation. But what does he know? How can he know??? So modern science with their imperfect senses, their cheating propensity, all the mistakes they make and the problem that they accept so many things to be facts which are not facts at all makes their conclusions very faulty. The whole system of modern astronomy is based on so many assumptions which have no proof. It is like a castle built on sand, it has no foundation. It is like a very grand mathematical calculation which starts with an error. No matter how wonderful the calculation, the result will be incorrect. As it is based on an incorrect assumption... "That is our basic principle of knowledge, that every one of us is defective. So you cannot give us complete knowledge. It is not possible. We must receive knowledge from the perfect without defects." (Srila Prabhupada Conversation 30 Jan, 1977) Srila Bhaktsiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was a great astrologer. And he translated the Suriya Siddhanta as a great astrologer. But it is not the authority for the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium. That authority is Srila Prabhupada's Srimad-Bhagavatam. Srila Bhaktsiddhanta's translation of Surya Siddhanta is an authorative translation. Prabhupada said if it is available we should get it. He said that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was a great authority on the movements of the sun. But there are many different systems of astronomy in India contempory to the Surya-siddhanta. They are different systems, different predictive models which are used for different purposes. But we are interested in the Bhagavatam which is not just a different predictive model, but it is a real description of how the mechanics of the universe work from a perfect person who has perfect knowledge. That is the main point we have to get across in this Temple of the Vedic Planetarium. That real knowledge can only come from a perfect person who actually has that perfect knowledge. Neither you nor Sadaputa Prabhu seem to accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavatam. That is a very serious problem. So it seems that you do not agree with what I have written but you have give no reason why you disagree nor have you shown how anything I have written is not correct. So if you have any objections then please explain them clearly and support them from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. Chant Hare Krishna and be happy! Your servant Madhudvisa dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Dear Madhudvisa Prabhu Hare Krishna! Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. We read your reply. What is your explanation on the CC. madhya lila 21.84 and purport. The statement: " According to some, this is only half the circumference" This would make 18,712,069,200,000,000 x 8 miles till Lokaloka mountain. This is in one sense the universe: beyond Lokaloka mountain is no sunlight and living entities. This gives respectabe figures. Srila Prabhupada said that western scientists have partial knowledge. (see our e-mail exchanges with HH Danavir Maharaja) "Krishna said: Your particular universe has a diameter of four billion miles; therefore it is the smallest of all the universes. Consequently you have only four heads. PURPORT Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, one of the greatest astrologers of his time, gives information from the Siddhanta-siromani that this universe measures 18,712,069,200,000,000 x 8 miles. This is the circumference of this universe. According to some, this is only half the circumference. (Madhya 21.84)" ys: Gauranga Premananda das and Madhu Gopal das YOU WROTE: You have said: "We are not saying anywhere that one should not take Srimad-Bhagavatam literally "as it is", nor are we suggesting that one should accept them as simply allegorical stories that are open to be interpreted in any non-literal way that one can conjure up in one`s imagination." However you are supporting Sadaputa Prabhu and this is EXACTLY what he has done. His whole presentation is that we should not take the Bhagavatam literally, rather we should interpret it to make it fit in with the "correct" understanding of modern science. And to this end he has conjured up various non-literal explanations of the Bhagavatam from his imagination. (if not from his imagination where do you suggest his non-literal interpretations have come from?) You go on to say: "Rather we are convinced that many persons do not understand the figures in Srimad Bhagavatam...." This discussion is NOT about the figures in the Srimad-Bhagavatam. The figure you are talking about is not even in the Srimad-Bhagavatam!!! The point we are discussing is should we accept the Bhagavatam description AS IT IS or should we interpret it using our imagination to make it appear to agree with the current ideas of modern science. That is what Sadaputa has done in his most recent book. The result of all his non-literal interpretations is to make the Bhagavatam agree with modern science. His premise is modern science is correct and we will look silly if we say anything else. That is not Prabhupada's opinion and as followers of Srila Prabhupada we can not present these ideas in Prabhupada's Temple of the Vedic Planetarium. That would be blasphemy. I have discussed this further in my reply to your other letter included below. Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!! Your servant Madhudvisa dasa Dear Gauranga Premananda Prabhu Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! This is not at all a satisfactory reply. The main point I made is Danavir Maharaja's book is not about the size of the universe. It is about the principle that we should accept the Bhagavatam as a literal, actual description of the universe. Not that we should make many non-literal interpretations out of our imagination to try and make it appear that the Bhagavatam agrees with the "correct" view of modern science. So you should reply to this point. Either you should support your argument that we should make many non-literal interpretations of the Bhagavatam and present the Bhagavatam "as Sadaputa interprets it to be from his imagination" rather than the Bhagavatam As It Is [as given to us by Srila Prabhupada]. Or, admit that it is Srila Prabhupada's desire and therefore we are obliged to present the Bhagavatam "As It Is" in the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium. You are supporting Sadaputa Prabhu who accepts modern science as being correct and sees it as being important that the Vedic descriptions somehow support the conclusions of modern science. This is not Srila Prabhupada's opinion. Prabhupada's opinion is that the modern scientists are no better than frogs in a well. The example is that one frog has lived in a well for his whole life, while another frog has traveled outside the well and seen so many things, including the Atlantic Ocean. So the well-traveled frog is trying to explain the Atlantic Ocean to his frog friend who has never been out of the well. He is saying, "It is huge!" But for the "frog in the well" his well is the whole universe. So he has to compare everything with his experience in the well. So he is thinking, "perhaps it is twice as big as my well..." in this way he can go on trying to understand the Atlantic Ocean in terms of the universe as he knows it (his well) but he can never conceive of the Atlantic Ocean at all. Similarly modern science, with its frog-in-the-well like knowledge of the universe can never understand the universe. Because they can not see it. What can the frog see out of the well of the world? Very little. Sometimes a bit of blue sky, sometimes a cloud, sometimes he may even see the sun or some stars. Occasionally the moon may pass over the opening of his well. and even sometimes he may hear the farmers' tractor plowing the fields. Sometimes something may fall into the well. Just imagine what he would think if some children were playing and they dropped a ball in his well. How would he understand what was going on. How would he explain that ball falling into his universe??? You can be sure our Dr. Frog Ph.D. would come up with a perfectly good scientific explanation. But what does he know? How can he know??? So modern science with their imperfect senses, their cheating propensity, all the mistakes they make and the problem that they accept so many things to be facts which are not facts at all makes their conclusions very faulty. The whole system of modern astronomy is based on so many assumptions which have no proof. It is like a castle built on sand, it has no foundation. It is like a very grand mathematical calculation which starts with an error. No matter how wonderful the calculation, the result will be incorrect. As it is based on an incorrect assumption... "That is our basic principle of knowledge, that every one of us is defective. So you cannot give us complete knowledge. It is not possible. We must receive knowledge from the perfect without defects." (Srila Prabhupada Conversation 30 Jan, 1977) Srila Bhaktsiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura was a great astrologer. And he translated the Suriya Siddhanta as a great astrologer. But it is not the authority for the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium. That authority is Srila Prabhupada's Srimad-Bhagavatam. Srila Bhaktsiddhanta's translation of Surya Siddhanta is an authorative translation. Prabhupada said if it is available we should get it. He said that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta was a great authority on the movements of the sun. But there are many different systems of astronomy in India contempory to the Surya-siddhanta. They are different systems, different predictive models which are used for different purposes. But we are interested in the Bhagavatam which is not just a different predictive model, but it is a real description of how the mechanics of the universe work from a perfect person who has perfect knowledge. That is the main point we have to get across in this Temple of the Vedic Planetarium. That real knowledge can only come from a perfect person who actually has that perfect knowledge. Neither you nor Sadaputa Prabhu seem to accept the authority of Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavatam. That is a very serious problem. So it seems that you do not agree with what I have written but you have give no reason why you disagree nor have you shown how anything I have written is not correct. So if you have any objections then please explain them clearly and support them from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. Chant Hare Krishna and be happy! Your servant Madhudvisa dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Dear Madhudvisa Prabhu Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! Our comments are in xxx.........xxx YOU WROTE I think you need to read my reply again. This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with 18,712,069,200,000,000. xxxHow to explain the facts and figures in relation to your/ the theoryxxx YOU WROTE I am convinced that the fifth canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam is giving the actual description of the universe. We can not understand it at the moment. That is our limitation, that is our conditioning. xxx How are you convinced if you cannot understand- blindly convinced. How are we going to understand it. By somewhere doing interpretation. That is advised if things are not clear; you say "I don't understand" "Commentary or interpretation required when things are not very clear. Then you can suggest, “The meaning may be like this.” But when the things are clear, why should you comment? There is no necessity of comment. Just like, for example—this is also from Sanskrit scholar’s example—that ga‰g€yaˆ ghoapalli. Ga‰g€yam: “On the Ganges there is a neighborhood which is known as Ghoapalli.” Now, this statement is in your front. So one may question that “The river Ganges is water. How there can be a neighborhood which is known as Ghoapalli? On the water how there can be a quarter or neighborhood of human habitation?” You can question that. Ga‰g€yaˆ ghoapalli. Then the interpretation should be, “No, not on the Ganges. ‘On the Ganges’ means ‘on the bank of the Ganges.’ ” This interpretation is nice. When one cannot understand clearly, there is interpretation. Town Hall Lecture Auckland, April 14, 1972 Can you think of an interpretation. How can you build a planetarium if you "cannot understand the fifth canto of Srimad Bhagavatam" (your words) or the model which you want to build xxx YOU WROTE So I am hoping that you will write back admitting that yes, we do have to accept the Srimad-Bhagavatam AS IT IS, xxxTrue. but how to understand it and yes the scientists are foolsxxx YOU WROTE modern science makes so many mistakes, builds theories on assumptions that are false, has imperfect senses and of course they cheat SO MUCH to try to "prove" their pet theories. You believe in the big bang and the red shift, not in Prabhupada and Krishna. xxxWho believes big bang, red shift? xxx xxx We disagree. Now who is Srila Prabhupada's representative to solve it; the tattva-darsinah. "..we do not misinterpret the readings of Bhagavad-g…t€. We accept them as it is. If there is some doubt... There cannot be any doubt(,really). It may be, due to my poor fund of knowledge I cannot understand it—that we should admit. The lines, as stated in the Bhagavad-g…t€, they are as perfect as anything. But if I cannot understand it, that is my lack of knowledge, my poor fund of knowledge. Therefore KŠa has suggested or ordered in this Bhagavad-g…t€, tad viddhi praŠip€tena paripranena sevay€ upadekyanti tad jñ€naˆ jñ€ninas tattva-darinaƒ [bg. 4.34] Because there may be some difficulty...." Town Hall Lecture Auckland, April 14, 1972 We are ordered to find someone who knows. That is not you because you don't understand. That must be the B.I. Srila Prabhupada said that. In 1977 when Srila Prabhupada instructed a group of scientifically inclined devotees about the Vedic Planetarium he clearly metioned about the fifth canto: "I do not know, you scientists figure out." Therefore he gave that assignment to the Bhaktivedanta Institute. See his letter to dr. Wolf 14-10-'76 "Regarding the scientists, we have entrusted our own three scientists namely Svarupa Damodara, Sadaputa, and Madhva and we leave the matter to them, we do not say anything ourselves,but are leaving it to them." Lastly: -if you don't accept Sadaputa Prabhu's explanation, then, to build the planetarium, build it in yojanas as described in SB and pray that some future BI-er explains the yojana -show the sun closer to the bhu-mandala( and not our position on the bhu-mandala) then the moon, see Sadaputa Prabhu's books xxx -"“Krishna said, "Your particular universe has a diameter of four billion miles; therefore it is the smallest of all the universes. Consequently you have only four heads. PURPORT Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, one of the greatest astrologers of his time, gives information from the Siddhanta-siromani that this universe measures 18,712,069,200,000,000 x 8 miles. This is the circumference of this universe. According to some, this is only half the circumference. (Madhya 21.84)". in skanda purana book 1 mahesvarakhanda section 2 kaumarikakhanda ch.37 T.12 i read: brahmananda is 100 crores yojanas in dimension (1 crore is 10 million) this is 1 billion yojanas = 8 billion yojanas 2 x "four billion miles" figure of SB this seems to solve "half the circumference" of some puranikas? Garuda Purana 3.10.5 Lord Krsna to Garuda: "primordial egg spreads over 50 crores, then minute particle of golden hue the same dimension. Thus dimension of the egg extends over 100 crore y. Then 7 enclosures earth extending over 1000 crores water ,, 10.000 ,, etc. "half the circumference" of some puranikas is our SB's understanding, actually it is 100 crores or 8 billion miles Chant Hare Krishna and be happy! ys: Gauranga Premananda das and Madhu Gopal das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 Dear Gauranga Premananda Prabhu Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! With a straw in my mouth and will all the humility I can muster I beg to submit that you are a thick head. Every email you have sent is identical. You simply talk about 18,712,069,200,000,000. I have clearly indicated that the issue here is if we are meant to accept the Bhagavatam "as it is" or if we are supposed to interperet it in various imaginary, non-literal ways, as Sadaputa has done, to bring the Bhagavatam's description of the universe into agreement with the ideas of modern science. You constantly aviod this point and simply say 18,712,069,200,000,000.18,712,069,200,000,000.18,712,069,200,000,000.... There is no point in this conversation. You are simply a broken record. Chant Hare Krishna and be happy! Your servant Madhudvisa dasa Gauranga Premananda (das) BCS (Amsterdam - NL) [Gauranga.Premananda.BCS (AT) pamho (DOT) net] Sunday, February 06, 2005 9:43 AM Danavir Goswami (USA); Drutakarma (das) ACBSP (Los Angeles - USA); Arya Siddhanta (das) DG (Los Angeles, CA - US); Carana Renu (dd) DAS (Ljubljana - SI); richard thompson; Oxford Studies RE: Vedic Cosmology debate Dear Madhudvisa Prabhu Hare Krishna! Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! Our comments are in xxx.........xxx YOU WROTE I think you need to read my reply again. This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with 18,712,069,200,000,000. xxxHow to explain the facts and figures in relation to your/ the theoryxxx YOU WROTE I am convinced that the fifth canto of the Srimad-Bhagavatam is giving the actual description of the universe. We can not understand it at the moment. That is our limitation, that is our conditioning. xxx How are you convinced if you cannot understand- blindly convinced. How are we going to understand it. By somewhere doing interpretation. That is advised if things are not clear; you say "I don't understand" "Commentary or interpretation required when things are not very clear. Then you can suggest, "The meaning may be like this." But when the things are clear, why should you comment? There is no necessity of comment. Just like, for example-this is also from Sanskrit scholar's example-that gaGgAyaM ghoSapalli. GaGgAyam: "On the Ganges there is a neighborhood which is known as GhoSapalli." Now, this statement is in your front. So one may question that "The river Ganges is water. How there can be a neighborhood which is known as GhoSapalli? On the water how there can be a quarter or neighborhood of human habitation?" You can question that. GaGgAyaM ghoSapalli. Then the interpretation should be, "No, not on the Ganges. `On the Ganges' means `on the bank of the Ganges.' " This interpretation is nice. When one cannot understand clearly, there is interpretation. Town Hall Lecture Auckland, April 14, 1972 Can you think of an interpretation. How can you build a planetarium if you "cannot understand the fifth canto of Srimad Bhagavatam" (your words) or the model which you want to build xxx YOU WROTE So I am hoping that you will write back admitting that yes, we do have to accept the Srimad-Bhagavatam AS IT IS, xxxTrue. but how to understand it and yes the scientists are foolsxxx YOU WROTE modern science makes so many mistakes, builds theories on assumptions that are false, has imperfect senses and of course they cheat SO MUCH to try to "prove" their pet theories. You believe in the big bang and the red shift, not in Prabhupada and Krishna. xxxWho believes big bang, red shift? xxx xxx We disagree. Now who is Srila Prabhupada's representative to solve it; the tattva-darsinah. "..we do not misinterpret the readings of Bhagavad-gItA. We accept them as it is. If there is some doubt... There cannot be any doubt(,really). It may be, due to my poor fund of knowledge I cannot understand it-that we should admit. The lines, as stated in the Bhagavad-gItA, they are as perfect as anything. But if I cannot understand it, that is my lack of knowledge, my poor fund of knowledge. Therefore KRSNa has suggested or ordered in this Bhagavad-gItA, tad viddhi praNipAtena paripraznena sevayA upadekSyanti tad jJAnaM jJAninas tattva-darzinaH [bg. 4.34] Because there may be some difficulty...." Town Hall Lecture Auckland, April 14, 1972 We are ordered to find someone who knows. That is not you because you don't understand. That must be the B.I. Srila Prabhupada said that. In 1977 when Srila Prabhupada instructed a group of scientifically inclined devotees about the Vedic Planetarium he clearly metioned about the fifth canto: "I do not know, you scientists figure out." Therefore he gave that assignment to the Bhaktivedanta Institute. See his letter to dr. Wolf 14-10-'76 "Regarding the scientists, we have entrusted our own three scientists namely Svarupa Damodara, Sadaputa, and Madhva and we leave the matter to them, we do not say anything ourselves,but are leaving it to them." Lastly: -if you don't accept Sadaputa Prabhu's explanation, then, to build the planetarium, build it in yojanas as described in SB and pray that some future BI-er explains the yojana -show the sun closer to the bhu-mandala( and not our position on the bhu-mandala) then the moon, see Sadaputa Prabhu's books xxx -""Krishna said, "Your particular universe has a diameter of four billion miles; therefore it is the smallest of all the universes. Consequently you have only four heads. PURPORT Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, one of the greatest astrologers of his time, gives information from the Siddhanta-siromani that this universe measures 18,712,069,200,000,000 x 8 miles. This is the circumference of this universe. According to some, this is only half the circumference. (Madhya 21.84)". in skanda purana book 1 mahesvarakhanda section 2 kaumarikakhanda ch.37 T.12 i read: brahmananda is 100 crores yojanas in dimension (1 crore is 10 million) this is 1 billion yojanas = 8 billion yojanas 2 x "four billion miles" figure of SB this seems to solve "half the circumference" of some puranikas? Garuda Purana 3.10.5 Lord Krsna to Garuda: "primordial egg spreads over 50 crores, then minute particle of golden hue the same dimension. Thus dimension of the egg extends over 100 crore y. Then 7 enclosures earth extending over 1000 crores water ,, 10.000 ,, etc. "half the circumference" of some puranikas is our SB's understanding, actually it is 100 crores or 8 billion miles Chant Hare Krishna and be happy! ys: Gauranga Premananda das and Madhu Gopal das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.