MOON - The Bigger Picture

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhudvisa Prabhu

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

Thank you for your letter. It is a real eye-opener for me. Probably as most

other devotees, I was just considering that opinion of Sadaputa Prabhu is

bonafide ISKCON opinion. I forgot that the mission of our scientists is to

present Bhagavatam to karmi scientists. As Caitanya Candrodaya Prabhu

quoted:

"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."

 

So their methods may be valued in that way. As Danavir Maharaja writes in

his book: "The job with which Vedic scientists are faced is to utilize their

knowledge of the material world to provide to the materially-affected

persons that what is stated in the shastras is perfect and unasillable, even

by material calculations".

 

And then he continues with saying for devotees that: "A Devotee should be

satisfied with the knowledge and parameters given to him by the spiritual

authorities. ..."

 

It is so clear, thank you for pointing this out.

 

>

> However if we transfer the same absolute faith to some other devotee and

> that devotee turns out not to be on the highest transcendental platform

> that can be very dangerous for our spiritual advancement. In Hari-Bhakti

>

> So knowingly or unknowingly you have accepted Sadaputa Prabhu as your

> spiritual master. You have accepted his words on the same absolute

> platform as Srila Prabhupada's words. But you do not really know if

> Sadaputa is a self-realized soul who has seen the truth.

 

I don't think the problem is not so much in being on highest transcendental

platform or not. I'd rather maintain the view that the mission of Sadaputa

Prabhu is to explain Bhagavatam to karmi scientists, and to teach other

devotees how to do the same. But as far as understanding of devotees goes,

we should be satisfied with Bhagavatam itself. I heard this later statement

so many times, and thought I understand it, but just see....

 

> It is quite well known in ISKCON that Sadaputa Prabhu is siding with the

> scientists. Danavir Maharaja has even published a big, big book on this

> subject challenging Sadaputa's most recent cosmology book. It is called

> Vedic Cosmology and you can get it at

> http://www.thekrishnastore.com/Detail.bok?no=1807

 

Yes, the book of Danavir Maharaja! I purchased it quite a while ago, but was

still waiting on the bookshelf. Yesterday I opened it and there it is,

simple and pure view on Bhagavatam, "Vedic Cosmology Taken Literally". Pure

nectar. I don't think it will pass with scientists though, but it sure

brings nectar to devotees.

 

I noticed that you already had some discussion on this points with Gauranga

Premananda das and Madhu Gopal das.

 

>

> In this book Maharaja shows very clearly how Sadaputa is deviating from

> the teachings of Srila Prabhupada in so many ways and siding with the

> scientists.

 

Well, deviating is strong word, and it implies on purposeful intention to

distort. I rather see it as part of his work, to present SB to scientists in

their way. Problem is in our response to his work. Maybe we just need to

accept, that his books are not ment for devotees, but for scientifically

oriented karmis. This is his preaching, one of many bridge preachings in

ISKCON.

 

>

> You have somehow accepted Sadaputa as your guru without going through the

> system of checks and balances, and you are instructing the people who come

> to you with the teachings of Sadaputa. The checks to see if a guru is bona

> fide are 3. Guru-sadhu-sastra. He must preach in line with his guru, he

> must preach from the sastra and his teachings must be in line with the

> recognized and approved sadhus. Otherwise he is not a guru.

 

You are hard on this point, I see. Even if I agree, that I accepted Sadaputa

prabhu as siksa guru, this still doesn't require him to be actually

qualified as Guru. It just shows my foolishness. I can take from him any

valuable siksa, and apply it according to my judgement. I can take siksa

from any devotee, like for example local temple president, although he is

not Guru. But how i react to such siksa, that is my responsibility. Anyway,

we can discuss this points aBOUT Guru understanding in another thread on

"Understanding Srila Prabhupada's Teachings" conference.

 

>

> The whole basis of Krishna consciousness is to receive perfect knowledge

> from a perfect authority. That is getting knowledge from the descending

> process, not the ascending process.

 

And that perfect authority is in our case of course Srila Prabhupada, and of

course any other devotee, who is strictly presenting teachings of Srila

Prabhupada. I considered Sadaputa prabhu as strictly presenting SP, but I

may adjust my understanding about this in near future. Give me some time,

please, to consult some devotees. I will write in conference about my

findings.

>

>

> So the bigger picture here is not really about the moon at all. It is if

> we should accept knowledge gained by the ascending process or knowledge

> gained by the descending process.

 

Yes, exactly. And this is exactly what this conference is all about. To

differentiate what is Srila Prabhupada, and what not, to understand his

teachings. Thank you for pointing this things out.

 

> Exactly what the Suriya Siddhanta says we really do not know. When people

 

Danavir Maharaja in his book says the following about consulting Surya

Siddhanta, Siddhanta Siromani and Aryabhatiya: "Although Srila Prabhupada

didn't recommend that these be consulted, they are nonetheless being used by

some of today's Vedically-oriented writings, even antithetically to the

direct meaning of the Srimad Bhagavatam's statements. Thus these nineteenth

century texts are included as a reference to prevent their misuse."

 

> they have is a "predictive model." That means they have observed what is

> going on in the sky and made some hypothesis, which really means "educated

> guess" as to what is going on. Then they make predictions of what will

 

Thats obvious. What else could they have? They are observing from the

faaaaaar.

 

We can easily privide to them explanation, which will be viewed by them as

another predictive model. They may not agree, but at leat they will value it

as another "predictive model". And we can be happy, to know that it is model

of reality, not just another predictive model. I hope that Vedic Plentarium

can provide such model to them for alternative, and to us for inspiration.

 

> it serves their purpose. The Suriya siddhanta is not based on the

> Bhagavata astronomy. It comes from a book from an even earlier Indian

> astronomer. I am not very knowledgeable on these things. You could do some

> research and let me know.

 

Lets see. I'm personally not so much into astronomy, I just deal with it

because Srila Prabhupada spoke of it, otherwise I have no special

inclination towards it. If I get some additional information, I will post it

here, for sure.

 

>

> But the Bhagavatam is different. It is not a predictive model. The

 

Exactly. Lets see how it develops with Vedic Planetarium. I will speak

personally with one devotee, astrophysics PhD, who is involved in

planetarium project. I will ask those points about distances, lets see what

will be the answer. I will post here asap.

 

ys gnd