Occam's Razor

[Guest guest]

Dear Maharajas, Prabhus, and Matajis,

 

 

PAMHO AGSTP

 

This text, and another, was forwared to my forum and I was personally asked

to comment on them. I shall try to be as breif as possible considering the

nature of the material.

 

> Purna Tattva das prabhu inquired:

>

> > a] Solar eclipse: is this auspicious or inauspicious?

>

> > b] If the sun is closer than the moon, how then can the moon

> > eclipse the sun? I've heard they say that it is not the moon

> > but the invisible Rahu planet. But if it is like that, then

> > how can they exactly on the minute predict the eclipse and

> > also how long it takes?

>

> ====================================================================

>

> I offer my obeisances to all Vaishnavas everywhere.

>

> Ordinarily, by "Hindu" custom, eclipses were considered inauspicious.

> But ever since Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu advented Himself during

> an eclipse, we must consider eclipses auspicious. Solar eclipses are

> of course inauspicious for anyone observing them with the naked eye,

> or with insufficient eye protection, since serious damage to the eye

> can result from direct observation. However, viewing the sun's image

> as projected on white paper is quite safe.

>

 

It is not a "Hindu" custom but a Vedic injunction, Jaya Tirtha Caran Prabhu

has done a lot of research into this aspect. You can contact him for further

information on this subject. It is materially inauspicious

because all the dravyas become contaminated. But spiritually auspicious for

certain things such as taking initiation. All the Kauravas, yadus etc, went

to Kurukshetra for the eclipse as was detailed in SB 10th canto.

 

 

 

 

 

> The second question has a premise that makes no sense. What possible

> rationale can a thinking human devise or create for postulating that

> the sun is closer than the moon? Every grade schooler knows that the

> earth is some 93 million miles from the sun, whilst the moon is only

> about 250,000 miles from the earth. Those who claim the contrary can

> only expose Krsna consciousness to general ridicule.

>

> There is a principle called Occam's Razor, that should be invoked in

> such cases. Basically it means that, when there are two explanations

> proposed for a phenomenon, the simpler one is the one more likely to

> be correct. Just as Ptolemy could only maintain the geo-centric view

> by postulating complicated planetary epicyclic motions, whereas much

> simpler planetary paths are derived from a sun-centric system, Krsna

> conscious devotees need to abandon perverse anti-science world views

> fostering over-credulous gullibility, and cultivate an understanding

> of the scientific method, including a sound knowledge of observation

> based astronomy. As Purna Tattva prabhu suggests, astronomers, using

> a computational model that utterly disregards Rahu, accurately fore-

> tell eclipses to the millisecond and calculate tables of ephemeridae

> hundreds of years into the future. Since Rahu is not necessary to an

> understanding of the universe, why not simply discard Rahu, or treat

> it as a pretty legend only, like the "Just So Stories"? Let's accept

> with thanks the discoveries of the astronomers, and reject nonsense-

> spouting astrologers and anti-science quacks.

>

> Some things discovered by science have not been of benefit, and thus

> we need to employ our sense of values and ethics, especially as some

> scientists claim to be "value-neutral" (i.e., amoral). But to refuse

> to accept genuine observational results which can be verified by any

> educated and independent-thinking person is an ostrich-like attitude

> that guarantees Krsna consciousness will only be accepted by loonies

> and ignoramuses.

 

Those who are familiar with astronomy will know that Rahu and Ketu are

very much taken into account by the astronomers. In English they are

called the North and South Nodes of the

Moon. From our relative position the Sun's rotation around the Earth

describes a plane. This plane is called the ecliptic by astronomers.

The Moon in its rotation around the Earth also describes a plane. The

plane of the Moon's orbit and the ecliptic (the plane of the Sun) are

not the same. Rather the Moon's plane is at an angle of about 5 degrees

to that of the Sun's. When two planes intersect they describe a line

(please remember this we shall recall it later).

 

The Moon when it rotates around the Earth intersects the Sun's plane at this

line. The curve of the Moon's path when it interects the line of the

conjuction of the two planes describes two points. One point is when the

Moon is travelling from below the Sun's plane and going up--or as it is said

in astronomy--going from the South to the North--this point of going from

South to North is called the North Node of the Moon--in Sanskrit--Rahu. When

the Moon goes from the North side to the South, that point is called the

South Node of the Moon or Ketu in Sanskrit.

 

We now have a geometrical situation in which we have two planes intersecting

which describe a line. And the then the curve of the Moon's path which

intersects that line which describes two points on that line.

 

Because of various perturbations in the Lunar orbit the plane of the Moon

rotates around the Earth at the rate of about one rotation in 18 years. Thus

the two points Rahu and Ketu will rotate counterclockwise once in 18 years.

 

The Moon will conjunct with Rahu and Ketu once a month. But the Sun will

only do so once a year.

 

When the Sun conjoins either Rahu or Ketu then a Solar eclipse will take

place during the amavasya (New Moon) or a Lunar Eclipse will take place

during the Purnima (Full Moon). The reason for this is that at that time the

three (Sun, Moon, and Earth) will be colinear to each other all being

situated on the line of intersection of the two planes.

 

In Vedic astrology Sun, Moon, Rahu, and Ketu (as well as Mercury, Mars, etc)

are all grahas--agents possessing divinatory qualities--not the same as

lokas or planets. A loka may or may not be a graha and vice versa, but this

is not the place to discuss the philosophy of divination.

 

 

Regarding now the statements made about the Sun being closer than the Moon.

Closer to what? Closer to Victoria? Or closer to the Bhu-mandala? What is

the Bhu-mandala? Sriman Sadaputa Prabhu has gone to great trouble to

investigate this subject and has nicely explained it in chapter 3 of Vedic

Cosmography and Astronomy. In short Bhu-mandala is the middle earth (in the

mahavyarati homa it is said Bhur, bhuvaha, sva--referring to Bhur lower, Bhu

middle, and Sva-svarga higher levels). The reference of measure is the plane

of the Sun, the ecliptic. Vedic culture is more vast than contemplated by

some and is interplanetary, inter-dimensional etc. And the realm that

extends along the plane of the Sun is vast indeed.

 

The Earth planet is located in the Bhu-mandala, but it is not the whole of

the Bhu mandala.

 

So now returning to the problem of the Sun being closer to the Bhu-mandala

than the Moon. As we mentioned previously the Moon's plane is at a different

angle than that of the Sun. About 5 degrees. Thus at its furthest extention

in its orbit it is further from the Bhu-mandal. In fact it is only on the

Bhu-mandala when it intersects it twice per month.

 

Certain assumptions and arguments have been made on the basis of imperfectly

understood technical Sanskrit terminology being translated into English.

I would suggest that before waging a war of reason against what one thinks

is unreasonable that one should see if the wind mill he is tilting at actually

exists. In this case Bhumandala is not identical to Earth, though the Earth

is part of the Bhumandala. Nor was it properly understood by what was meant

as further and nearer. This is not a case of Clintonesque semantics (it

depends what you mean by "is") but a real misunderstanding by some of a very

abstruse and technical subject made more difficult by being in Sanskrit.

 

To give another example of how certain concepts do not translate well from

Vedic culture and Sanskrit into English I recall that some time ago there

was an argument about eating beans on Ekadasi. Some one said that since

Vanilla and Carob were called beans and peanuts were legumes (like

peas) then we could not eat them on Ekadasi. It was pointed out that Western

taxonomical jargon does not precisely match that of Sanskrit. Thus, while we

may call Vanilla and Carob "beans" and Peanuts a legume, they classified

differently in Vedic culture. This headed off a whole debate when it was

realized that we were discussing apples and oranges.

 

 

A lot more could be said but my time is very limited. Further enquiries

should be addressed to Sadaputa Prabhu after having thoroughly digested

"Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy." It seems that some got indigestion (:

 

yhs

Shyamasundara Dasa