The Moon is further than the Sun!

[Guest guest]

TEXT 8

 

TEXT

 

evam candrama arka-gabhastibhya uparistal laksa-yojanata upalabhyamano 'rkasya samvatsara-bhuktim paksabhyam masa-bhuktim sapadarksabhyam dinenaiva paksa-bhuktim agracari drutatara-gamano bhunkte.

 

SYNONYMS

 

evam--thus; candrama--the moon; arka-gabhastibhyah--from the rays of the sunshine; uparistat--above; laksa-yojanatah--by a measurement of 100,000 yojanas; upalabhyamanah--being situated; arkasya--of the sun globe; samvatsara-bhuktim--the passage of one year of enjoyment; paksabhyam--by two fortnights; masa-bhuktim--the passage of one month; sapada-rksabhyam--by two and a quarter days; dinena--by a day; eva--only; paksa-bhuktim--the passage of a fortnight; agracari--moving impetuously; druta-tara-gamanah--passing more speedily; bhunkte--passes through.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Above the rays of the sunshine by a distance of 100,000 yojanas [800,000 miles] is the moon, which travels at a speed faster than that of the sun. In two lunar fortnights the moon travels through the equivalent of a samvatsara of the sun, in two and a quarter days it passes through a month of the sun, and in one day it passes through a fortnight of the sun.

 

PURPORT

 

When we take into account that the moon is 100,000 yojanas, or the modern excursions to the moon could be possible. Since the moon is so distant, how space vehicles could go there is a doubtful mystery. Modern scientific calculations are subject to one change after another, and therefore they are uncertain. We have to accept the calculations of the Vedic literature. These Vedic calculations are steady; the astronomical calculations made long ago and recorded in the Vedic literature are correct even now. Whether the Vedic calculations or modern ones are better may remain a mystery for others, but as far as we are concerned, we accept the Vedic calculations to be correct.

SB 5.22.8

[Kulapavana]

 

arka-gabhastibhyah--from the rays of the sunshine; uparistat--above; laksa-yojanatah--by a measurement of 100,000 yojanas;

 

TRANSLATION

 

Above the rays of the sunshine by a distance of 100,000 yojanas [800,000 miles] is the moon...

 

SB 5.22.8

 

what precisely does that mean? Above the rays of the sunshine?

 

faith is good. blind faith is not. you are supposed to use your brain to understand shastra. too often devotees oversimplify things and jump to conclusions based on blind faith and naive concepts. that approach is not helping anyone. when convenient, devotees will reject some shastric (especially from other Puranas or Mahabharata) verses as "contaminated". yet they insist on interpreting some Bhagavatam verses in a way that contradicts both direct experience and logic. There is nobody I know alive today who has a clear concept of Vedic view of the Universe or who can present such a concept in a way that makes sense.

 

the idea of Vedic Planetarium is nice, but the truth is that such a presentation is beyond the ability of devotees involved to grasp it, let alone present it to public in a three dimensional way that does not contradict direct perception and logic.

 

making boastfull claims is easy. but delivering on such claims is not.

[krsna]

 

what precisely does that mean? Above the rays of the sunshine?

 

faith is good. blind faith is not. you are supposed to use your brain to understand shastra. too often devotees oversimplify things and jump to conclusions based on blind faith and naive concepts. that approach is not helping anyone. when convenient, devotees will reject some shastric (especially from other Puranas or Mahabharata) verses as "contaminated". yet they insist on interpreting some Bhagavatam verses in a way that contradicts both direct experience and logic. There is nobody I know alive today who has a clear concept of Vedic view of the Universe or who can present such a concept in a way that makes sense.

 

the idea of Vedic Planetarium is nice, but the truth is that such a presentation is beyond the ability of devotees involved to grasp it, let alone present it to public in a three dimensional way that does not contradict direct perception and logic.

 

making boastfull claims is easy. but delivering on such claims is not.

 

 

What is the point?

 

Getting closer to Krsna or giving an idealized view of the world according to your idea of the Vedic paradigm?

 

Sastra is meant for developing Krsna prema ultimately.

[Guest guest]

 

The distance to the Moon can now be measured with a laser beam down to less than an inch at a given time, thanks to the mirror array placed on the Moon by the Apollo mission.

 

The space shuttle travels at an average speed of 18,000 miles and hour.

At that speed it would take about 12 hours to get to the Moon.

 

However, it took them 4 days to get to the Moon.

There is something wrong with these figures they are giving.

[Guest guest]

The Inconceivable Nature of Bhagavatam

 

2.25

 

mahacintya bhagavata sarvasastre gaya

iha na bujhiye vidya, tapa, pratisthaya

bhagavata bujhi heno yara acche jnana

se na jane kabhu bhagavatera pramana

 

According to all the revealed scriptures, the Srimad-Bhagavatam is incon-

ceivable, beyond mundane understanding. Its meaning cannot be understood

either by scholarship or penance. One who is not a devotee of Krsna, no matter how great a scholar he may be, will never understand Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

(C.Bhag. Madhya 22.13-14)

 

 

2.26

 

bhagavate acintya isvara-buddhi yanra

se janaye bhagavata-artha bhakti-sara

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam has inconceivable knowledge about the Supreme Lord.

One who knows this knows the Srimad-Bhagavatam gives the essence of devotion to Krsna. (C.Bhag., Madhya 22.25)

 

 

2.27

 

aham vedmi suko vetti

vyaso vetti na vetti va

bhaktya bhagavatam grahyam

na buddhya na ca tikaya

 

I know Sukadeva knows the meaning of Srimad-Bhagavatam, whereas

Vyasadeva may or may not know it. The Srimad-Bhagavatam can only be known through bhakti, not by mundane intelligence or by reading many commentaries.

 

(Cc. Madhya 24.313)

 

 

 

Bhagavatam is Understood Through Vaisnavas

 

 

 

2.28

 

"yaha, bhagavata pada vaisnavera sthane

ekanta asraya kara caitanya-carane

 

If you want to understand Srimad-Bhagavatam you must approach a self-

realized Vaisnava and study it under his guidance while at the same time taking exclusive shelter of the lotus feet of Lord Caitanya. (Cc. Antya 5.131)

 

 

2.29

 

vaisnava-pasa bhagavata kara adhyayana

 

[Lord Caitanya said to Raghunatha Bhatta.] Study Srimad-Bhagavatam

from a pure Vaisnava who has realized God. (Cc. Antya 13.113)

 

 

 

Study Bhagavatam Under the Spiritual Master

 

 

 

2.30

 

vipra kahe, murkha ami sabdartha na jani

suddhasuddha gita padi guru-ajna mani

yavat padon, tavat pana tanva-darasana

ei lagi' gitapatha na chade mora mana

 

 

 

Sometimes my reading of the Bhagavad-gita is correct and sometimes it is incorrect. I simply do so on the order of my guru. As long as I read Bhagavad-gita, I can see Krsna. It is for this reason I read Bhagavad-gita, and my mind cannot give it up. (Cc. Madhya 9.98,101)

 

 

 

Study Bhagavatam in Light of Previous Acaryas

 

 

 

2.31

 

sridhara-svami-prasade 'bhagavata' jani

jagad-guru sridhara-svami 'guru' kari' mani

sridharanugata kara bhagavata-vyakhyana

abhimana chadi' bhaja krsna bhagavan

 

 

 

By the mercy of Sridhara Svami, one can understand the meaning of Srimad-Bhagavatam. For this, reason he is the guru of the whole world, and I consider him my guru. You should explain the Srimad-Bhagavatam by following the version of Sridhara Svami. Giving up all false ego, you should worship Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. (Cc. Antya 7.133,136)

[Guest guest]

 

when convenient, devotees will reject some shastric (especially from other Puranas or Mahabharata) verses as "contaminated".

 

Probably some devotees do this, although I'm not aware of any particular instances. Are the devotees who are quoting Srila Prabhupada in this thread doing this?

 

 

yet they insist on interpreting some Bhagavatam verses in a way that contradicts both direct experience and logic.

 

It's not their interpretation. Srila Prabhupada gave his interpretation in his Bhaktivedanta purports. Yes, it may contradict direct experience and logic of many, (although not all), but why not take it up with Srila Prabhupada?

 

 

There is nobody I know alive today who has a clear concept of Vedic view of the Universe or who can present such a concept in a way that makes sense.

 

If you had made this complaint while Srila Prabhupada was still physically present to address such concerns, how would he respond? Would he agree, disagree? Perhaps challenge the strength of your faith in his purports?

 

If one does a google on the moon hoax, it's interesting what you'll find. As far back as 1976, over 20% of Americans did not believe we had actually gone to the moon. So although devotees may be in the minority, it is a sizeable minority. I've brought up the issue with family and non-devotee friends before, and no one thought I was off my rocker for what I believed. They admitted the possibility was real and worthy of debate, even if they didn't fully buy into it. Even today, Nasa and other moon hoax critics, such as Tom Hanks, are still outraged by movies such as Capricorn One. Nasa even hired a rocket scientist back in 2002 to write a book to counter the moon hoax claims, but then backed out, stating that to counter such claims would only lend further credibility to the critics. It sounds like a cop-out to me. If they can prove they went to the moon and prove that their critics are wrong, why not spend a tiny portion of their multi-billion dollar budget for defeating negative propaganda?

 

Bottom line, I don't think preaching will suffer, as some suggest, just because Srila Prabhupada spoke of these things in his Srimad Bhagavatam. Srila Prabhupada knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that some devotees would have problems accepting the 5th Canto, yet he challenged our faith anyway. Are we up to the challenge? That is the question.

[Kulapavana]

 

The space shuttle travels at an average speed of 18,000 miles and hour.

At that speed it would take about 12 hours to get to the Moon.

 

However, it took them 4 days to get to the Moon.

There is something wrong with these figures they are giving.

 

first of all they were not using the shuttle and it was not a linear journey as they spent some time orbiting. personally, I think it is quite likely they did not land humans on the Moon as it would have been too difficult (that part is likely a hoax), but the mirror array is there and was not there earlier. perhaps they used robotic drop mission to land it on the Moon.

[okoyejossy]

good day ,i just wanna say hi to you ,and i want to use this opportunity to ask you how do i make money.

[Kulapavana]

 

If you had made this complaint while Srila Prabhupada was still physically present to address such concerns, how would he respond? Would he agree, disagree? Perhaps challenge the strength of your faith in his purports?

 

we will never know. but he realized he was not an expert in the scientific field and wanted his scientist disciples to pursue the subject of scientific presentation of Vedic knowledge.

 

 

 

Bottom line, I don't think preaching will suffer, as some suggest, just because Srila Prabhupada spoke of these things in his Srimad Bhagavatam. Srila Prabhupada knew exactly what he was doing. He knew that some devotees would have problems accepting the 5th Canto, yet he challenged our faith anyway. Are we up to the challenge? That is the question.

 

the preaching HAS suffered. I have been preaching since 1979 and I have spent countless hours showing to people that such topics are ultimately irrelevant and nurturing back their faith because nobody with any kind of science background believes the Sun is closer to the Earth than Moon, and that btw. includes all BI members I have talked to.

 

many verses of the Fifth Canto are very, very criptic and there are many ways they can be translated into English. I gave you one example above.

 

all this being said, I firmly believe the Vedic scriptures give us an incredible and true picture of the universe. read again my earlier post. I have spent many years studying this subject from all kinds of Vedic sources.

[Guest guest]

 

What is the point?

 

Getting closer to Krsna or giving an idealized view of the world according to your idea of the Vedic paradigm?

 

Sastra is meant for developing Krsna prema ultimately.

 

What is the point of following sastra if not all of its words can be taken as truth?

 

How can you take sastra's words about Krsna as truth if everything else, even if it may be extrapolations from a single nugget of truth, is false? How can you develop Krsna prema from a source that you know is not entirely reliable?

 

Would you follow a person who lies (or is wrong) about everything except for one significant idea that could change the world? How can you take anything he has to say as fact when all he has said are lies aside from one nugget of truth? How would you discriminate between what is right or wrong? You would have to know everything about what the man is speaking of. Experience everything directly to know what is right and what is wrong, and have your own independent ideas of what is truth and what is false in order to be able to agree or disagree with that person. Same goes with shastra, in my opinion. It's a bit of a paradox. To have bhakti you need jnana. To have jnana you need bhakti. The two are not mutually exclusive, and that is the quandary.

 

In any case, I don't know the perspective the writers of the Bhagavatam are coming from. I don't know if there is such an entity as Krsna, nor do I know if meditation or chanting Hare Krsna Hare Rama leads you to truth or delusion. Of course we can all test these ideas out by practicing them for ourselves, but if they don't bear fruit with anything after months of consistent practice, and there's no sign external from our own consciousness (that is in everyday reality) sent by God to help show we are on the right path, it's only logical to presume it's either not the path for us, God just doesn't exist, or we're not following the path correctly.

 

The idea of a reality that is independent from the one we currently experience everyday is something I disagree with. There can't be two independent realities, it just doesn't make any logical sense to me. It's the same type of idea of two different conceptions of physics to describe reality and both are correct. There has to be a unitary reality underlying both, and both realities have to interact, or neither are real, and whatever "reality" you choose to ascribe to is purely a personal and entirely subjective decision.

 

Scientists ascribe the reality that we experience everyday as the "real", but now there are interesting ideas cropping up that indicate possibly that they were wrong after all. Ideas such as a holographic universe, the universe being self-aware, the universe is just a gigantic computer, or the idea that there are more than 4 dimensions, and the idea of string theory.

 

The problem is, objectivity is very difficult to maintain in science, and eventually a scientist must choose sides. Whether the universe was created by a God or not, whether it has a beginning or not, what set of philosophies does he ascribe to, etc. And how do we determine if these radical ideas that seem to echo Eastern philosophical "truths" are really the product of independent minds seeing the evidence for what it is, or actually interpreting the evidence in the favor of what they want it to be? I'm not saying they necessarily are doing this, but this is a conundrum that needs to be understood along with an approach that needs to be developed to determine what is right or wrong, what is truth and what is delusion.

[Guest guest]

Wasn't there a declaration of intent by NASA to return to the moon sometime soon?

 

And wasn't there an American flag supposedly planted on the moon? If so, is there any way to determine if it's there or not? What about through the use of a teloscope or something?

[Guest guest]

The issue of the sun/moon distance from the earth has already been explained in a logical manner, so I don't see how this could affect preaching. Do devotees preach the moon-hoax to newcomers from day one? That's probably not a smart thing to do. Let them chant first and acquire a little faith.

 

Many, if not most of Srila Prabhupada's disciples joined after reading The Krsna Book. There are many descriptions there which I suppose would seem outrageous to a non-believer, such as billions of soldiers being killed, the actual height of the Himalayas, the Ganges emanating from the toe of Lord Vishnu, and so on. We accepted these things as fact when we read them, and no one ever suggested that they were allegorical. I would think these things more difficult to accept than the moon hoax. But Srila Prabhupada wasn't interested in cheap followers. One could say that "preaching suffers" because we require initiates to follow 4 regulative principles, (or at least to aspire for this.)

 

I had heard that Srila Prabhupada predicted that some of his disciples would leave upon hearing the accounts of the 5th Canto. Still, that did not deter him in any way.

 

So, what is the solution? To edit out these portions from Srila Prabhupada's books? To just write them off as "allegorical", when that was never the mood while Srila Prabhupada was personally present?

 

I do respect your preaching, Kulapavana prabhu, so please don't get me wrong. You are one of my favorite posters on these forums. I'm just curious as to your solution.

[Guest guest]

I think the confusion is because we want to think of the Moon as an Earthly planet with a gross composition.

The Moon is a heavely planet and it is not a gross material planet like Earth.

The Moon is composed of Intelligence, Mind and Ego and Either and is located where the Bhagavatam says it is.

It is not visible with gross sense perception.

 

What we call the Moon today is actually the trick of Rahu.

Lord Indra arranged for Rahu to be a diversion to those who try to reach the Moon with mystic power or machine.

 

So, what we call the Moon is actually Rahu, who does a good job of posing as the Moon.

 

Rahu is an imitation Moon.

 

One thing thing the caught my attention was the stories of the Apollo astronauts who were bewildered by the shadowy nature of the Moon.

 

That was their first comment when they saw the MOON.

 

Look at all the shadows[/quote}

 

Did you ever hear of the DARK SIDE OF THE MOON?

 

What has tricked us all is the actions of Rahu.

 

Unless you fellows want to write off Madhvacharya, Vishvanatha Chakravarti and ALL THE GAUDIYA ACHARYAS, you should listen to this:

SB 5. 16. 8 purport

 

 

 

Prabhupada agrees they went into space and landed on the fake Moon known as Rahu.

 

Our "MOON" is actually Rahu.

 

The real Moon is not visible to your gross eyes.

[Guest guest]

The real Moon is luminous like the Sun.

There is NO dark side of the MOON!

 

When thes astronauts circled Rahu, the far side of the "MOON" was dark.

 

The real Moon is much farther away than Rahu.

 

Rahu reflects Moon rays and performs his trick of pretending to be the Moon.

 

This was the plan of Lord Vishnu as he performed his work according to the desire of Lord Indra.

[Guest guest]

 

TEXT 26

 

 

 

TEXT

 

 

 

siras tv amaratam nitam

 

ajo graham aciklpat

 

yas tu parvani candrarkav

 

abhidhavati vaira-dhih

 

 

 

SYNONYMS

 

 

 

sirah--the head; tu--of course; amaratam--immortality; nitam--having obtained; ajah--Lord Brahma; graham--as one of the planets; aciklpat--recognized; yah--the same Rahu; tu--indeed; parvani--during the periods of the full moon and dark moon; candra-arkau--both the moon and the sun; abhidhavati--chases; vaira-dhih--because of animosity.

 

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

 

 

Rahu's head, however, having been touched by the nectar, became immortal. Thus Lord Brahma accepted Rahu's head as one of the planets. Since Rahu is an eternal enemy of the moon and the sun, he always tries to attack them on the nights of the full moon and the dark moon.

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

 

 

Since Rahu had become immortal, Lord Brahma accepted him as one of the grahas, or planets, like the moon and the sun. Rahu, however, being an eternal enemy of the moon and sun, attacks them periodically during the nights of the full moon and the dark moon.

 

Let's face it.

The actual cosmology of the universe is more complex and mystical than we can imagine with our puny minds and dull senses.

 

Purified souls can actually see the real Moon.

[Guest guest]

In other words, since the time of Mohini-murti incarnation, Rahu has been masquerading as the Moon and fooling everyone from mystic yogis to modern scientists.

[Guest guest]

so, all those who decry the idea that the Moon is further than the Sun are actually accusing Madhvacharya, Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakur, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Goswami and all the great acharyas who accepted these Bhagavatam cosmology including Srila Rupa Goswami and Srila Sanatan Goswami.

 

Srila Prabhupada didn't manufacture this theory by no means.

 

He is just explaining what all the great acharyas and students of the Bhagavat have accepted since time immemorial.

 

I say all you who doubt this Bhagavat cosmology are the real fools - not Srila Prabhupada and Madhvacarya etc.

 

the idea to blame all this on Srila Prabhupada is despicable.

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada says:

 

Since Rahu had become immortal, Lord Brahma accepted him as one of the grahas, or planets, like the moon and the sun.

 

Lord Brahma accepted Rahu to become a planet like the Sun and Moon.

 

The Sun and Moon are luminous planets.

 

As such, Rahu became a luminous planet that has been fooling everyone into believing that he is Candraloka.

 

What we call the Moon nowadays is actually Rahu.

[theist]

 

Letter to: Krsnadasa

—

Vrindaban

7 November, 1972

72-11-07

 

My Dear Krsnadasa,

Please accept my blessings. I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 30, 1972, and I have noted the contents. It appears that you are again constantly disturbed by the same nonsense doubts. These things are not very important, we may not waste our time with these insignificant questions. If we are seeking to find out some fault, maya will give us all facility to find any small thing and make it very big, that is maya. But such questions as yours: why there is so-called discrepancy between the views of Bhagavat and modern scientists regarding the moon and other planets, and whether Hitler is good or bad man, these are most insignificant matters, and for anyone who is sincerely convinced that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, for him these questions do not arise. Our information comes from Vedas, and if we believe Krishna, that

vedaham samatitani

vartamanani carjuna

bhavisyani ca bhutani

mam tu veda na kascana

[bg. 7.26]

that He knows everything, and "vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham [bg. 15.15],'' that Krishna is non-different from Vedas, then these questions do not arise.

But because you have asked me, I am your spiritual master, I must try to answer to your satisfaction. Yes, sometimes in Vedas such things like the asura's decapitated head chasing after Candraloka, sometimes it is explained allegorically. Just like now we are explaining in 4th Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam the story of King Puranjana. Just like the living entity is living within this body, and the body is described there as city with nine gates, the intelligence as the Queen. So there are sometimes allegorical explanations. So there are many things which do not corroborate with the so-called modern science, because they are explained in that way. But where is the guarantee that modern science is also correct? So we are concerned with Krishna Consciousness, and even though there is some difference of opinion between modern science and allegorical explanation in the Bhagavat, we have to take the essence of Srimad-Bhagavatam and utilize it for our higher benefit, without bothering about the correctness of the modern science or the allegorical explanation sometimes made in Srimad-Bhagavatam. But this is a fact that in each and every planet there is a predominant deity, as we have got experience in this planet there is a president, so it is not wonderful when the predominating deity fights with another predominating deity of another planet. The modern science takes everything as dead stone. We take it for granted that everything is being manipulated by a person in each and every affair of the cosmology. The modern scientists however could not make any progress in the understanding of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, therefore we do not accept modern science as very perfect. We take Krishna's version:

gam avisya ca bhutani

dharayamy aham ojasa

pusnami causadhih sarvah

somo bhutvah rasatmakah

[bg. 15.13]

"I become the moon,'' and "yac chandramasi yac cagnau,'' (ibid, 12) "I am the splendor of the moon,'' and "jyotisam api taj jyotis,'' [bg. 13.18] "I am the source of light in all luminous objects,'' so no one is able to give us the correct information than Krishna, that you should know.

Regarding Hitler, so Hitler may be good man or bad man, so what does he help to our Krishna Consciousness movement? But it is a fact that much propaganda was made against him, that much I know, and the Britishers are first-class propagandists. And I have heard that his officers did everything without informing him, just like in our ISKCON there are so many false things: "Prabhupada said this, Prabhupada said that.'' But we have nothing to do with Hitler in our Krishna Consciousness. Do not be deviated by such ideas "Jnanam jneyam jnana-gamyam,'' (ibid), Krishna is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, He is the goal of knowledge, and

you mam evam asammudho

janati purusottamam

sa sarva-vid bhajati mam

[bg. XV, 19]

"Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without doubting, is to be understood as the knower of everything, and he engages himself therefore in devotional service''—this is the understanding of advanced devotee, so my best advice to you is to agree to come to this understanding.

Your ever well wisher,

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

 

 

Sometimes GV's sound too much like some Christians who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

ps Puru I noticed you forgot to sign in again.

[Guest guest]

 

But because you have asked me, I am your spiritual master, I must try to answer to your satisfaction

 

So, we end up with some letter from Srila Prabhupada to a neophyte devotee who cannot accept the truth given in shastra and use that to discredt what Prabhupada wrote in shastra?

 

Prabhupada saw that this neoophyte devotee could not accept the authoritative truth of the Bhagavatam, so he tried to reduce his confusion by telling him to think of it as allegorical if he could not accept it literally.

 

The Bhagavatam is not book of allegorical stories.

 

It is real knowledge.

 

What Srila Prabhupada said in a letter to a confused neophyte disciple COULD NEVER AND SHOULD NEVER be used to try and negate what Srila Prabhupada wrote in the shastra.

 

the shastra is SHASTRA.

 

The letter was a compromise to try and string along a neophyte who could not accept the Bhagavat siddhanta.

[Guest guest]

Round and round and round we go

 

Like the moon going around the earth

 

How many times has this discussion arisen on this forum? How many minutes, hours, days will it be before someone cut-and-pastes Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's statements about allegories in sastra -- the things he wrote in the Bhagavata lecture?

 

Swans and asses have different views of life -- thus spoke Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura in the Bhagavata lecture and Sri Krsna Samhita.

 

Theist, you can't turn this ass into a swan. Don't even bother trying. He will have to take birth again before he can understand the world is not flat.

 

around and around and around we go

 

Like the moon going around the earth

[Guest guest]

When you are sitting on your high horse and mocking fools who think the earth is round (you know it is flat because you read that fact with your material eyes), did you ever wonder how it is possible to fly in a plane going westwards from New York to LA and Delhi, then on to London and back to New York?

 

How is that possible?

 

The scripures say that beyond the ocean of salt water there are other oceans - liquor and milk etc. How is it possible that you can fly from London to London and not see an ocean of milk?

 

Maybe the scriptues are telling us some spiritual lessons in the form of allegories. That is the opinion of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Srila Prabhupada also said so:

<b>

Just like now we are explaining in 4th Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam the story of King Puranjana. Just like the living entity is living within this body, and the body is described there as city with nine gates, the intelligence as the Queen. So there are sometimes allegorical explanations.</b>

 

When someone is sitting on their high horse and feeling righteous indignation because the ignorant fools refuse to accept the Absolute Truth as you conceive it (these #!$# fools think the world is round!!), it does make mister high horse feel pretty high and mighty doesn't it?

[Guest guest]

 

When you are sitting on your high horse and mocking fools who think the earth is round (you know it is flat because you read that fact with your material eyes), did you ever wonder how it is possible to fly in a plane going westwards from New York to LA and Delhi, then on to London and back to New York?

 

How is that possible?

 

The scripures say that beyond the ocean of salt water there are other oceans - liquor and milk etc. How is it possible that you can fly from London to London and not see an ocean of milk?

 

Maybe the scriptues are telling us some spiritual lessons in the form of allegories. That is the opinion of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura. Srila Prabhupada also said so:

<b>

Just like now we are explaining in 4th Canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam the story of King Puranjana. Just like the living entity is living within this body, and the body is described there as city with nine gates, the intelligence as the Queen. So there are sometimes allegorical explanations.</b>

 

When someone is sitting on their high horse and feeling righteous indignation because the ignorant fools refuse to accept the Absolute Truth as you conceive it (these #!$# fools think the world is round!!), it does make mister high horse feel pretty high and mighty doesn't it?

 

 

This attempt to turn the Bhagavatan into a book of allegories is the effort of atheists.

 

In the Bhagavatam, Narada Muni explains that the story of Puranjana is allegorical.

That was nothing newly revealed by Bhaktivinode.

 

What the Bhagavatam itself says is allegorical is allegorical.

The rest is factual knowledge.

 

When puny minds approach the Bhagavatam they try to make it puny also.

 

The Bhagavatam is not allegorical.

 

to say that the Bhagavatam is allegorical is demonic.

 

To reject the knowledge of the Bhagavatam as allegorical is atheism.

 

If you can't accept what the shastra says, then why don't you manufacture your own allegorical religion and try to cheat everyone?

[Guest guest]

Your scientists are so intelligent that they sent their Hubble telescope into space with the main lense in backwards.

These are the people we are supposed to put our faith in?

You can.

I'll stick with the Bhagavatam.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Scientists are real people with feelings. Even if you offend them. They'll tell you God doesn't exsist. They need to first see God. Lets show them God.