further than the Sun

[Avinash]

 

Bhagavatam says that the lunar plane of existence is higher than the solar plane in relation to the Garbhodaka Ocean and - by inference - to the earthly plane of existence that our world is part of.

 

Usually when we say plane, we mean two-dimensional. I understand that our world is only a part of the complete Bhumandala that Bhagavatam talks of. So, when you say earthly plane of existence, do you mean the complete Bhumandala (including all the dimensions) or do you mean two dimensional plane within the complete Bhumandala, though these two dimensions may not correspond with any of the three space dimensions that we perceive.

[Kulapavana]

 

I know some may take offence because I am suggesting that some things written in Mahabharata may be simply wrong. But, I am adopting the process of elimination. I am eliminating all possibilities other than the possibility that Mahabharata talks of higher dimensions in these stories.

 

it is not just the Mahabharata that talks about other dimensions, all Puranas say the same thing. You may say it is all just fairy tales, but the references to other dimensions are real. For example, Markandeya Purana contains a detailed story of a Naga king who used to enter our world through an opening made by a special iron spear - if you pulled the spear out, the gate closed. that is not possible in a three dimensional space.

[Kulapavana]

 

Usually when we say plane, we mean two-dimensional. I understand that our world is only a part of the complete Bhumandala that Bhagavatam talks of.

 

In this case "plane" means a unique world, a level of being - level of being as in a level of consciousness. Bhu-mandala is the earthly plane of existence, part of which we currently inhabit.

[Avinash]

 

Markandeya Purana contains a detailed story of a Naga king who used to enter our world through an opening made by a special iron spear - if you pulled the spear out, the gate closed. that is not possible in a three dimensional space.

 

I have not read that story. But, if there are references to higher dimensions in our scriptures (whether implicit or explicit), then I agree that invoking the concept of higher dimensions is one possible way of interpreting the cosmology in Bhagavatam. But I wonder how Bhima could reach the world of Nagas. Did Bhima know how to enter higher dimensions? If no, then how did he enter the world of Nagas. If yes, then how could he apply the knowledge of entering higher dimensions when he was unconscious?

 

 

In this case "plane" means a unique world, a level of being - level of being as in a level of consciousness. Bhu-mandala is the earthly plane of existence, part of which we currently inhabit.

 

If plane means level of being as in a level of consciousness, then we can say that higher consciousness is required to reach lunar plane of existence than to reach solar plane of existence. Is this correct?

[Guest guest]

 

if there are references to higher dimensions in our scriptures (whether implicit or explicit)

 

of course there are references to other dimensions in our scriptures. Where do you think the astral world and the sub-physical lokas are? they are in higher dimensions (Swargaloka) and lower dimensions (Narakaloka).

[Guest guest]

 

I have not read that story. But, if there are references to higher dimensions in our scriptures (whether implicit or explicit), then I agree that invoking the concept of higher dimensions is one possible way of interpreting the cosmology in Bhagavatam. But I wonder how Bhima could reach the world of Nagas. Did Bhima know how to enter higher dimensions? If no, then how did he enter the world of Nagas. If yes, then how could he apply the knowledge of entering higher dimensions when he was unconscious?

 

 

 

If plane means level of being as in a level of consciousness, then we can say that higher consciousness is required to reach lunar plane of existence than to reach solar plane of existence. Is this correct?

 

 

We know from shastra that the material universe is made up of Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, ego and intelligence.

 

So, we can deduct from this that any higher dimensions would have to be made of one of the subtle elements that we cannot perceive with our eyes.

 

There might be dimensions of a solid form of ether, mind, ego or intelligence.

 

Just like when we are dreaming, our dream world is made of one or a combination of these subtle material energies.

 

Higher dimensions are most certainly made of the subtle material elements but in a more concentrated from than we know of on this Earthly realm.

[Kulapavana]

 

I have not read that story. But, if there are references to higher dimensions in our scriptures (whether implicit or explicit), then I agree that invoking the concept of higher dimensions is one possible way of interpreting the cosmology in Bhagavatam. But I wonder how Bhima could reach the world of Nagas.

 

In those days there were many gates to the Naga world kept open but still guarded by the Nagas. The Naga guards were biting Bhima, remember? It was the Naga poison that neutralized the poison given to him in food.

 

 

 

If plane means level of being as in a level of consciousness, then we can say that higher consciousness is required to reach lunar plane of existence than to reach solar plane of existence. Is this correct?

 

certainly. there are many historical accounts of people entering the higher Himalayas after long fasting, purification and meditation, for example. these accounts often come from the Buddhist tradition.

[Avinash]

How do you interprete various distances given in Bhagavatam? It says Sun is so many yojanas. Moon is above Sun by so many yojanas etc. Does it mean that it requires greater consciousness to reach lunar plane of existence than to reach solar plane of existence? Or, does it mean that the shortest distance between Bhumandala and solar plane of existence is less than that between Bhumandala and lunar plane of existence (provided we use whatever dimension is needed to get the shortest distance). Or, does it mean both?

[Kulapavana]

 

How do you interprete various distances given in Bhagavatam? It says Sun is so many yojanas. Moon is above Sun by so many yojanas etc. Does it mean that it requires greater consciousness to reach lunar plane of existence than to reach solar plane of existence? Or, does it mean that the shortest distance between Bhumandala and solar plane of existence is less than that between Bhumandala and lunar plane of existence (provided we use whatever dimension is needed to get the shortest distance). Or, does it mean both?

 

these distances give us some idea about the proportions of the Universe, that's it. even the yojana unit of measure itself is strictly approximate. The Universe is certainly organized in stratas, or levels, from the perspective of the yogis, who can see all these dimensions.

 

"Does it mean that it requires greater consciousness to reach lunar plane of existence than to reach solar plane of existence?"

 

Precisely. the linear distances between the planes of existence are in fact irrelevant and meaningless to us humans.

[gHari]

The following question and answer are taken from "Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy" by Dr. Richard L. Thompson (SadApUta dasa) which was published in 1989 by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (used with permission). SadApUta dasa is a founding member of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, the scientific branch of ISKCON.

[From Chapter Eight - Questions and Answers]

Q: Using radar and lasers, scientists have recently obtained very accurate estimates of the earth-moon distance. This distance is about 238,000 miles. How do you reconcile this with Vedic calculations?

 

A: According to sUrya-siddhAnta [see footnote], the distance from the earth globe to the moon is about 258,000 miles. This is in reasonable agreement with the modern value.

Footnote: Several times in the Caitanya-caritAmRta, Srila Prabhupada refers to the sUrya-siddhAnta which was spoken by a messenger from the sun-god, sUrya, at the end of the last Satya-yuga. It was translated into Bengali by Srila BhaktisiddhAnta SarasvatI. In the Caitanya-caritAmRta (Adi 1.3.8p), Prabhupada writes:

These calculations are given in the authentic astronomy book known as the sUrya-siddhAnta. This book was compiled by the great professor of astronomy and mathematics Bimal Prasad Datta, later known as BhaktisiddhAnta SarasvatI GosvAmi, who was our merciful spiritual master. He was honored with the title SiddhAnta SarasvatI for writing sUrya-siddhAnta, and the title GosvAmi MahArAja was added when he accepted sannyAsa, the renounced order of life.

When we consider that the Bhagavatam says that the moon is 100,000 yojanas above the rays of the sun can we really think the moon is 800,000 miles farther than the sun, in light of that 'authentic astronomy' book sUrya-siddhAnta?

 

Above quotes from http://geocities.com/caitanyamahaprabhu/moonthing7.htm

[Guest guest]

Great post, gHari. The silence from the moon is farther crowd is deafening.

[Guest guest]

 

Kulapavana writes:

again. you do not understand the Vedic concept of space.

 

Bhagavatam is NOT speaking about the distance between the object we call Moon and the observer here on Earth. Some people ASSUME that SB descriptions relate to such a linear measure, but many Vedic scholars believe otherwise.

 

Vedic scholars were dead & gone by the time the Bhagavatam was written.

 

In any case, since you take the position that the SB talks about non-physical distances (whatever that means), then I am sure you have no problem in honestly admitting that Prabhupada was talking nonsense when he complained (based on his understanding of the SB) that man never went to the moon as the scientists miscalculated the distance of the moon from the earth.

 

He mus be wrong in your opinion as you just admitted that the SB does not refer to the physical moon while the scientists were calculating distances to the physical moon.

 

Or do you want to change you tune now and continue your game of defending the existence of dragons in seas?

 

The real problem is, if you examine yourselves for one honest moment, you will know Prabhupada was way off on this one. However, such an admission (even to yourselves) is too expensive. It is so much simpler to pretend everything is fine and continue your life of denial. Sad in a way...but that is how it is.

[Kulapavana]

 

The real problem is, if you examine yourselves for one honest moment, you will know Prabhupada was way off on this one. However, such an admission (even to yourselves) is too expensive. It is so much simpler to pretend everything is fine and continue your life of denial. Sad in a way...but that is how it is.

 

you obviously did not read my thread on the literality of Bhagavatam

[Guest guest]

 

 

The real problem is, if you examine yourselves for one honest moment, you will know Prabhupada was way off on this one. However, such an admission (even to yourselves) is too expensive. It is so much simpler to pretend everything is fine and continue your life of denial. Sad in a way...but that is how it is.

 

actually, Prabhupada was right on the button because he kept faith with the Bhagavatam instead of putting his faith in scientists.

 

Don't blame the Bhagavat cosmology on Srila Prabhupada.

He didn't write the Bhagavatam, he translated it into English.

 

Apparently, you just don't get it.

Pure devotees don't follow the scientific speculations of karmis and demons.

The follow the shastra.

That is not a fault.

The fault is in putting more faith in godless demons than in shastra.

[Kulapavana]

 

The fault is in putting more faith in godless demons than in shastra.

 

Was Srila Bhaktisiddhanta putting more faith in godless demons than in shastra when he wrote in Surya Siddhanta that the distance between Moon and Earth was 258,000 miles?

[Guest guest]

 

actually, Prabhupada was right on the button because he kept faith with the Bhagavatam instead of putting his faith in scientists.

 

Don't blame the Bhagavat cosmology on Srila Prabhupada.

He didn't write the Bhagavatam, he translated it into English.

 

Apparently, you just don't get it.

Pure devotees don't follow the scientific speculations of karmis and demons.

The follow the shastra.

That is not a fault.

The fault is in putting more faith in godless demons than in shastra.

 

what are you talking about? Calculating distances is not a matter of faith in ancient texts! if I want to know the distance from New York to Bombay, I do not consult ancient books: I would travel between these two places or consult those who have. If I am unable to travel there physically, there are other means.

 

As to the moon distance, we have powerful telescopes to verify this. We also have sent many men into space. Whether you believe they landed on the moon is one thing, but I have witnessed many spaceship takeoffs with my own eyes, when I lived in Florida. We have been to space many times.. from space it would be very clear if the moon or sun was farther.

 

There are many Vaishnava sects, that revere the Bhagavatam, and from what I know most no longer teach the moon is farther. They have moved with the times like the FLAT earth Christians did. Christians no longer teach that the earth is flat, even tho the Bible says it is. Are Hare Krishnas even more into blind faith and arguing against all evidence and reason when it comes to science, than the Christians?

 

I am a Vaishnava, but not a member of ISKCON... and I do not have any reason to believe the Physical moon is farther, when all evidence shows us the opposite. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the moon is further belief, but plenty to support the moon is closer. Just one example: the eclipse.

 

Those who deny the moon is closer, have to bury their heads in the sand, and pretend that things like SOLAR eclipses do not occur. Even tho they have been witnessed around the world.

[Guest guest]

 

what are you talking about? Calculating distances is not a matter of faith in ancient texts! if I want to know the distance from New York to Bombay, I do not consult ancient books: I would travel between these two places or consult those who have. If I am unable to travel there physically, there are other means.

 

Then please tell me what is the gain, what is the benefit to you if you accept the scientific version of the issue and reject the Bhagavat cosmology?

 

How does that improve your Krishna consciousness?

How does that help you in your faith?

How does that enhance your bhakti?

How does that help you go back home back to Godhead?

 

What is the use?

Do you plan on taking a trip to the Moon on a rocket?

 

Does any of this change your karma or purify your heart and mind?

 

How can putting your faith in scientists and claiming fault in the Bhagavat do any good in advancing your Krishna consciousness?

 

Who are you more concerned with pleasing; the scientists of the acharyas?

 

Ultimately, putting faith and trust in scientific information cannot do anything to cleanse your heart and improve your position spiritually.

 

so, big deal.

I am not impressed with devotees who think that believing in science has anything to do with vraja bhakti.

[Kulapavana]

 

I am not impressed with devotees who think that believing in science has anything to do with vraja bhakti.

 

before any bhakta gets to the point of even developing an interest in vraja bhakti they have to cross a big sea of doubts... that is how faith GROWS. but you would not know that since you had pefect faith from day one, and an intense lobha for vraja bhakti from day two... how fortunate!

[Guest guest]

 

Then please tell me what is the gain, what is the benefit to you if you accept the scientific version of the issue and reject the Bhagavat cosmology?

 

How does that improve your Krishna consciousness?

How does that help you in your faith?

How does that enhance your bhakti?

How does that help you go back home back to Godhead?

 

What is the use?

Do you plan on taking a trip to the Moon on a rocket?

 

Does any of this change your karma or purify your heart and mind?

 

How can putting your faith in scientists and claiming fault in the Bhagavat do any good in advancing your Krishna consciousness?

 

Who are you more concerned with pleasing; the scientists of the acharyas?

 

Ultimately, putting faith and trust in scientific information cannot do anything to cleanse your heart and improve your position spiritually.

 

so, big deal.

I am not impressed with devotees who think that believing in science has anything to do with vraja bhakti.

 

Vedanta is not a BLIND FAITH religion like Christianity. And even Christians no longer put BLIND FAITH in the science of the Bible. Most admit that the Bible has scientific errors, but is mainly a spiritual book. Even Pope John Paul II admitted this, when he said the 6,000 yr old creation of the Bible is much older and Genesis should not be understood literally.

 

What you are doing, is showing you do not care about Truth, just dogma. The Truth-seeker, like Buddha said, does not accept anything on blind faith, but honestly examines all information, to see if goes along with common sense and reason, and is good for the benefit of one and all. Lord Buddha is of course an incarnation of God, say Vaishnavas. So as God himself, we should follow Lord Buddha's instructions clearly.

[Guest guest]

A sadhaka is meant to be thoughtful. We do not reject pratyaksha and anumana as valid sources of evidence. The observable and verifiable facts are that the moon is closer to the earth than the sun. Now, as a sadhaka, you need to digest that information and accomodate it and rethink about what the Bhagavatam is saying about cosmology. I like the idea of Sridhara Maharaja where he opines that in terms of influence the moon is closer. Also, since Krsna is born (Janmastami ki jaya!!!!) in the moon dynasty, the Bhagavata would give higher regard to the moon.

 

We are meant to have seeing faith, not blind faith. The type of faith that you are advocating is technically called komala shradda, or weak faith. Try to develop a finer theistic sense - dive deeper. Don't be afraid - the environment is truly friendly. Science and scientists are not evil. Their discoveries can be used for good by employing them in Krsna's service and they are also good in the sense of service in general. Is money good or bad? Utility is the principle. All devotees must earn a living and engage themselves to some degree in order to live. Even the renunciates are forced to adjust when the congregation doesn't fully support them. There are plenty of devotees who happen to also be scientists.

 

Faith is not meant to blind you. You can open your eyes now.

[Guest guest]

 

A sadhaka is meant to be thoughtful. We do not reject pratyaksha and anumana as valid sources of evidence. The observable and verifiable facts are that the moon is closer to the earth than the sun. Now, as a sadhaka, you need to digest that information and accomodate it and rethink about what the Bhagavatam is saying about cosmology. I like the idea of Sridhara Maharaja where he opines that in terms of influence the moon is closer. Also, since Krsna is born (Janmastami ki jaya!!!!) in the moon dynasty, the Bhagavata would give higher regard to the moon.

 

We are meant to have seeing faith, not blind faith. The type of faith that you are advocating is technically called komala shradda, or weak faith. Try to develop a finer theistic sense - dive deeper. Don't be afraid - the environment is truly friendly. Science and scientists are not evil. Their discoveries can be used for good by employing them in Krsna's service and they are also good in the sense of service in general. Is money good or bad? Utility is the principle. All devotees must earn a living and engage themselves to some degree in order to live. Even the renunciates are forced to adjust when the congregation doesn't fully support them. There are plenty of devotees who happen to also be scientists.

 

Faith is not meant to blind you. You can open your eyes now.

 

my position is that if the Bhagavat was acceptable to Srila Prabhupada it is acceptable to me.

Srila Prabhupada was not unaware of scientific estimations of astronomical distances. He was college educated and was not ignorant of what claims the scientists were making. Srila Prabhupada did not live in a cave. He was well acquainted with what the scientific cummunity was advocating.

 

Still, he opted to reject that and stay faithful to the Bhagavat cosmology.

He did this deliberately and with good reason.

 

Therefore, if the Bhagavat cosmology was acceptable to Srila Prabhupada it is acceptable to me.

 

Christians have been preaching for a long time the world is only 5000 years old, yet Christianity is still the most widespread religion in the world and is respected and accepted by all sort of people.

 

Devotees will not be ruined if they follow the Bhagavat cosmology.

Indeed, I don't think it will matter at all for a sect of people who believe that God is a blue cowherd boy that plays a flute and dances will millions of gopis in the middle of the night under the moonlight by the Yamuna River.

 

Do you think any of the rest of the Bhagavat is acceptable to karmis and non-devotees?

Do you think that rejecting a part of the Bhagavat and being pragmatic about astronomy is really going to change the world's view on the Hare Krishnas.

 

I think some of you are just attached to your own mental conceptions and are not prepared to surrender to literaly form of Krishna - the Bhagavatam.

 

People will probably respect devotees more for sticking to their books than if they start picking and choosing and essentially manufacturing their own religion from bits and pieces of the shastra that thier conditioned minds can accept.

[Guest guest]

 

I think some of you are just attached to your own mental conceptions and are not prepared to surrender to literaly form of Krishna - the Bhagavatam.

 

People will probably respect devotees more for sticking to their books than if they start picking and choosing and essentially manufacturing their own religion from bits and pieces of the shastra that thier conditioned minds can accept.

 

The cosmology of the Bhagavatam cannot all be taken literally; at least not on THIS plane. The Himalayas are clearly not 18,000 feet high on the physical plane. The moon distance is probably another similar matter that is only true when we look at things from a multidimensional perspective.

 

It's people like you who are stuck on literalism, and can't see that the Vedic writings were written with metaphysical understanding, not just looking at things from the perspective of OUR dimension.

 

 

 

Christians have been preaching for a long time the world is only 5000 years old, yet Christianity is still the most widespread religion in the world and is respected and accepted by all sort of people.

 

Yes, but that is something that is hard to disprove, unlike the moon issue, where we have all kinds of data and evidence like solar eclipses.

 

The Christians did stop teaching the earth is flat and that the sun revolved around their earth, even though their sciptures state these things. So they have been able to change their stance. The Catholics no longer even teach the 5,000 yr. old myth. Only the evangelicals still hold to that.

[Guest guest]

 

The cosmology of the Bhagavatam cannot all be taken literally; at least not on THIS plane.

 

It's people like you who are stuck on literalism, and can't see that the Vedic writings were written with metaphysical understanding, not just looking at things from the perspective of OUR dimension.

 

 

 

Srila Prabhupada was stuck on literalism.

If you cannot accept that then you are not accepting Srila Prabhupada in total.

 

Yes, me and Prabhupada are stuck on literalism and you are stuck on mundane science.

 

Don't blame devotees for accepting the words of Srila Prabhupada.

Don't claim to be a follower of Srila Prabhupada if you don't.

[Guest guest]

 

Srila Prabhupada was stuck on literalism.

If you cannot accept that then you are not accepting Srila Prabhupada in total.

 

Yes, me and Prabhupada are stuck on literalism and you are stuck on mundane science.

 

Don't blame devotees for accepting the words of Srila Prabhupada.

Don't claim to be a follower of Srila Prabhupada if you don't.

 

Srila Prabhupada taught the Himalayas are 18,000 feet high on THIS Plane? I don't think so.

 

It is said: to the masses Jesus spoke in PARABLES, but to his inner core of disciples, he spoke the MYSTERIES of the Kingdom of God. Again King Solomo n states in Proverbs: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter. And Paul states in the New Testament: "the letter kills, but the spirit gives life."

 

The sciptures of the world are esoteric, and have an outer form (the letter) and a deeper spiritual meaning. The masses hear the parables, the initiates discover the deeper mysteries..

 

Why do you think the Vedas were forbidden to be read, but by learned Brahmins? because only they knew their true meaning.. When others read the Vedas, like the British, they thought they were primitive and barbaric texts. This is because they didn't have any understanding of the deeper meanings of these texts.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, me and Prabhupada are stuck on literalism and you are stuck on mundane science.

actually, its you who are stuck on mundane science. Mundane science does not recognize the astral plane. That is precisely what we are recognizing when we state the cosmology of the Bhagavatam can only be understood within a metaphysical framework.

 

Mundane scientists do not believe in the metaphysical, so they'd laugh at all this talk of planes of existence and beings live on higher dimensions. You seem to agree with the mundane scientists, that any life on the moon must exist on THIS dimension, and scoff at the metaphysical interpetations of the Bhagavatam.