kaisersose Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Actually, the moon can also be considered a star. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/star 1 a: a natural luminous body visible in the sky especially at night. So, according to THAT definition, Prabhupada's translation would work. Dude, were you paying attention in school? A star is naturally luminescent. The moon is not *naturally* luminous. To spell it out, the moon has no light of its own & simply reflects sunlight. The webster definition you posted is about stars & has nothing to with the moon. Combine that with Vedic cosmology which only has one (two) stars and Prabhupada's purport is practically Vedic. Wrong. "Vedic cosmology" does not state there are only one (two) stars. If you want to quote the Surya Siddhanta or some such text to prove your point, feel free to do so. It does not require that much of imagination to get past that translation. Just take it symbolically and move on. The accuracy of the translation of this verse is a pointless digression. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyros Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Dude, were you paying attention in school? No, it's hard to pay attention in American schools. A star is naturally luminescent. The moon is not *naturally* luminous. To spell it out, the moon has no light of its own & simply reflects sunlight. The webster definition you posted is about stars & has nothing to with the moon. The moon naturally reflects sunlight. Luminous- 1 a: emitting or reflecting usually steady, suffused, or glowing light b: of or relating to light or to luminous flux Wrong. "Vedic cosmology" does not state there are only one (two) stars. If you want to quote the Surya Siddhanta or some such text to prove your point, feel free to do so. It does not require that much of imagination to get past that translation. Just take it symbolically and move on. The accuracy of the translation of this verse is a pointless digression. Cheers Please don't bring up pointless arguments. I'm not here to argue, I'm only pointing out possible reasons why Prabhupada may have translated the word as star while others have translated it differently. From what I've been exposed to on Vedic cosmology, it talks only about one (two) suns. Unless YOU, who supposedly knows better, points it out to me, I, and many others, remain ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted February 18, 2009 Report Share Posted February 18, 2009 Some 3000 years ago, when the original Vedic texts were written, astrology and astronomy were equivalent, i.e., they were a single science. People observed the sun, the moon and the stars, as well as the other planets in our solar system. They effectively used the regular movement of star constellations as a calendar, and their relative position to the planets was thought to influence all events on Earth. Nevertheless, they couldn’t have suspected that the distant stars where actually suns! They most likely thought that there is only one sun and that the stars are like planets, and that the Moon is also like a planet. So it seems Prabhupada may have a point here after all. However, why would Krishna describe himself as 'the Moon among the stars', if there is no fundamental difference? He did so, because at that time people considered the Moon to be the primary planet which has the largest influence on life on Earth. This is an astrological notion and not an astronomical one. Therefore, I think that the term 'nakshatranam' in the original verse should have been translated: 'among constellations', and not: 'among stars'. But even if I am correct, it would be a very marginal error.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Please don't bring up pointless arguments. I understand that an argument that proves you wrong must be pointless. You are not the first one to take position on this forum nor will you be the last. I'm not here to argue, I'm only pointing out possible reasons why Prabhupada may have translated the word as star while others have translated it differently. To be fair, I see nothing wrong with Prabhupada's translation, in spite of being far from impressed by his scholarship in other cases. From what I've been exposed to on Vedic cosmology, it talks only about one (two) suns. Unless YOU, who supposedly knows better, points it out to me, I, and many others, remain ignorant. If you know you are ignorant, it is advisable to be careful about what you post or at least be clear that you are confident about what you are writing. And when people make positive statements (such as two suns), the burden of proof is always on them to backup their words. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyros Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 I understand that an argument that proves you wrong must be pointless. You are not the first one to take position on this forum nor will you be the last. You didn't prove me wrong, but I'll admit I was narrow-minded and quick to judge your post. No post is pointless, I apologize. I'm only here to understand the position my understanding of the Vedas are at, and many more came before me, and many more will come after me. Forever. If you know you are ignorant, it is advisable to be careful about what you post or at least be clear that you are confident about what you are writing. And when people make positive statements (such as two suns), the burden of proof is always on them to backup their words. Cheers I have never seen Vedic cosmology talk about there being more than two sun-like objects. If there are more, I haven't run across them, and unless they're stated in the Bhagavad Purana or similar texts, I won't for a long time. If they're in astronomical texts like the Surya Siddhanta and Siddhanta-Siromani, then great, I got those sitting in my bookshelf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehat Posted February 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Thanks to all of you for your responses, I've forwared the responses onto my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srikrishnadas Posted February 22, 2009 Report Share Posted February 22, 2009 Namo Vaishnave First of all everyone is free to question Prabhupada's teachings for themselves. If one goes to the market and someone says 'here this is gold', you don't just take it. You will bite on it to test it. To accept a guru tradition is to test the guru for a year and for the guru to test the disciple's fitness. I have never seen or read Prabhupada saying anywhere that the stars give light because the sun shines on them. Neither has he said this about the moon. Actually in the vedas the moon is described as being self effulgent. Also he said that modern scientists didn't go to the moon, but perhaps they might have gone to Rahu. In any case, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur says in his preface to his work Sri Krsna Samhita that spiritualists/transcendentalists aren't interested in arguing. He continues to say if someone comes with scientifically well supported arguments we will accept. Our interest is in developing sincere love for God. So in any case, whether the moon is a star or not, self-effulgent or not, the scientists went there, isn't the matter for a transcendentalist. We should be interested in using the science in such a way that it helps us develop genuine love for God, else we better don't mingle in with it. As for the statement of the Bhagavad Gita. The puport is that among every principle in the universe Krsna or also God's personality is represented within the greatest in any of them. When looking into the sky one sees so many stars and they are so beautiful, but among them one, the moon, is the most beautiful. Therefore excelling in beauty Krsna is represented in the moon the best. Similarly the best among the Daityas (demons) is Prahlad, him being a pure devotee of the Lord, so he represents the Lord. Same for every principle in the universe. Radhe Radhe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gita Dharma Posted March 20, 2009 Report Share Posted March 20, 2009 "Among the stars" is different from "one of the stars." In the former, it could simply mean that the moon exists along with the stars, nothing more. There's no case of identity. To give a mundane instance, if I say you're among aliens, it doesn't mean you're one of the aliens. The distinction between you and the aliens is maintained. Your point is a very good one and different translations don't run into that misunderstanding because they render it differently. However his friend would still have an issue with the purport which is unequivocal. He should explain to his friend that Sri Krishna pre-existed the purport in question and there are many other purports by other Vaishnava scholars with which to cross reference. "Every work is covered by some fault just as fire is partially obscured by smoke ..." However, the reality of Sri Krishna can be conclusively established by following the process bequeathed by a person who has actually realized Him. That is the essence of the guru-shishya tradition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haridasdasdas Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 I'm not a qualified person, but when I read that verse I thought it only meant that the moon was a light in the night sky, like the stars, but much brighter than them, from our perspective. I don't see that it neccessarily says that the stars are just like the moon, regardless of whether or not they are. 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.