What is the "official" position of Devotees regarding our Universe?

[RIFamily]

Hello,

 

I am somewhat a newcomer to the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad Gita, having arrived at this juncture while reading the Ramayana of Valmiki. I have many questions about how the Earth and the Universe as portrayed in the Srimad Bhagavatam, especially in light of Canto 5, Chapters 16 to 26. How do devotees reconcile the differences between what is in the Srimad Bhagavatam and what modern (and not so modern) science tells us? Do devotees truly believe in Jambhdvipa? Where is Mount Sumeru? According to the Srimad Bhagavatam we do not live so much on a globe but on a flat circular plain above Garbhodaka ocean... yet a lot of pictures in the various volumes of the Srimad Bhagavatam show Earth as a sphere -- which does not seem consistent with the Bhu-mandala universe or the Jambudvipa earth. Is the moon further away from Earth than the Sun (by 1,600,00 miles)? Are the stars just reflections of the sun, and not suns themselves? See below.

 

"The stars, which are known as naksatra, are not different suns, as modern astronomers suppose. From Bhagavad-gita (10.21) we understand that the stars are similar to the moon (naksatranam aham sasi). Like the moon, the stars reflect the sunshine. Apart from our modern distinguished estimations of where the planetary systems are located, we can understand that the sky and its various planets were studied long, long before Srimad-Bhagavatam was compiled."

Srimad-Bhagavatam 5:16.1

 

"...It appears from this verse that the moon is one of the starts; therefore the stars that twinkle in the sky also reflect the light of the sun. The theory that there are many suns within the universe is not accepted by Vedic literature. The sun is one, and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars."

 

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is (Revised) 10:21

 

As you can see I have many, many questions. But I guess my biggest question is what is the official position of devotees regarding our Universe and our planet in light of the Srimad Bhagavatam and science.

 

Thanks for your help in understanding this topic.

 

[Gauracandra]

Of course I don't represent any official devotee stance. However, a few of these points have been discussed before. There is a website by Sadaputa I believe that tries to reconcile the differences between the Srimad Bhagavatam and modern science. A few points have been discussed in these forums in the past. For instance, for those who think that Vedic civilization accepted a "flat earth" theory it was pointed out that in ancient Varaha temples that still exist today in India, you will see Varaha upholding a circular globe for the earth. So the understood it to be a globe and not flat. The flat theory deals with planes, and so the moon is said to be further not in linear distance, but rather because the Sun and earth are said to be on a similar plane (thus closer). The moon is situated on an upper plane, so it is farther away. As for Mount Meru, it is interesting to note that a number of other cultures have often had a mountain of the God (Mount Olympus for instance) and there are even similarities in the creation stories of various cultures. For instance the egyptians believe that in the beginning a golden lotus sprouted from the universal oceans, and unfurled. Within the lotus was the Sun God. Anyone have that site by Sadaputa? It is a companion to a book he has written.

[Guest guest]

Bhaktivedanta Institute (Alachua)

 

Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompson, Ph.D.)

 

Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompson) was born in Binghamton, New York, in 1947. In 1974, he received his Ph.D. in mathematics from Cornell University, where he specialized in probability theory and statistical mechanics. He went on to do research in quantum physics and mathematical biology at the State University of New York at Binghamton, Cambridge University in the United Kingdom, and the La Jolla Institute in San Diego. He is the author of seven books and the producer of six videos on science and philosophy, and he has written many articles for scientific journals and for Back To Godhead, the magazine of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. His most recent book, Mysteries of the Sacred Universe, discusses evidence of advanced astronomical knowledge in India’s ancient texts known as the Puranas. He has designed exhibits using computer animation and multimedia techniques to present the Vedic cosmology and the Vedic world view to the general populace, and he is presently writing a book discussing the laws of physics and the nature and origin of life.

 

I believe this is the site you were looking for:

 

http://www.sacreduniverse.com/

 

[RIFamily]

Thank you for your kind response, and for the website. I do, in fact have the book that was written by Sadaputa Dasa. From reading the material, it would appear that Sadaputa Dasa sees many of the images of Srimad Bhagavatam as allegorical: not to be taken literally, but "to be understood as meaning..."

 

The 5th Chapter DOES talk about planes, and Sadaputa Dasa has pictures on his website and text in his book explaining about the earth plane: "The shell contains an earth disk -- called Bhu-mandala or earth mandala -- that divides it into an upper, heavenly region and a subterranean domain filled with amniotic waters...Although the "earth is here conceived of as a disk, it has little in common with the familiar earth of day-to-day experience..."

 

Yes, the "earth disk" is enclosed in a universal sphere -- Brahmanda (Brahma egg), but from what is in the Srimad Bhagavatam and explained by Sadaputa Dasa, Bhu-mandala IS flat... a disk.

 

However -- my question is NOT really the topic of flat earth VS. spherical earth (and it appears that you do believe that the earth is spherical) -- my question is broader: Are we to take the words of this fifth canto literally, on faith... or allegorically. Srila Prabhupada seems very insistent that the Srimad Bhagavatam and Bhagavad Gita are TRUE --- every word --- period... that stars are THE ACTUAL reflection of the sun, NOT suns themselves... that there is only one sun in this universe, that our Universe (not earth) is a sphere a mere 2 billion miles in radius ("mere" from a science prespective). There seems to be no room for interpretations, or allegory in the writings and comments of Srila Prabupada....

 

How do I reconcile what I read in the 5th Canto with what modern science tells me? If we first say... OK I "know" the Earth is a sphere, so what were read in the Bhagavatam "must be" allegory, we are working backwards, defining what is real by what we perceive. Where do we stop? "Oh, I don't see Brahma... therefore he must be myth/alagory/fiction." Where does one draw the line -- and who draws it?

[ethos]

RIFamily,

 

We all go through this. But ultimately, it doesn't make any difference which way the balls spin or how they're constituted. The real questions are "Why does it exists at all?" and "What's this all about?" The "why" questions get to the nitty-gritty, the "how" questions are barking up the wrong tree.

 

The explanations concerning the universal structure are to be considered factual--and dualistic. I may be a dad, but I'm also a son from another valid viewpoint. Our philosophy is simulataneous oneness and difference... perspective according to time and circumstances. Quantum mechanics also emphasizes these points.

 

We can't even understand this world, what to speak of the more complicated universe.

 

Alot of us simply take on faith these things we cannot yet understand. It would be nice to know, but ultimately it's not so important to our moral life.

[Somesh Kumar]

As Krishna says:

 

sraddhaval labhate jnanam

tat-parah samyatendriyah

jnanam labdhva param santim

acirenadhigacchati

 

A faithful person gains knowledge and then controls his senses and after that he gets everlasting peace!

 

So, initially faith in Krishna is the most important. Leaving aside all the thoughts about how the world is created etc..

 

Once this is firm, all other knowledge will be given by Krishna himself! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Rather, the person will not be interested to know anything else other than Krishna! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

Yes I aceapt everything within the 5th canto to be correct word for word ,and no I can not understand all that is spoken about there.

When Srila Prabhupada translated the 5th canto he made a statement at that time that many of my disclips may leave because they will not aceapt this.His Divine Grace also said at the time that "we can not understand scripture with our from above mundane senses ".

His Divine Grace Srila Sridhar Maharaja many times in his darshan talks to us reafrimed our process of understanding knowledge as he would so nicely put it "reciveing knowledge from above".

That is our process Tamal Krishna Maharaja used to like to meet with Sadaputa Prabhu and when he did thier discussions would almost always be on these topics.

He would always be amazed at Sadaputras relization and explained them to me in the ways they had discussed them.

One I remenber being the consepcts of the the Universe from the vision of the materist and another the conscepts of the Universe from the vision of the yogi and Higher still the conscepts from the eyes of the devottee.Which Sadaputa explained all seem to be within the Bhagavatum

Sadaputa example was of how lower speices of life are locked within thier diffrent persceptions of reality like an ant is locked within a two demenisional world only seeing flat and up,they can not understand the nature of a room filled with people and thier conroll over the the space in which the ants live.

Srimad Bhagavatum is called the Spotless Purana by Lord Chaitanya according to Him It is compeltly pure and on His order we study Bhagavatum .

Bhagavatum can only be understood by serving the person Bhagavatum the Knowledge from above will desend down to us.

There is one leela of Lord Buddha were Brahmans would approch Him to discuss the Universe and He would state "If an arrow has been shot into my arm do I seek out where it has come from or pull it out first"

So according to Lord Buddha Spiritual Practise is superior to understanding the workings of the Universe.

Still tho it is discussed within Bhagavatum .There is also a part in the 5 canto that discusses the movements of the Sun as it travels around the Universe ,and Planets which appear invisable to us very near the Earth Planet.

One other point I remenber Tamal Krishna Maharaja explaining to me once in talks he had with Srila Prabhupada on the 5th Canto that Srila Prabhupada discribed the Earth to be Dounut shaped in that the center is hollow.

When Tamal Krishna questioned Srila Prabhupada about this further His Divine Grace told him not to challege so much on these topics as they were very difficult subject matter to comprehend.

Intresting enough tho at the same time that this volume of Bhagavatum came to print Srila Prabhupada also stated that the Americans never went to the Moon.

As you have stated the Bhagavatum is explaining the Moon to be much farther from us than the Sun and that the Moon is a heavenly planets not barren as NASA is telling us.

Two weeks back I saw a report on Peter Jennien ABC news that NASA has now alotted serval hundeds of thousands dollars to refute the "never went to the Moon theory"

ABC news comment was if they went there why are they useing taxpayers money to refute.That in itself brought them into doubting NASA themselves.

 

[Streetstraw]

Then again, wherever we are, that's where we belong, at least for a few moments.

What you said about the Reverend Moon planet in your 3rd paragraph is only partially true.

He's not only one of the start; He's an upstart. Read 9th Canto Soma-time for details.

[Guest guest]

 

 

when Srila Prabhupada said that, he was being provocative

on purpose, by his own admission.

 

There are different levels of understanding in the Bhagavatam, like Sadaputa has shown.

 

What Srila Prabhupada did was give the concept according to the vision of the residents of the spiritual world,

and of the people of vedic times, which are both the same.

 

We today can observe the cosmos with help from modern

technology, in vedic times this was impossible.

 

So the vedic conception on the literal level is

for the audience of the vedic age,or the residents of the spiritual world.

 

They live in a mythological mindset, not a scientific one,

the mythological mindset is superior to the "modern"

mind because it is designed for the purpose

of keeping the person in a transcendental consciousness,

a view of the world that is full of magic and unlimited possibilities.

 

So the true situation of the galaxy is not neccesary to

be known to those people, they see the world through the lens of the pure vedic conception, this is for the

purpose of enhacing their lifestyle, which is

full of magical events and transcendental ecstacy.

 

At least thats the way I see it.

[RIFamily]

Hello,

 

Interestingly I found this letter referenced by a devotee on another topic. But it fit so well here.

Srila Prabhupada appears to be answering my very question! Here is his letter, in part:

 

------------------------

 

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

 

<center>vedaham samatitani

 

vartamanani carjuna

 

bhavisyani ca bhutani

 

mam tu veda na kascana

 

(BG, VII, 26)</center>

 

["O Arjuna, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, I know everything that has

happened in the past, all that is happening in the present, and all things that are yet to

come. I also know all living entities; but Me no one knows."]

 

that He knows everything, and ''vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedanta-krd veda-vid

eva caham,'' 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:

 

<center>gam avisya ca bhutani

 

dharayamy aham ojasa

 

pusnami causadhih sarvah

 

somo bhutvah rasatmakah

(BG, 15.13)</center>

 

["I enter into each planet, and by My energy they stay in orbit. I become the moon and

thereby supply the juice of life to all vegetables."]

 

"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...

[theist]

This whole wonderous cosmic show is really just a set full of props manifested to fullfill the silly scripts we dreaming jivas come up with. Still it is VERY amazing.

[ethos]

RIFamily,

 

That was a nice reference you posted.

 

But most of the descriptions about the structure of the universe are not allegorical. Bhu-mandala, the circle of islands and seas, and one sun and moon are all empirical facts.

[theist]

one sun is an empirical fact?

[dna]

one moon is an empirical fact?

[ethos]

Theist and Dna,

 

Yes, my understanding and position is one sun and moon per universe. Do ya'll have another concept?

[theist]

ethos,

 

Yeah I can't accept that. This universe is very very big. To think that it is lit by only one sun seems implausible to me. Those stars to me are just other suns. Not planets reflecting back light from the sun close to us.

 

One moon? How can that be? There are already 17 moons known to us just orbiting around Uranus.

 

Where is Avinashji?

[Guest guest]

if im reading ethos correctly,

he is saying 'universe' in a symbolic fashion.

 

as this world we live in,our reality is ,there is one sun and one moon,

this is our 'universe', our reality,

 

in other universes there are other suns,other moons,

universe meaning reality.

 

of course there are countless stars and moons,

but for a person dealing with a down to earth

vision, there is only one sun and one moon,

in our universe, our sphere of existence.

 

is this what he means ?

[Guest guest]

The official position of devotees is "yes, the universe exists."

 

[theist]

He'll tell us. I do believe that that is the way the ancients perceived it. Remember they also thought the Earth planet was the very center of the universe. I can understand why they had that perception. But now we learn that the Milky Way itself is composed of some one hundred billion stars. And Earth is just in an insignificant spot in the Milky Way. And the Milky Way galaxy is just an insignificant speck compared to the number of other galaxies out there. All dependent on our sun for energy? I can't believe that.

[ethos]

It's sounds like ya'll are anxious to interpret what I said. I'm gonna stick by my guns and say that I believe the universe–this smallest universe in the creation I think it is–has only one sun and moon in it's entire circumference.

 

I guess I'm now discredited. So be it. I should look for some references but I don't have my Vedabase running because of a recent hard drive initialization. (I have to call in to authenticate). So it's harder to research. I'm also busy with other things.

 

I plan on answering this later when I can give some Prabhupada or scriptural evidence.

 

And while I do that, why don't you guys substantiate or confirm what you advocate with scriptures too?

 

Empirical science is next to zero in my book when describing things beyond their experience. And don't tell me they've verified it by telescopes and radio waves.

 

Well RIF, looks like the conversation has come full circle. You must be pleased.

[theist]

ethos, any of us may be correct on this issue, but that doesn't discredit any individual.

 

What do you have against telescopes. This fact below has been popping into my head for a week and every time it does my awe at Krsna's potency increases.

 

The Hubble telescope, when turned on an area of black space( where nothing had been previously observed by us) the size of a quarter as we view the sky, revealed many thousands of galaxies. What lays beyond those in that same space that we can't yet perceive? My God!! And that doesn't even address the rest of space.My God !!!again.

 

That to me, as I hear it, is every bit as inspiring as the Bhagavatam's statements on the universe. Nah, more, much more.

 

If we know that Krsna is behind this cosmos then everything within the cosmos can become a form of scripture. That's how I see it anyway.

 

Remember this is not a battle, its a discussion, a mutal investigation for the truth.

 

Hare Krsna soul

[ethos]

Theist,

 

I'm really distracted with things going on here at the house. We're about to paint walls and lay carpet for starters. So I'm not in this mood of empirical debate.

 

"What do you have against telescopes."

 

These instruments like telescopes and microscopes certainly extend the range of the senses. Granted. And they do open up unseen worlds. Unfortunately, they have not helped prove intelligent design or authoritive scripture.

 

Modern empirical science began it's systematic investigations as an unauthorized process to understand the effect... which would supposedly tell you something more about the cause––or God. Now look at us, we are the controllers, everything must be proved to us and we are the measure of all things. God is no longer relevant in most areas of our life. This is the practical result of such science and technology.

 

The saints and scriptures warn us about contemplating the world too much. But now science is promoting molecule–o–mania of the brain as objective reality.

 

The instruments created by us to extend our senses are also extentions of our defects also; especially our false ego.

 

All this technology bewilders us and advances our destruction.

 

"That to me, as I hear it, is every bit as inspiring as the Bhagavatam's statements on the universe. Nah, more, much more."

 

There is nothing more amazing (conceptually or otherwise) than infinite universes expanding from the breath and pours of Maha-visnu or Lord Brahma being born on a lotus or all this gross matter expanding from the subtle (as if out of nothing). That technology my friend, is yet to be discovered. And because of the limits the scientists impose on themselves within their accepted discipline, it's doubtful they'll even look in the right place for it.

 

You think man's revelations are more inspiring than God's? Surely you don't mean that.

 

Dont forget to answer me with that proof I requested. Just saying the stars are suns proves nothing. Science can't prove that.

 

Find some scriptural references that are accepted as authority to validate what you expound as your universal model. Then I will be convinced. Until then, I think you have too much faith in material science.

[theist]

I understand you are busy. We can pick this up anytime. I was specifically thinking of the fifth canto's description of the universe. I find the observations of modern astronomy very inspirational. Aren't you awed when you look to the stars at night? Sure you are. I couldn't care less if their theories on what they see are correct or not.

 

The universe is God's presentation. That's my point. Any clarification of that presentation I accept as a sort of divine revelation.

 

Anyway, get back to work slacker. We'll pick this up when you have time.

 

Hare Krsna

[ethos]

The Bhagavatam is good. It is authoritative in our system of proof. I did not get "many suns" from reading the Bhagavatam. But then I guess I didn't understand anything about that section. I just felt like giving up when reading it.

 

If you can show there evidence to support your impressions of multiple suns and moons, then you've made your point. And you'll change my world view.

[RIFamily]

"Well RIF, looks like the conversation has come full circle. You must be pleased."

 

____

 

Hi,

 

No, not really... My "goal" was not to start a set of dialogs but was to try and reconcile what I was reading in the Srimad Bhagavatam with my every day experience. Srila Prabhupada's letter from 1972 (thanks theist!) addressed the issue from one prespective. Shiva (12/05/02 5:49 PM) offers another prospective that in it's own way is valid: What IS reality? Is my reality the same as yours? Are there multiple realities? Here we are: Is my reality at the at the same time the same but yet different from yours? (Where have you heard a similar phrase like that before?)

 

The other day I was considering the universe as described in the Srimad Bhagavatam, and comparing it to the universive scientests describe, and suddenly, for one second, I "saw" and/or "felt" that the universe of the Srimad Bhagavatam "could" in fact be real -- it was just a matter of shifting my perception of reality. For that brief second I experienced that "reality" is not a "fixed" certainty, but somehow more dynamic -- more fluid, yet more quantam. Then ZING! my reality solified and the universe was made up of millions of galixies of suns. But I did see that there are many things I don't know about.

 

Many thanks for all the different prospectives and view points, I have learned a lot over the past days and have much to consider for some time to come.