Pankaja_Dasa Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Morning Walk -- May 12, 1975, Perth {extracted} __ Prabhupada: (in car) They have not gone to the moon planet. Paramahamsa: Really? Prabhupada: Yes. It is far, far away. Their calculation is wrong. They are going to a wrong planet. Paramahamsa: It must be the Rahu planet. Prabhupada: Yes, or something else. Not moon planet. Paramahamsa: How many... Prabhupada: It is above the sun planet. Paramahamsa: Moon planet is further? Prabhupada: Yes. Paramahamsa: Oh. Because they say that the moon planet is the closest planet to the earth. That is their calculation. And they say that it orbits around the earth, and then that the earth orbits the sun. Prabhupada: All wrong. What is the... According to them, what is the distance of sun planet? Paramahamsa: Sun planet is 93,000,000 miles. Ganesa: They say the moon planet is only 250,000 miles. Prabhupada: It is wrong thing. Paramahamsa: Is their calculation for the distance of the sun wrong also? Prabhupada: Yes. Paramahamsa: 93,000,000? It says in the Bhagavatam exactly what the distance? Prabhupada: The whole universe, diameter, is pancasat-koti-yojana. One yojana equal to eight miles, and one koti is ten miles, er, ten million. So pancasata, fifty into 10,000,000 into eight. Paramahamsa: Yeah. So it's fifty crores yojana. Fifty crores yojanas? Prabhupada: Yes, fifty crore yojanas, pancasat. So one yojana equal to eight miles, one crore equal to ten million. Paramahamsa: That's eighty million. Prabhupada: Hmm? Paramahamsa: Eighty million times fifty. Prabhupada: Yes. Paramahamsa: Means 400,000,000 Srutakirti: Hmm. More than that. Four billion. Paramahamsa: Four thousand million, which is four billion? Srutakirti: Four billion miles. Paramahamsa: Four billion miles is the diameter. Prabhupada: Is the diameter. Paramahamsa: You gave that in The Teachings of Lord Caitanya also. Prabhupada: Yes. And the sun is in the middle. Paramahamsa: So two billion miles from the edge of the universe. Prabhupada: Yes. And they say? 93,000,000. Srutakirti: That's from the earth to the sun. That's not from the sun to the edge. That's from earth to the sun. Amogha: Is earth near the edge of the universe? Prabhupada: No. There are many other planets down. Seven planetary system. Paramahamsa: The higher planetary systems are closest to the sun? And then... Prabhupada: No, sun is the middle. This is circumference. Sun is the middle. And the whole diameter is fifty lakhs and... What is...? And moon is above, 200,000 yojanas above the sun. Paramahamsa: Ah. 200,000 yojanas. That means 1,600,000 miles above the sun. Prabhupada: Above the sun. How they'll go? (laughter) They are going to the wrong..., bluffing only. I am repeatedly saying, they have never gone, simply bluff. How it is that they brought some dust? So brilliant, it is blazing, full. There is fire blazing. (walking:) Paramahamsa: They say that they measured the moon and that it's very small compared to the earth, very tiny. Prabhupada: All wrong. Paramahamsa: If it's a longer distance than the sun but still it appears so big in the sky, it must be a very large planet. Prabhupada: Yes. Similarly Venus and others, they are also above. Paramahamsa: Oh, above the sun. Prabhupada: The sun is moving near about that. This is one universe, and there are thousands and millions of universe. Jagad-anda-koti. Yasya prabha prabhavato jagad-anda-koti [bs. 5.40]. That is God's creation. And they are becoming God, "I am God." Yasyaika-nisvasita-kalam athavalambya [bs. 5.48]. If we simply think of the creation of God, we can appreciate how great He is. Paramahamsa: That's why it's described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam? After I read all this I concluded that actually the planet Scientists talk about in the Sky or have allegedly been to is not the Moon, It just some other planet which happens to be in the same district as the Earth. Or as some people call Rahu. Which I don't have much Info on. Hey we should tell this to Nasa right.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 After I read all this I concluded that actually the planet Scientists talk about in the Sky or have allegedly been to is not the Moon, It just some other planet which happens to be in the same district as the Earth. Or as some people call Rahu. In the night sky we see a white object, which we call as moon. Do you think it is really moon? Or, do you think it is Rahu? Or, do you think it is something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted October 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 In the night sky we see a white object, which we call as moon. Do you think it is really moon? Or, do you think it is Rahu? Or, do you think it is something else? It's the Moon alright. But scientists claim to have been there. But actually may have been to another planet called Rahu. I have not studied the position of planets in comparison to Vedas. But the calculations are way out. According to the above we are either 400million miles or 4000 million miles from the Sun. And the Moon is supposed to be 1.3 Million miles from the Sun! Which when you think makes sense. Because The Sun and Moon has a great heritage in Vedas, that's where Ksatriya descended from. I think that diagram which shows the moon closer to the Earth which I saw on devotees site is all wrong. I maybe going out on a limb but this is what I think it should be like. I am rushing so please excuse me. Limb! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 4 billion miles diameter to the universe. Avinash, can you tell tell us what the current scientific thinking is on say the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy? And how far from the edge of the Milky Way to the edge of the nearest galaxy? And then what is the estimated number of galaxies? Thank you And all this folks is just Dr. Frog trying to imagine the Pacific Ocean by comparing it to his well. We are not called atomic souls for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted October 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Isn't the Milky Way and Galaxy thought of as different from the Bhu-mandala or are they included. Its round so maybe its included. With that little hole in the middle, ever see it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mini Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Excuse me , the "moon" mentioned above is moon as in satellite of the planet earth ?? Is there another planet referred as moon here?? When a horoscope is calculated , it is based on the satellite or some planet ?? Sorry , if I sound ignorant, but all this is confusing . I have read it for the first time. regards, mini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VNV Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Hare Krishna Wow that is really interesting, and far and above me haha. Was Srila Prabhupada saying that NASA never landed on another planet? or just that this other planet they landed on was not the real moon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Isn't the Milky Way and Galaxy thought of as different from the Bhu-mandala or are they included. Its round so maybe its included. With that little hole in the middle, ever see it? I believe you are confusing the Milky Way with the Doughnut Mandala. mini, There are statements in the Purana's that differ greatly with some of the modern discoveries of science. Srila Prabhupada spoke according to the Purana's but also said that it wasn't very important for us to worry about. He wanted everyone to concentrate on our spiritual essence and not jsut wrapped up in this lesser controversies. Sometimes allegories are presented in the scriptures and we don't recognize them as such. But the material scientists are only working through their imperfect senses and giving out theories that are often overturned in a few years in favor of a new theory by someone else so we shouldn't trust them to much. In the final analysis where these planetary bodies are in space relative to Earth is of no importance. Hare Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mini Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Hello Theist, I agree that science does not have explanation for everything. But how do we ignore the facts? We all are here meaning to search for the truth and how do we accept things that seem all improbable? That will be blind faith and that won't lead us to truth. If "moon" is same as we know it, then we can understand phenomenonas like eclipse and all, and science is not wrong here. ***In the final analysis where these planetary bodies are in space relative to Earth is of no importance.*** Maybe that is true, I don't know, but even if that is true , there is no reason to accept things . We don't KNOW , so we look upto people who have realised to learn from their knowledge. regards, mini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Avinash, can you tell tell us what the current scientific thinking is on say the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy? It is a little over 100,000 light years, which comes out to be over 590 million billion miles. And how far from the edge of the Milky Way to the edge of the nearest galaxy? The nearest galaxy known so far is the one that was discovered about a year back. It is known as "Canis Major dwarf galaxy". It overlaps Milky way, so the closest distance between the two galaxies is zero. Our Milky way is gradually consuming this galaxy. In the other words, this galaxy is being pulled inside Milky way. But if you are asking about a galaxy, which does not overlap with Milky way, then the nearest is Andromeda galaxy. Its edge is around eleven billion billion miles from the nearest edge of Milky way. And then what is the estimated number of galaxies? It is estimated that there are around 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted October 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Was Srila Prabhupada saying that NASA never landed on another planet? or just that this other planet they landed on was not the real moon? I think as far as Vedic astrology is concerned they look at the real moon. It does make sense the Moon being more nearer to the Sun. But what I am confused about {not that I care that much} is these Satellites Scientists send into space, how are they taking all these pictures. Either they are lying or the Vedas is wrong. I can't think all Scientists are in some kind of conspiracy to keep their jobs. Nasa can't really provide any real evidence they are been to any planets. For now though the Moon is the real Issue. Also the distance calculated to reach any planet is as far as I know from Vedic perspective is different to Material Calculations. Not sure how that works out, but if Scientists looked at Vedas for more information {they have the brain substance to do it right} maybe they could see. Answer to your question Prabhupada said we never went to the moon. So it must be either an x planet or Rahu. But they are also in another dimension {to our vision} so we can't see them anyway. Remember Ravana {who by calculation to present day scientists was an absolute genius} tried to build a stair way to heaven {higher planet} but couldn't. You'd say why didn't he try the Moon planet. Your guess is as good as mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 No, I am not suggesting that we ignore the facts. Yes we must search for the truth but that means the self and Superself not the moon. Even if we learn to the cm. how far the moon is from Calcutta what have we gained? How will it help us in our search for the truth. I happen to accept the modern scientific views on the structure of the planetary systems over what we read in the Puranas. But I accept what the Srimad Bhagavatam says about the soul and Supersoul as above anything that modern science can offer. Such knowledge of ourselves and the Supreme Lord and what our relationship is is the essential thing we MUST find out, the essential truth. I agree that since we don't know we must take knowledge from authorities on the subject. Personally, and many herer may disagree with me on this, but I tend to accept the modern science as it pertains to things observable, on the gross level and ignore them when they start to speculate on God and things of the spirit. Afterall their instruments cannot possibly probe into the transcendental realm so what can they possibly tell us. Of course a scientist can also have knowledge of God, like many here are learned in that field also, but my point is he gained that knowledge of God apart from his telescopes and microscopes. If some devotees want to believe the universe is only 4 billion miles in diameter that is up to them. But hopefully they won't try to convince others of that. Just look at the numbers Avinash has listed. 4 billion is just way too small I believe. This question comes up a lot. I am posting a letter Srila Prabhupada sent in response to one of his disciples making a similar inquiry which was causing him doubts. Hare Krsna mini -------------------- 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,'' 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 .. 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. ------------ (mine) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Avinash, can you tell tell us what the current scientific thinking is on say the diameter of the Milky Way galaxy? It is a little over 100,000 light years, which comes out to be over 590 million billion miles. And how far from the edge of the Milky Way to the edge of the nearest galaxy? The nearest galaxy known so far is the one that was discovered about a year back. It is known as "Canis Major dwarf galaxy". It overlaps Milky way, so the closest distance between the two galaxies is zero. Our Milky way is gradually consuming this galaxy. In the other words, this galaxy is being pulled inside Milky way. But if you are asking about a galaxy, which does not overlap with Milky way, then the nearest is Andromeda galaxy. Its edge is around eleven billion billion miles from the nearest edge of Milky way. And then what is the estimated number of galaxies? It is estimated that there are around 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe. I had never heard of the Canis Major dwarf galaxy. These numbers are absoluting inconceivable to me. My mind gets fuzzy after just a few miles. All I can say is "OH MY GOD!!!!" as I bow down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted October 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 If some devotees want to believe the universe is only 4 billion miles in diameter Isn't our Solar System considered just the Universe not the Entire Creation. How can we see past the 10 layers which are meant to divide each Universe. I use Universe to describe our particular Solar System for anybody reading. Urm also isn't it talking about the Height as being 4 Billion miles. Also Vedic calculation seems to know how to Calculate in a simple way. Krishna gave power to Lord Brahma {Jiva-atma} to create. You have to sort of wonder how much we can actually understand as our friend Mini me was saying /images/graemlins/wink.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mini Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Hello , Let me first state that I have an understanding that civilization around the time of vedas was much more scientific, spiritual and evolved. And as compared to them we are ignorant, degenerated and involuted. And that is understandable because this is kali-yug. Ignorance and dark forces are gaining strength, even if we like to think otherwise. I also think that vedic astrolgy is very scientific and we can calculate exact planetary postions applying it. Correct to the timing and length of any eclipse. If planetary bodies have no relevance then those people would not have developed such an accurate science. If we are talking about planetary system in higher dimensions then I accept my ignorance( Infact very recently in astral I saw a black planetary body revolving around the earth , and my consciousness told me that it is to be avoided , as it has malefic magnetic pull,maybe it was the astral counterpart of the moon we see, I am not sure about that). And if we are talking about dimensions then how can we expect that NASA with a physical craft land on a moon in some other dimension. I am least bothered with whether NASA landed on moon or not. But if you tell me, that the physical moon I see at night does not revolve around the earth, and it does not take approx 29 days for that, and that moon does not come between earth and sun when eclipse takes place, then I will take all the information here as unreliable. Let us first make clear if we are talking about physical dimension or higher dimensions. I completely agree most of the teachings are allegoric as they are esoteric. And I really want to penetrate the depth of those teachings. I got very interested after I read Samael's books and taking courses at mysticweb, to find out more about the wealth of Gyan we have in India. And that is how I came upon this site. Maybe I will have to learn sanskrit like Samael did , rather than relying upon interpretations. regards to all, mini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubashRao Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 <font color="blue">PAMHO</font color> <hr> May I know if the moon refered in vedas/purana is the same moon we are looking at everyday everynight from earth? The images by NASA have the same crater patterns like the moon we see everyday. How could we say they never landed on the moon?...maybe different planet with the same pattern?...or NASA faking the images?... This is again something like the "dinosaur" topic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 And if we are talking about dimensions then how can we expect that NASA with a physical craft land on a moon in some other dimension. I am least bothered with whether NASA landed on moon or not. But if you tell me, that the physical moon I see at night does not revolve around the earth, and it does not take approx 29 days for that, and that moon does not come between earth and sun when eclipse takes place, then I will take all the information here as unreliable. Let us first make clear if we are talking about physical dimension or higher dimensions. No where have I or will I tell anyone that an eclipse is anything different then what you described. I will stay distant from trying to figure out any particulars about the Moon. To me I just see it as a very beautiful object in the sky. I am satisfied with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 the key to understanding Vedic cosmology is the understanding of SPACE. unless you truly comprehend the Vedic concept of space you will be forever confused. according to the Vedas space is: 1. Multidimensional 2. Non-linear even within a given dimension. the measurements given in Bhagavata ot Markandeya Puranas are just to provide us with a sense of scale. these measurements mostly relate to the comparative elvation of the planes of existence (above the Garbodhaka Ocean and between each other) as to the Moon landing: NASA landed on the "reflection" of the Moon plane of existence into our dimension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 It seems that as per Bhagavatam, the universe is upto Pole star. But we know that there are many stars even farther than Pole star. May be that according to Bhagavatam, they belong to other universe(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 according to the Vedas space is: 1. Multidimensional 2. Non-linear even within a given dimension. I understand the meaning of multidimensional. But what is the meaning of non-linear space? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mini Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Hello Thiest, We are all entitled to hold our opinions and views that seem right to us. Atleast your answer is better than I was fearing - " Don't question , just follow ." ***NASA landed on the "reflection" of the Moon plane of existence into our dimension.*** Kulapavana not sure what you meant by this and on what basis. Can you please ellaborate? OK, now dear friend Pankaja Dasa, are you going to finally say at the end, that this was another joke on poor Mini me ? mini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Though the question is put to Kulpavana, here is what I feel about reflection (I use the word projection) into a dimension (or a set of dimension). I feel Kulpavana meant the same. Waiting for him to confirm. Consider a table top. Assume that there are two dimensional beings on the table top. They are two dimensional in the sense that they only know about the surface of the table. They do not know about anything other than that. They do not know of anything outside the table or inside the table. Note: In the following, I am only considering space dimensions, not time. Put some object at some height above the table. Those beings cannot see it. Now touch the table with the object. Those beings will only see the part where the object meets the table, because their world is two-dimensional not three. Ours is three dimensional. It is possible that there are some dimensions other than our three space dimensions. But we do not perceive those dimensions. It is possible that of we could perceive some higher dimensions, then the moon looked different. But we can perceive only the part of moon which lies in our three dimensions. In other words, the moon as we see is a projection (Kulpavana calls reflection) of the complete moon onto our three dimensional world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vijay Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 The moon according to bhagvatam is a hevenly planet, it is suppose to be full of forests and green, but as the higher planets are subtle we only see the gross aspects thus we see a dead lump of rock. I guess it similar to the fact that this world is also full of subtle entitys yaksas and ghosts etc, with thier own civilistions but we dont see this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauracandra Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Avinash, I've heard this before and it is a good example. Essentially there is an order to perception. We are three dimensional beings so we can see anything at or below our order. Thus we can see three dimensions (an object), two dimensions (a surface), or one dimension (a dot). If there were a 4th dimension, that 4th dimensional being could see everything we see and his own dimension. But he couldn't see a 5th dimensional being etc.... I know is sounds weird, but real physicists study and believe this stuff. I was reading one article, and one of the pioneers of this field was saying something like "For all we know, right now a pink polka-doted elephant is walking right past us." I was thinking this guy had been brewing something funny in his laboratory. But maybe he is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mini Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Hello Avinash, Thanks for reply. I understand a bit of 2d , 3d and have an idea of multidimensional - linear concepts. /images/graemlins/smile.gif ***In other words, the moon as we see is a projection (Kulpavana calls reflection) of the complete moon onto our three dimensional world.*** You mean to say the moon is a projection of the real moon which is actually farther than Sun?? Actually, I better stay out of this like Thiest. Sensible and safe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif regards, mini 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.