Does Anyone Presenting 'Vedic Cosmology' Take Srimad Bhagavatam Seriously?

BY: MAYESVARA DASA

Mar 21, 2020 — IRELAND (SUN) —

The following paper is a response to the article Srila Prabhupada and the Distance to the Moon by Brijabasi dasa (India, March 15, 2020).

Appreciating that everyone's attention is turned to the unprecedented events currently unfolding in the world, I will keep this response brief. My apologies that not every point in Brijabasi dasa's paper has been addressed.

Though Brijabasi dasa begins his article by stating that he will 'not try to reconcile the astronomy of the Srimad Bhagavatam or (Puranic astronomy) with the Siddhantic and modern astronomy' (in other words presenting himself as a neutral or objective participant in the discussion), Brijabasi dasa is nonetheless very eager to do just the opposite of his stated intent by declaring: "Similarly, we have to find a way to reconcile the Bhagavatam's statements regarding the distance to the moon and our observable reality, supported by the Siddhantic astronomy".

Brijabasis dasa's presentation very much encourages the idea that the Moon is not always to be found where Srila Vyasadeva states it to be—that is at 100,000 yojana (800,000 miles) above the Sun (or 1,600,000 miles above the height of the plane of the Earth). Indeed, according to Brijabasi dasa various arguments can be presented to show that the Moon is much closer to the Earth than what Srimad Bhagavatam describes:

Brijabasi dasa: "So, at least theoretically, the discussion above could have arrived at a mediated conclusion that at least according to the Surya-siddhanta and other astronomical works the moon is not so far away".

Though unmentioned, Brijabasi dasa's paper is perhaps a response to our previous papers on the Vedic Flat-Earth, Rahu, and the Eclipse (Part 1 and Part 2).

In the above papers we argued that the Temple Of Vedic Planetarium's current explanation of the eclipse, which involves the idea of the Moon being closer to the Earth than the Sun, is obviously in direct contradiction to the Srimad Bhagavatam's teachings that the Moon is further away from the Earth than the Sun. Since ISKCON is currently working with a model for the eclipse that involves a closer Moon, some sort of explanation has to be presented in order to explain the deviation from Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the planetary arrangement. Brijabasi dasa takes up the challenge…

The opening paragraph begins with 'an enigmatic hint' that the Srimad Bhagavatam's calculations are 'not to be taken literally'.

Brijabasi Dasa: "The structure of the universe is described in the Fifth Canto of the Bhagavatam along with the distances between different planets. The apparent discrepancy described in the following two verses (5.22.9 and 5.22.11) gives a hint that the structure and especially the distances described there may not be taken literally (at least in our gross material reality) and may present a picture given from another point of view or even from a more subtle level of material reality."

Before dealing with the differences between Puranic and Siddhantic cosmology, let us remember that the Temple Of Vedic Planetarium is to be based on the cosmology of Srimad Bhagavatam, not Surya-siddhanta or Copernicus, et al. In the above paper by Brijabasi dasa we have a procedure typical of devotees following in the wake of Sadaputa dasa, that the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the universe is 'not to be taken literally', whereas full faith is placed in the description of the universe presented in Surya-siddhanta and by modern astronomers—such descriptions should be taken very literally! The procedure whispers that Srimad Bhagavatam measurements are not to be taken in a straightforward way, but should be understood 'from a more subtle level of material reality'. However such statements as 'a more subtle level of reality' can mean any kind of speculation that emerges when one fails to do the simplest and straightforward thing, which is to accept the initial description of the universe 'as it is'.

Sandy Nixon: Can the Vedas be taken symbolically as well as literally?

Prabhupada: As it is. We are presenting Bhagavad-gita As It Is, not symbolically.
(Room Conversation, July 13, 1975, Philadelphia

Again, regarding taking the 'literal' meaning, Srila Prabhupada says:

Prabhupada: Now how you have got a different types of... Just like the Bhagavad-gita begins, dharma-kshetre kuru-kshetre samaveta yuyutsavah [Bg. 1.1]. So dharma-kshetre kuru-kshetre, how you can interpret in a different way? Kurukshetra is already there. But how you can interpret, "Kurukshetra means this, Kurukshetra means that?" You cannot interpret.

Guest: Yes, but who is decided what exactly the meaning...

Prabhupada: Exactly the meaning is there.

Guest: Literal, literally.

Prabhupada: Literally, yes. The thing is the interpretation is required when you cannot understand. If, if I say, "This is a stick," everyone knows it is a stick. So I say, "Here is a stick." So if you say, "No, I do not accept it is stick." So what is that interpretation? Everyone knows it is stick... These things are evident. Then why there is need of interpreting? That is the first point.

Guest: Those points are very clear.

Prabhupada: Every point is very clear. In the Bhagavad-gita, every point is very clear, unless you interpret it in the wrong way.

Guest: (indistinct)

Prabhupada: But how it can be called? If you interpret in your own way, interpret in your own way, interpretation, then where is Bhagavad-gita? Best thing is that take Bhagavad-gita as it is. Then there will be (indistinct). Why you should interpret? You have no right to interpret on the words of Bhagavad-gita?

Guest: But Swamiji, you have also given so much (indistinct). That is interpretation.

Prabhupada: No, that is not interpretation. That is explanation. Interpretation, if I change Kuruksetra into something else, that is interpretation.

(Room Conversation, Dec 20, 1976, Bombay)

As Srila Prabhupada states in the above conversation, there is no need to interpret the dictionary meaning and common understanding of a simple thing like a stick. Likewise, since Srila Vyasadeva states that the Sun is 100,000 yojana (800,000 miles) above the Earth, and the Moon is 100,000 yojana (800,000 miles) above the Sun) that is obviously what he means to say. It's really easy to understand. And yes, we are meant to take it literally. According to Srila Vyasadeva, the Sun is literally closer to the Earth than the Moon. The Moon is literally further away from the Earth than the Sun. To take Srimad Bhagavatam literally is to take it seriously. There is no need to bring in some 'enigmatic hint' that the Moon is in reality closer to the Earth than what has already been stated by Srila Vyasadeva. There may be reasons why the Moon appears to look closer to the Earth, but that is another issue. For those who profess that Srimad Bhagavatam establishes the truth of the matter, such professed followers of Srimad Bhagavatam should accept that the Moon is where it is stated to be—100,000 yojana above the height of the Sun. One may not like that idea, and one may not agree with that idea, but that is what Srila Vysasadeva says. If one cannot believe the statement, or defend the statement, one should not present oneself as a representative of Srila Vyasadeva whilst simultaneously inducing people to believe that Srila Vyasadeva meant something other than what he so clearly states.

Regarding Srimad Bhagavatam's measurements for the distance of the Moon from the Earth, Srila Prabhupada states in a purport to SB 5.22.9:

"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 (5.22.9)

PURPORT When we take into account that the moon is 100,000 yojanas, or 800,000 miles, above the rays of the sunshine, it is very surprising that 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."

Srila Prabhupada's statement that we accept the Vedic calculations to be correct, seems to be an instruction that is lost on many of his followers. The incessant attempt by members of ISKCON to contradict and compromise Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the planetary arrangement results in a stubborn unwillingness/inability to follow and represent the most simple and basic description. When Sukadeva Goswami says that the Moon is 100,000 yojana (800,000 miles) above the Sun, he means to say that the Moon is further away from the Earth than the Sun. If we hear that a building has twenty floors, we all understand that the twentieth floor is further from the ground than the tenth floor; moreover we all understand that the twentieth floor won't ever come closer to the ground floor than the 10th floor itself. Yes, the twentieth floor can come below the 10th floor, but only if all the floors above the 10th floor are demolished and left as a pile of rubble on the ground. Likewise, the idea that the Moon can come closer to the Earth than the Sun can only happen when one demolishes the original idea presented by Srila Vyasadeva that the Sun is the closest to the Earth.

In Jaiva Dharma Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes:

"One should understand and explain the straight forward, direct meaning of a text - too much analysis and extrapolation only lead to misconception." (Jaiva Dharma, p. 328)

Let us now see what misconceptions follow when Brijabasi dasa fails to understand and explain the straightforward meaning of the two verses which he cites from Srimad Bhagavatam.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB 5.22.8) it is stated that the Moon is 100,000 yojana (800,000 miles) above the Sun, and that the 28 Naksatras (stars) are 200,000 yojana (1,600,000 miles) above the Moon (SB 5.22.11). This simple description may seem 'straightforward' and easy to understand, but only until others start speculating on the meaning, and in the process begin to confuse us all about what it 'really' means. Brijabasi dasa, for example, comments on the above verses as follows:

"How can the moon pass through each constellation and "enjoy" (bhunkte) all the 28 naksatras if there is huge distance of 200,000 yojanas (1,600,000 miles) between them? Similarly, although the distance between the earth and the moon is stated to be the same 200,000 yojanas[1], there may be a similar possibility for a closer contact.

It cannot be said that the moon does not actually go into each constellation and it only seems going there from the earth (in other words the moon is projected into each naksatra for an observer on earth) because the verse uses the active verb "bhunkte", "he enjoys" each of the 28 naksatras, who are stated in the sastra to be Candra's wives[2]. So it is not only an observer's subjective vision".

This is typical of the convoluted arguments that arise from the stubborn unwillingness to accept the Srimad Bhagavatam's straightforward description that the Moon is 100,000 yojana above the Sun and that the Naksatras are 200,000 yojana above the Moon. How close to the Naksatras does the Moon have to be in order to "enjoy"? Does Brijabasi dasa mean to suggest that the Moon planet has to come into close physical contact with the Naksatra's (stars)? Has anyone ever in the history of the universe observed the Moon touching or joining another star? Does Brijabasi dasa forget that the Moon has a personified form and can 'enjoy' with his wives in the normal manner. What is distance to a demigod?

In Vedic astrology we have movements like Rahu in Ardra (one of the Naksatras), and Ketu in Mula (another Naksatra). Does Brijabasi dasa also wish to argue that Rahu (an asura) is literally 'in' Ardra (the wive of a deva), or that Ketu (another asura) is physically 'in' Mula? Rahu is situated 10,000 yojana below the Sun (SB 5.24.1) Does Rahu also leave his designated altitude and ascend hundreds of thousands of yojanas in order to 'enter into' Ardra? Prabhu, please think about what you are saying before sending out such speculative arguments.

The above argument by Brijabasi dasa is clutching at straws, and simply goes to illustrate the lengths that others will go to in order to avoid Srila Vyasadeva's straightforward descriptions of the shape, size, and characteristics of the Vedic Earth circle (Bhu-mandala), as well as the size, distance, and movements of the other planets that rotate above the Earth circle at various heights.

All models of the planetary movements displayed within the Temple of Vedic Planetarium have to be based on the Srimad Bhagavatam's calculation that the Moon is further away that the Sun, and not as modern astronomy teaches that the Moon is closer to the Earth than the Sun. Whatever the Surya-siddhanta teaches regarding the nature and movements of planets, it cannot be used to contradict or compromise the Srimad Bhagavatam's description. Just as Indra is subordinate to Krishna and not that Krishna is subordinate to Indra, so all Vedic scriptures are subordinate to Srimad Bhagavatam, and not that Srimad Bhagavatam is subordinate to other texts such as Surya-siddhanta.

Presenting Srimad Bhagavatam's measurement that the Moon is 100,000 yojana (800,000 miles) above the Sun, and then presenting contrary arguments that the Moon is 'not so far away', is like saying that the distance from New York to Los Angeles is 2,784 miles, though sometimes it is 'not so far away'. To say that the Moon sometimes closer to the Earth than the Sun is like saying New York city sometimes comes closer to Los Angeles than Las Vegas.

One may say the above comparison is not appropriate because New York is in a fixed location, and unlike the Moon, it does not move anywhere. Yes the Moon moves, but one must know how it moves. The Moon in Srimad Bhagavatam rotates at a fixed height above the massive Earth-circle (Bhu-mandala). The Moon in Srimad Bhagavatam does not orbit around a small Earth-globe. Such an entity as an 'Earth globe' or 'Earth planet' does not even exist in Srimad Bhagavatam's cosmology. If by 'Earth planet' members of ISKCON mean 'Bharata-varsha', the unfortunate fact for globe supporters is that Bharata-varsha is located on the surface of Bhu-mandala, and is surrounded by more land and ocean belonging to the wider Bhu-mandala landscape. Since Bharata-varsha is at 'ground level', it cannot be said that the Moon is orbiting around Bharata-varsha; rather, the Moon is rotating in circles above Bharata-varsha. Therefore, Bharata-varsha cannot be depicted as the iconic Earth-globe floating in space and surrounded by stars in all directions (as globe iconography depicts), but is rather to be depicted as being surrounded by more land and ocean belonging to the larger landscape of Bhu-mandala. In other words, according to Srimad Bhagavatam, we live on a small part of larger flat-Earth landscape. The image below shows Danavir Goswami's depiction of the nine islands of Bharata-varsha located at the southern side of Jambudvipa [graphics are mine]:

Although members of ISKCON such as Danvir Goswami clearly understand Bharata-varsha's location in Jambudvipa, they never preach openly or consistently with the Srimad Bhagavatam's teaching that we are part of a larger flat-Earth (as depicted in the above image). Bharata-varsha is literally at 'ground level', and the Sun and Moon rotate above the Earth plane at their respective heights. Just as airplanes fly at respective altitudes, so do the planets. The planets have their fixed rotational orbit above the Earth, and are situated 'one above the other'. The plane of the Earth-circle (Bhu-mandala) is the 'ground floor' so to speak. The Sun is above 'ground level' by 100,000 yojana (800,000 miles) and the Moon is above the Sun by a further 100,000 yojana (800,000 miles). Thus no amount of speculative arguments can change the distance of the planets from the Earth, and what remains is simply whether members of ISKCON are going to accept the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

Consider lengths and distances: if we hear that 'a marathon' means a distance of 26.2 miles, a contender cannot expect to run just 2.6 miles and think that they have won the marathon. Nor can a contender start the race at the last 2 miles of the route, and thereby quickly cross the finish line before all the other contenders have barely proceeded from the designated starting point. The marathon distance of 26.2 miles means that one has to start at a designated starting point and proceed in a consistent manner along a demarcated 26.2 stretch of road; one cannot simply start or finish on any point of the road and still think that they can win a marathon. Similarly when we hear in Srimad Bhagavatam that the distance of the Moon above the Sun is 100,000 yojana (800,000 miles), and thus further away from the Earth than the Sun itself, that is the measurement and the teaching that followers of Srimad Bhagavatam have to consistently stick with.

The distance of 100,000 yojana between the Sun and Moon cannot be shortened or lengthened according to one's own whimsical idea. One cannot suddenly make up an argument that the Moon comes below the height of the Sun in order to cause an eclipse when such a scenario is impossible from the Srimad Bhagavatam's description that the Moon is always above the height of the Sun, and that the eclipse is otherwise explained as the passing of Rahu before the Sun and Moon—not by an alignment of the so-called Earth globe, Sun, and Moon orbiting around each other. Such an attempt to argue that the Moon comes closer to the Earth than the Sun is like the marathon runner who determines the starting point and finishing line according to their whim.

The Moon cannot be said to be 1,600,000 miles above the Earth, and at the same time be said to be 238,000 miles above the Earth as Brijabasi dasa would wish us to believe in his attempt to reconcile Puranic, Siddhantic, and Western Cosmology. Even though Brijabasi dasa said that it was not his intention to reconcile such differences, we are left in no doubts that his intention is to do just that—the paper is full of such attempts at reconciliation: 'One way to reconcile these apparent "discrepancies" in the Bhagavatam's version'; 'offer a way to reconcile these apparent contradictions'; the Rahu/shadow dichotomy can be reconciled in two ways'; 'another reconciliation was offered by the ancient Indian astronomer Brahmagupta', etc.

The word 'reconcile' is presented as a pleasant and appeasing term that hopes to merge completely opposite conceptions of reality into a harmonious world-view. But what if there is nothing to be reconciled? What if Srimad Bhagavatam is stating the correct measurement, meaning that all other calculations are wrong? What if the Earth really is a massive circular landscape and not a small globe floating in space? It is not that Srimad Bhagavatam has to be 'reconciled' with modern Astronomy (as if the truth of Srimad Bhagavatam is only so when it agrees with modern calculations and observations); rather, the claims of modern Cosmology are to be scientifically exposed as false, illusory, and deceptive on the basis of the authoritative statements of Srimad Bhagavatam.

The attempt to 'reconcile' Srimad Bhagavatam's measurements with modern Astronomy and Surya-siddhanta invariably results in arguing away the Srimad Bhagavatam's original description of the Earth, as well as the distance between the Earth and the Moon, thereby supplanting it with a wholly different idea. It is not actually a 'reconciliation'. It is nothing less than a displacement of Srimad Bhagavatam's teaching that the Moon is further away from the Earth than the Sun, and its replacement with the contradictory idea that the Moon is closer to the Earth than the Sun—hence our previous comparison of ISKCON's 'Vedic Cosmology' to a building technique called 'facade retention' which leaves the exterior or facade of a historical building standing (for purposes of culture and prestige), whilst demolishing the original interior structure and replacing it with a totally modern arrangement. In this case, the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of how the planets are arranged and move is presented as the facade or face of 'Vedic cosmology', whilst all explanations for how the universe actually works are made with reference to a completely contrary cosmological system.

As we shall continue to argue in Parts 3 and 4 of our paper on the eclipse, the Puranic and Modern cosmological systems are completely opposed, and there is really nothing to reconcile. As for Surya-siddhanta, the acharyas in their commentaries to the fifth canto never even mention the Surya-siddhanta when explaining eclipses and other cosmic phenomena. We will discuss the various interpolations on Surya-siddhanta at a later date.

Regarding Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura's references to the eclipse: firstly, all concerned should appreciate that simply citing the acharya's translation to Surya-siddhanta's explanation of the eclipse is not an 'evidence' that he agreed with such an idea. It is simply a translation of a text without any commentary. Regarding Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura's purport to Sri Caitanya-bhagavata Adi 2.209, which does superficially seem to favour the modern explanation of the eclipse, it must be pointed out that since there is no attempt by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura to explain the differences of this idea with that presented in Srimad Bhagavatam and other Puranas, the purport is essentially a description of the modern idea of how an eclipse is formed, rather than being a statement of 'evidence' that it is so. One small purport extracted from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura's huge body of writings hardly counts as 'evidence' that the acharya advocated either the Siddhantic or modern explanation for the eclipse over the explanation given in Srimad Bhagavatam. It was certainly not an explanation that Srila Prabhupada accepted in such a way. We shall continue to explore Srila Prabhupada's many statements on the eclipse in Parts 3 and 4 of our ongoing paper entitled, The Vedic Flat-earth, Rahu and the Eclipse.

Regarding Brijabasi dasa's references to the Himalaya, the argument proceeds from a complete failure to understand that the great Himalaya measured at 80,000 mile height is not in a more 'subtle plane', but is simply situated further north on the 'Earth plane'. However, that is a topic that we shall turn to at a later date.

| The Sun | News | Editorials | Features | Sun Blogs | Classifieds | Events | Recipes | PodCasts |

| About | Submit an Article | Contact Us | Advertise | HareKrsna.com |

Copyright 2005, 2020, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.