The Moon is further than the Sun!

[Guest guest]

The Moon has been described as the mind of God by the great Vedic authorities.

Is there no wonder than the puny scientists of the modern world cannot understand the Moon?

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.5.34

 

somaḿ mano yasya samāmananti

 

divaukasāḿ yo balam andha āyuḥ

 

īśo nagānāḿ prajanaḥ prajānāḿ

 

prasīdatāḿ naḥ sa mahā-vibhūtiḥ

 

SYNONYMS

 

somam — the moon; manaḥ — the mind; yasya — of whom (of the Supreme Personality of Godhead); samāmananti — they say; divaukasām — of the denizens of the upper planetary systems; yaḥ — who; balam — the strength; andhaḥ — the food grains; āyuḥ — the duration of life; īśaḥ — the Supreme Lord; nagānām — of the trees; prajanaḥ — the source of breeding; prajānām — of all living entities; prasīdatām — may He be pleased; naḥ — upon us; saḥ — that Supreme Personality of Godhead; mahā-vibhūtiḥ — the source of all opulences.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Soma, the moon, is the source of food grains, strength and longevity for all the demigods. He is also the master of all vegetation and the source of generation for all living entities. As stated by learned scholars, the moon is the mind of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. May that Supreme Personality of Godhead, the source of all opulences, be pleased with us.

 

PURPORT

 

Soma, the predominating deity of the moon, is the source of food grains and therefore the source of strength even for the celestial beings, the demigods. He is the vital force for all vegetation. Unfortunately, modern so-called scientists, who do not fully understand the moon, describe the moon as being full of deserts. Since the moon is the source for our vegetation, how can the moon be a desert? The moonshine is the vital force for all vegetation, and therefore we cannot possibly accept that the moon is a desert.

 

<<>>

[theist 1]

 

The Moon has been described as the mind of God by the great Vedic authorities.

Is there no wonder than the puny scientists of the modern world cannot understand the Moon?

 

Are you saying you understand the mind of God? I hope not because that would be like saying you haven't even got a clue.

 

The problem with scientists is not their observations and technological skills. It is their mental speculation on what they observe. That was also Darwin's problem.

 

Here is a couple Enstein quotes that may be of interest to you, they are to me.

 

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

 

Working as a material scientist is in itself no bar to God conscious thinking.

[Guest guest]

Srila Sridhar Maharaja once described Rahu as representing "shadow consciousness". When consciousness comes in contact with matter it produces a shadowlike effect.

 

Check out this NASA web page and hear about the creepy shadow phenomenon that the ASStronauts experienced on RAHU.

 

I can't post an active link but you can copy and paste it into your browser.

 

science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/03jan_moonshadows.htm

[theist 1]

 

The moonshine is the vital force for all vegetation, and therefore we cannot possibly accept that the moon is a desert.-Srila Prabhupada

 

Apparently the vedic thought is that the moon is self-effulgent. I don't believe that. I accept the explanation that the Moon reflects light from the Sun.

 

What are the thoughts of others on this?

[Guest guest]

Each culture has it's own ancient myths and legends. Most of these have a symbolic meaning, and their deeper meaning was only known to the "wise men" of the culture. The common people, took all the myths and legends as literal, because they did not know any better.

 

Most people today know about nature and natural forces, but in the ancient times they didn't even know what was going on over the hill, let alone in the mysterious sky above them. To them the sun, moon and stars appeared to them as celestial beings. So they were deified and great stories were created about them..

 

Today we know about the trillions of stars, and planets, and galaxies, that are out there. We no longer can look at the heavens with a small, geocentric view. Our own galaxy is only a speck among countless galaxies. Our sun is only one of trillions. Our moon just one of an untold amount of moons. To think the gods or cosmic beings are somehow confined to our solar system, is now known to be foolish.

[theist 1]

 

Check out this NASA web page and hear about the creepy shadow phenomenon that the ASStronauts experienced on RAHU.

 

 

 

Personally I find your calling these astronauts ASStronauts offensive and childish.

 

While I find that occupation not worth the time in the long run I can still appreciate many qualities within these men and women that are worthy of respect.

[Guest guest]

I read on another science web site that the surface of the "Moon" is about the color of asphalt.

That means the surface of the "Moon" (Rahu) is black.

 

Isn't it a little amazing that a planet with an asphalt surface can reflect such glorious and soothing Moon light?

 

I hardly think that a planet of asphalt is what is giving off such glorious and spendid Moon light that we see in the night sky.

 

The Moon would have to be white to reflect light.

 

We know that black clothes and black surfaces absorb heat and light.

They are very poor in reflective qualities.

[theist 1]

 

I read on another science web site that the surface of the "Moon" is about the color of asphalt.

That means the surface of the "Moon" (Rahu) is black.

 

Isn't it a little amazing that a planet with an asphalt surface can reflect such glorious and soothing Moon light?

 

I hardly think that a planet of asphalt is what is giving off such glorious and spendid Moon light that we see in the night sky.

 

The Moon would have to be white to reflect light.

 

We know that black clothes and black surfaces absorb heat and light.

They are very poor in reflective qualities.

 

Oh that's right, I forgot about your belief in a black planet whose presence is only detectable when it attacks the real Moon or Sun. Odd though that that it's gravitational force also defies detection. Must be the demigods playing tricks on us demonic humans huh?

 

Let me ask you this. In the Gita there is the statement that the sun alone illuminates this entire universe. But it also seems that the moon is self luminous. How do you reconcile these different views? And are the Sun and Moon the only two self-luminous objects in the universe?

 

Devotees are always demanding that others self critique themselves and their beliefs gleaned from their books of knowledge but are adamant about not needing to do so themselves.

[Guest guest]

check out this image of the solar system that is found on the web site

sanskrit . org

 

In this picture it shows the actual Vedic concept of the cosmology.

The Moon is further than the Sun.

 

copy and paste the link into your browser.

 

sanskrit.org/www/Astronomy/rahu.jpg

 

here is the web page it comes from.

 

sanskrit.org/www/Astronomy/Rahu.html

 

this is what the Vedic cosmology teaches.

[theist 1]

So what? Anyone can make a drawing or map of anything they want. That is not any kind of proof.

 

I noticed you dodged on the luminous object question.

[Guest guest]

In Jewish shastra (the Zohar) they teach there are 7 planet earths. should we understand this as literal?

 

Could not all these cosmologies, which contradict the facts of our Solar System, be symbolic or speaking of some metaphysical mystery?

[Guest guest]

 

I noticed you dodged on the luminous object question.

 

The answer is that there are many luminaries.

The Moon is also illuminated by Kusa grass that glows and gives off light.

 

However, that glowing does not illuminate the entire of bhu-mandala as brightly as the sun does.

Thus, the Moon glows and also reflects sunlight both.

This is the version of Srimad Bhagavatam.

It is said that the Moon reflects Sun light and also is illuminated by the Kusa grass that grows there.

 

There are many luminous planets.

 

There are planets made of diamond and Emerald as far as that goes.

 

The great mystic masters can create their own planets.

I don't dount at all that some master mystics have created their own planets out of Diamond, Emerald or Ruby where they sit on lotus flowers meditating on Antaryami - the Supersoul.

 

The planets of the fire gods are fiery luminous planets, yet they are not as powerful as the Sun - Surya Narayana.

 

The Sun only reaches throughout Bhu-mandala.

The planets of the great demigods is above Bhuloka in the realm of Svargaloka.

 

Above the stars, past where the Sunlight reaches is the realm of Svargaloka where Lord Brahma sits on a golden lotus with 100,000,000 petals.

[Guest guest]

 

In Jewish shastra (the Zohar) they teach there are 7 planet earths. should we understand this as literal?

 

Could not all these cosmologies, which contradict the facts of our Solar System, be symbolic or speaking of some metaphysical mystery?

 

That might be a reference to the seven continents on Earth which in ancient times was inhabited by advanced races that left no trace because they were all great sages and spiritual cultures.

 

In one since, there are seven different Earths on Earth, because all the continents are unique.

[gHari 0]

To me this means the rays that hit the belly of our planet, the flat plane of sunlight, a line that goes from the sun to earth and in every direction. I think Dr. Thompson calls this the ecliptic which he aligns with the BhU-maNDala as he explains the meaning of the Bhagavatam moon verses HERE.

[Guest guest]

 

To me this means the rays that hit the belly of our planet, the flat plane of sunlight, a line that goes from the sun to earth and in every direction.

 

No.

The Sun has rays that extend out from it.

The ancients say those rays to form a phoenix during a solar exclipse.

 

They extend out thousands of miles from the Sun globe.

 

you can see about this phoenix of sun rays here

 

copy and paste in your browser

eclipsephoenix.homestead.com/phoenix1.html

 

above the sun's rays means from where these solar rays end in space

[gHari 0]

You must be the Ronald guy. You are speaking of solar flares or the chromosphere or corona. The actual rays of the sun are likely to be seen billions of miles away, just as we see stars many light years away. Some rays stop at the earth and are absorbed but many go beyond the solar system, and even though they are partially absorbed by the hydrogen of space still they will last far into the dark of night of space.

 

I see no need to mention rays if we are simply speaking of the sun globe, nor do I see using the sanskrit word "above" as meaningful in such a context.

 

SB 5.21.19: My dear King, in his orbit through BhU-maNDala, the sun-god traverses a distance of 95,100,000 yojanas [760,800,000 miles] at the speed of 2,000 yojanas and two kroças [16,004 miles] in a moment.

[Guest guest]

 

You are speaking of solar flares or

 

not solar flares.

The rays that can be seen in this movie before the rays disintegrate into particles that reach the Earth.

 

ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/LWS_GEMS/1/1mainmv.htm

 

What reaches Earth are particles of light.

The rays of the sun are very condensed pencils of light before they break up into such distant particles that the rays are not longer visible.

[sanatan 0]

The mental gymnastics that people go through to bring scientific observation into line with the statements of prescientific scripture never cease to amaze me.

 

The Christians have their own field called "Creation Science", and on "our" side there are efforts such as Dr. Thompson's "Vedic Astronomy and Cosmology", largely incomprehensible to me, and, I suspect, to many more.

 

And, to level the field, as a "believer", I honestly cannot comprehend the mind of the atheist, or the scientist who can't allow for the concept of a supreme first cause, sustainer, and destroyer...in another word, God.

 

My questions...why do these issues have to enter the realm of spiritual life at all? Aren't we working on a personal level, to rid ourselves of anarthas, base qualities? Will debating this abstracted question of the earth's distance from the moon and sun help us in destroying our anarthas?

 

How many angels on the head of a pin? Why did Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, a perfect devotee and seer, wear a wristwatch? Maybe those questions should go up for debate next.

[Guest guest]

What's so hard to understand?

There are people out there who say that the pure devotee is stupid because he says the Moon is further than the Sun.

We don't accept that.

We believe that the pure devotee knows better than NASA.

 

There are those who want to insinuate that the spotless purana is full of mistakes and imperfect knowledge.

We don't buy that either.

 

We don't accept the foolish little minds of NASA to have superior knowledge.

We say their knowledge is flawed because it does not take into considersation that there are many great mysteries to this universe and that they cannot understand those mysteries by looking through glass lenses.

[Guest guest]

However, now, after having referenced so many statements by Srila Prabhupada about the failure of NASA to actually reach the Moon, I will present something that will again turn this subject into an even greater MYSTERY!

 

SRILA PRABHUPADA ACTUALLY ADMITTED THAT THEY DID GO TO THE MOON!

 

SB 7. 15. 51 purport

 

 

It may be remarked in this connection that even the modern so-called scientists who are going to the moon are not able to stay there, but are returning to their laboratories. Therefore, whether one goes to the moon by modern mechanical arrangements or by performing pious activities, one must return to earth. That is clearly stated in this verse and explained in Bhagavad-gītā. Even if one goes to the higher planetary systems (yānti deva-vratā devān [bg. 9.25]), one's place there is not secure; one must return to martya-loka. Ābrahma-bhuvanāl lokāḥ punar āvartino 'rjuna: [bg. 8.16] aside from the moon, even if one goes to Brahmaloka, one must return. Yaḿ prāpya na nivartante tad dhāma paramaḿ mama: but if one goes back home, back to Godhead, he need not return to this material world.

 

So, there you have it.

Your faith has been tested!

Who has passed and who has failed?

 

Don't try to understand the mind of the pure devotee.

Just accept what the self-realized soul is telling you and have faith in him.

[theist 1]

 

So, there you have it.

Your faith has been tested!

Who has passed and who has failed?

 

Don't try to understand the mind of the pure devotee.

Just accept what the self-realized soul is telling you and have faith in him.

 

Gee I must have missed it but I didn't feel a twinge of faith being tested. Maybe because alot of us went through this already in the early seventies. I have long ago laid this silly debate behind me. I would however like to see devotees presenting Krsna consciousness in this modern age get beyond the flat earth and one sun in the universe stage.

 

BTW what do you do when you find such contradictory statements? I know you just have faith in what was said.

 

 

<!-- / message -->

[Avinash 0]

 

 

Apparently the vedic thought is that the moon is self-effulgent. I don't believe that. I accept the explanation that the Moon reflects light from the Sun.

 

What are the thoughts of others on this?

You must be knowing my thoughts on this already. Anyway, I will answer. I accept the same explanation that you accept, i.e., the Moon reflects the light from the Sun.

But I did not get the verse that says the Moon is self-effulgent. The verse that mentions the moon as the vital force of vegetation does not imply any such thing. May be there is some other verse. Could you post that?

[Avinash 0]

 

To me this means the rays that hit the belly of our planet, the flat plane of sunlight, a line that goes from the sun to earth and in every direction. I think Dr. Thompson calls this the ecliptic which he aligns with the BhU-maNDala as he explains the meaning of the Bhagavatam moon verses HERE.

 

If Bhumandala is the same as the ecliptic, then the distance of the Sun from the Bhumandala should be zero because ecliptic is the path which the Sun takes if we fix the frame of reference on Earth.

 

It makes more sense to say that Bhumandala is parallel to (though not the same as) the ecliptic.

[gHari 0]

 

If Bhumandala is the same as the ecliptic, then the distance of the Sun from the Bhumandala should be zero because ecliptic is the path which the Sun takes if we fix the frame of reference on Earth.

 

It makes more sense to say that Bhumandala is parallel to (though not the same as) the ecliptic.

I tried looking for a distance from the plane to the sun but couldn't find one. I must admit I am only following Dr. Thomson's book and feel quite swamped with the Bhu-Mandala concept itself, not knowing whether it is married to modern physical astronomy or not. Fearing it would take too long to get my mind around it, I chose to concentrate on the transcendence. For now, anyway. If I really have another 25 years, who knows what the stars have in mind for me?

 

After some thought and reading, it appears that yes, the Bhu-Mandala is 100,000 yojanas below the sun. Interestingly, the sun's radius is half that, and Mount Meru also is 100,000 yojanas tall. I actually had a brief glimpse into the truth behind it all - the one-wheeled chariot of Vivasvan moving around the ring mountain on Mount Meru in a higher dimension. Chilling the way it seemed so valid.

[Guest guest]

 

What's so hard to understand?

There are people out there who say that the pure devotee is stupid because he says the Moon is further than the Sun.

We don't accept that.

We believe that the pure devotee knows better than NASA.

 

There are those who want to insinuate that the spotless purana is full of mistakes and imperfect knowledge.

We don't buy that either.

 

We don't accept the foolish little minds of NASA to have superior knowledge.

We say their knowledge is flawed because it does not take into considersation that there are many great mysteries to this universe and that they cannot understand those mysteries by looking through glass lenses.

 

Who is the We? You speak for yourself, certainly not all Gaudiyas or Vaishnavas.

 

Many Vaishnavas (perhaps most) have no problem with the moon being closer; and certainly do not go on some fanatical crusade against astronomical discoveries.

 

There a "few" Gaudiyas who go on and on about the moon being farther, going against all reason, and without offering one shred of evidence to support their unscientific claim. But they do not represent all Gaudiyas by any means.

 

All the evidence points to the moon being closer, so do not be surprised that many (or most) Gaudiyas have no problem going with what astronomers (well before NASA) have been saying for thousands of years (that the moon is closer).