Astronomical query relating to Gita

[thehat]

A friend of mine had sent me this email today, I'm unable to help him with his particular issue. It would be greatly appreciated if you all could provide some feedback to his query as I have no understanding of astronomy or the universe.

 

His letter as follows:

"The theory that there are many suns within the universe is not accepted in vedic litrature" - please explain this from a scientific / astronomical perspective.

My mother is an astronomer and has been studying stars like our sun and much greater than our sun for more than 15 years, in which time she has also descovered

planets orbiting such stars.

"The sun is one, and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars"

If this was a reality, we would be able to see the many moons of Jupitor and saturn with the nakid eye, and stars like alpha centauri would cease to exist, also

we wouldn't have photographs of blackholes, as these are created when giant star masses thousands of times larger than our sun come to the end of their life span

and collapse in on themself creating a rip in space and time.

"Since Bhagavad Gita indicates herein that the moon is one of the stars, the twinkling stars are not suns but are similar to moons"

Stars orbit galaxies, planets orbit stars, satellites ( like our moon ) orbit planets. to suggest that stars are similar to moons is very vauge and ignorant. As far as celestial bodies

are concerned, taking into account size matter and nature of orbit, moons and stars couldn't be more dislike each other. The only similarity is that they have an orbit, and arguably, everything does.

Please restore my faith and conviction in this doctrine.

Hare Krishna

[kaisersose]

 

Please restore my faith and conviction in this doctrine.

Hare Krishna

 

You are creating a paradox. By asking questions, you are moving away from faith and yet you want the answer to the question make you faithful again.

 

Faith exists when you believe it as is. If you require rationale and all questions answered before you can accept the doctrine, then you are not a faithful person.

 

So pick your choice. Will you accept the doctrine only if it aligns with your rationale (faithless) or will you just unquestioningly accept the doctrine because you trust the source and no more justification is necessary (faithful)?

 

Cheers

[thehat]

 

You are creating a paradox. By asking questions, you are moving away from faith and yet you want the answer to the question make you faithful again.

 

Faith exists when you believe it as is. If you require rationale and all questions answered before you can accept the doctrine, then you are not a faithful person.

 

So pick your choice. Will you accept the doctrine only if it aligns with your rationale (faithless) or will you just unquestioningly accept the doctrine because you trust the source and no more justification is necessary (faithful)?

 

Cheers

 

Thanks for the response. Just a reminder to you, this is not my query. It is a friends. Once I have bunch of responses I will send the email back to him with the answers.

[kaisersose]

 

Thanks for the response. Just a reminder to you, this is not my query. It is a friends. Once I have bunch of responses I will send the email back to him with the answers.

 

It is my opinion that your friend is going about this the wrong way. The Hare Krishna doctrine or for that matter any other religious doctrine is *not* to teach astronomy or even provide correct & accurate pictures of astronomy. Astronomy is completely orthogonal to the main topic and making it a focal point of the doctrine (as your friend appears to have) is the wrong approach.

 

Cheers

[primate]

 

... "The sun is one, and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars"

"Since Bhagavad Gita indicates herein that the moon is one of the stars, the twinkling stars are not suns but are similar to moons"

Please restore my faith and conviction in this doctrine.

Hare Krishna

Can you say that in Sanskrit? Either the original meaning is lost in the many translations and purports, or the original authors didn’t quite understand the original information. Don’t worry about it. It will be figured out..

[thehat]

 

Can you say that in Sanskrit? Either the original meaning is lost in the many translations and purports, or the original authors didn’t quite understand the original information. Don’t worry about it. It will be figured out..

 

Hey thanks for your reply primate. I'm not sure whether he'll figure it out. Basically his query relates to Chapter 10 text 21 of Prabhupada's translation of Gita. Thought I should mention this anyway

[thehat]

Unfortunately I can't edit the original post. Hope everyone sees this; this persons query relates to Chapter 10, text 21 of Prabhupada's Gita.

Thanks

[chandu_69]

At first glance the verse 10:21 looks like a metaphor.

[thehat]

Yeah the verse sounds like a metaphor, but the content of the purport is lost on my friend. He can't seem to accept the moon to be a star or there being more than one sun.

[primate]

BHAGAVAD-GITA VERSE 10:21

 

adityanam aham visnur

jyotisam ravir amsuman

maricir marutam asmi

naksatranam aham sasi

 

There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of the word 'naksatranam'. Figure it out yourself :

 

According to BHAGAVAD-GITA AS IT IS, naksatranam means: 'of the stars' or 'among the stars'

 

WORD FOR WORD:

 

adityanam--of the Adityas; aham--I am; visnuh--the Supreme Lord;

jyotisam--of all luminaries; ravih--the sun; amsu-man--radiant;

maricih--Marici; marutam--of the Maruts; asmi--I am; naksatranam--of

the stars; aham--I am; sasi--the moon.

 

TRANSLATION:

 

Of the Adityas I am Visnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, of the Maruts I am Marici, and among the stars I am the moon.

 

PURPORT

 

There are twelve Adityas, of which Krsna is the principal. Among all the luminaries twinkling in the sky, the sun is the chief, and in the Brahma-samhita the sun is accepted as the glowing eye of the Supreme Lord. There are fifty varieties of wind blowing in space, and of these winds the controlling deity, Marici, represents Krsna.

 

Among the stars, the moon is the most prominent at night, and thus the moon represents Krsna. It appears from this verse that the moon is one

of the stars; 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. Since Bhagavad-gita indicates herein that the moon is one of the stars, the twinkling stars are not suns but are similar to the moon.

 

 

According to WWW.BHAGAVAD-GITA.ORG, naksatranam means: 'of the constellations' or 'among asterisms'

 

TRANSLATION:

 

Of the twelve Adityas I am Visnu, of all luminaries the radiant sun, of the seven Maruts I am Marici and of the constellations I am the moon.

 

Kesava Kasmiri's Commentary:

 

From now until the end of the chapter the Supreme Lord Krishna enumerates His vibhuti or divine, transcendental opulence. He reveals He is Vishnu of the 12 Adityas, All solar orbs whose rays illuminates unlimited galaxies and universes. He is the Parivaha wind which precedes all the others throughout space bearing the name Marici and among naksatranams or different constellations exercising their sphere of influence Lord Krishna is the moon which is superior to all of them in influence.

 

 

Sridhara Swami's Commentary:

 

Commencing with this verse until the conclusion of this chapter Lord Krishna reveals His prominent vibhuti or divine, transcendental opulence beginning with of the 12 Adityas He manifests Himself as Visnu incarnation manifesting in the form of the brahmin dwarf Vamana. Of luminaries He is the solar orbs, the radiant suns whose shining rays illuminate the darkness of unlimited, innumerable universes. Of the Maruts the seven groups of winds which flow throughout all space atmosphere, Lord Krishna is the wind known as Parivaha which precedes all the others and bears the name Marici. It should not be misconstrued that Lord Krishna is talking about one of the six great sages who were mind born by Brahma also with the same name as that is not correct. The words naksatranam aham sasi means that as the moon He is Lord over the 27 constellations beginning with Ashvini and ending with Revati due to the moon having a stronger influence.

[kaisersose]

Shankara's commentary also has nothing specific and he simply says shashi among nakshatras, just repeating the original verse.

 

But Ramanuja has something on this.

 

Of Adityas, who are twelve in number, I am the twelfth Aditya, called Visnu, who is paramount. Of luminuous bodies, namely, among luminaries in the world, I am the sun, the most brilliant luminary. Of Maruts I am the paramount Marici. Of constellations, I am the moon. The genitive case here is not to specify one out of many included in a group. Its use is the same as what is exemplifed in the statement 'I am the consciousness in all beings' (10.22). I am the moon who is the Lord of the constellations.

 

I believe Madhva was also clear that the moon is not a star, but I do not have his commentary with me now.

 

Cheers

[primate]

A Hindu 'constellation' or a nakshatra or lunar mansion is one of the 27 or 28 divisions of the sky, identified by the prominent star(s) in them, that the Moon passes through during its monthly cycle, as used in Hindu astronomy and astrology. Therefore, each represents a division of the ecliptic similar to the zodiac (13°20’ each instead of the 30° for each zodiac sign). The orbit of the moon is 27.3 days, so the Moon takes approximately one day to pass through each nakshatra. (From Wikipedia)

[Kyros]

spokensanskrit.de gives these definitions of the word "nakSatra"

 

1. constellation of stars

2. stars

3. asterism

4. constellation

 

There is also a word called "nakSatramaalaa" which means star group.

 

Spoken Sanskrit

[thehat]

Thanks for all your replys. It was the case that this person was very bent on pointing out the major flaw that the moon is one of the stars and is among the stars. I personally don't know how to address this issue, I've taken into consideration that it may be a translation error. But, in the end this person obviously is now so bent on this issue he feels can not advance in Krishna consciousness until this issue is resolved. Such a petty issue to be caught up on, he is now doubting the authority of Srila Prabhupada's purports, and possibly Krishna.

Such a shame, it's interesting to see how one can let his own foolishness and pettiness keep him down.

 

 

[primate]

Well, Prabhupada didn't have internet..

[thehat]

Thanks for providing that bit of Kesava Kasmiri's Commentary - he accepted that I think.

He said he went to the Sunday feast last night for the first time and raised this issue and some devotees were being quite confrontational with him, trying to quarrel with him so to speak about material science etc, and not listening to what he had to say.

So this makes things much harder now.

[primate]

Then he should give them the link to this thread: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/451613-astronomical-query-relating-gita.html

[Kyros]

If your friend is questioning Prabhupada's translations, he's welcome to compare them to various other (bonafide) translations.

 

As for the sun and moon controversey. In Vedic astronomy (afaik) there are only two suns.

 

One of the suns is the one we see, and then there is another sun in the hellish planetary systems.

 

So it's not hard to believe why Prabhupada accepted that translation of naksatranam as stars.

 

If you want to know more about Vedic astronomy, I would highly recommend checking out Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur's (Bimal Prasada) works, who is Srila Prabhupada's spiritual master.

[primate]

My only affiliation with formal religion used to be my Christian background. And, indeed, I still respect the basic values of Christianity. However, Christian (biblical) knowledge is largely metaphorical: God is almighty, Christ is His child, and so are you. It doesn’t even begin to describe in any detail the actual nature of God, the universe, and everything. Consequently, like any sane person, I more or less accepted that religion isn’t science.

 

Some time ago, however, I read an Iskcon book, The Science of Self-realisation, that contains a selection of Prabhupada’s conversations, lectures, assays and letters on the general subject of Krishna consciousness. I found Prabhupada’s idea’s to be quite consistent overall, and many of his citations and explanations of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam made sense to me intuitively, as well as in terms of certain mathematical – and quantum physical models. I even began to suspect that some key notions of Vedic knowledge could be validated by modern scientific knowledge and/or vice versa. And I’m still not convinced that this is entirely impossible.

 

Anyway, I believe Prabhupada saw the overall spiritual picture correctly. The fact that he made some (minor) mistakes in his many translations of the original Vedic texts doesn’t diminish that.

[tackleberry]

 

Thanks for all your replys. It was the case that this person was very bent on pointing out the major flaw that the moon is one of the stars and is among the stars. I personally don't know how to address this issue,

 

 

 

"Among the stars" is different from "one of the stars." In the former, it could simply mean that the moon exists along with the stars, nothing more. There's no case of identity. To give a mundane instance, if I say you're among aliens, it doesn't mean you're one of the aliens. The distinction between you and the aliens is maintained.

[Sephiroth]

by thehat

 

Of the Adityas I am Visnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, of the Maruts I am Marici, and among the stars I am the moon.

 

Hmph ... If even this you do not understand and can loose your faith, then it is better you do not have faith in Hindusm.

 

When Sri Krishna made the above statement, He did so by making comparison with the objects you could see and compare with your own sensors.

 

Look up into the sky. Is there anything brighter than the Sun? No ... then He is as radiant as the Sun.

 

Is there anything closer to you as the Moon is (if compare to the distance stars)? No? Then He is as close to you as the Moon is (if compared to the Stars).

 

That is what He have said ... PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

[Narasingh]

The first and most essential course to take, in the advent of a discussion, is clear definition of the terms of the discussion. When there arises a difference in definitions, they must come to an agreed definition. In this circumstance, in this verse, the term, star, is clearly defined as a planet which reflects the sun's brilliance. By coming to an agreement on the unit's function, a constructive discussion may take place. The function is the key, not the word.

[primate]

 

The first and most essential course to take, in the advent of a discussion, is clear definition of the terms of the discussion. When there arises a difference in definitions, they must come to an agreed definition. In this circumstance, in this verse, the term, star, is clearly defined as a planet which reflects the sun's brilliance. By coming to an agreement on the unit's function, a constructive discussion may take place. The function is the key, not the word.

It’s evident from posts #10, #11, #12, and #13, that the meaning (definition) of the Sanskrit term 'nakshatranam' in the original verse must be: 'among constellations', and not: 'among stars'. The phrase: "I am the moon among the constellations", makes perfect sense in Hindu (Vedic) astrological context (see post #12), whereas the phrase: "I am the moon among the stars", really makes no sense at all..

[Narasingh]

Yes, primate. I hope your perspective helps "thehat"

[Kyros]

 

It’s evident from posts #10, #11, #12, and #13, that the meaning (definition) of the Sanskrit term 'nakshatranam' in the original verse must be: 'among constellations', and not: 'among stars'. The phrase: "I am the moon among the constellations", makes perfect sense in Hindu (Vedic) astrological context (see post #12), whereas the phrase: "I am the moon among the stars", really makes no sense at all..

Actually, the moon can also be considered a star.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/star

 

1 a: a natural luminous body visible in the sky especially at night

 

So, according to THAT definition, Prabhupada's translation would work.

 

Combine that with Vedic cosmology which only has one (two) stars and Prabhupada's purport is practically Vedic.

 

Someone may refute and say that there are plenty of sun-like objects out there, so the Vedas must be wrong; however, despite that information, Vedic astronomy does bring the same results as modern astronomy.

 

So, take what you want out of that.