Applying Spiritual Science to the Question of the Earth, Part 4

BY: MAYESVARA DASA

Feb 04, 2017 — IRELAND (SUN) —

(1.3) GURU, GBC, AND THE GLOBE: WILL ISKCON BE PHILOSOPHIC OR DOGMATIC ON THE QUESTION OF THE EARTH?

This paper is the third section (1.3) of three questions raised in Part Three. The reader may wish to read the preceding two sections in order to get a proper context for the points raised here. In section 1.1 we discussed the size of the Earth according to Srimad Bhagavatam. In section 1.2 we presented an argument why Srila Prabhupada may have spoke of the Earth as a globe and a planet, despite Srimad Bhagavatam's radically different description of the Earth as a vast circular disc. In this section (1.3), we wish to address the issue of any official response to this research from the management of the Temple of Vedic Planetarium (TOVP), or from the GBC.

DOGMA AND PHILOSOPHY

The following notice was posted on a Vedic Cosmology Facebook on December 23 2016:

    "Finally the TOVP agrees to show this earth planet a global round sphere. The recent emails passed on from Anantadvip prabhu from the TOVP confirms the TOVP will explain our Earth planet as a global round sphere and supported by the GBC...Writers who send their ''flat earth'' nonsense articles to the Sampradaya Sun are telling devotees lies that this plane t is flat and is rejected by the TOVP and the GBC.
    (Facebook: Vedic Cosmology and the Srimad Bhagavatam's 5th canto in Mathura Vrindavan. December 23 at 5:57am)

I don't know who runs this particular Facebook page, or if the above information is even true, but the proposals are certainly worth responding to. The concern here is not just about the nature of the Earth in Srimad Bhagavatam, but also about the question of spiritual freedom for members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness to freely exchange their opinions, and engage in philosophical discourse. In this section we would like to address the question of dogmatism and how this can best be avoided in the question of the Earth, particularly in regards to any resolutions on the issue that may or may not be made by the Governing Body Committee (GBC) of the International Society For Krishna Consciousness.

The English word dogma is derived from the Greek language meaning "that which one thinks is true." The word has come to be applied to an official set of beliefs authoritatively laid down by a church. The teachings established by dogma are regarded as infallible and binding on all the faithful. The word has also taken on a pejorative meaning. Some definitions include: Positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant. A viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises. The tendency to lay down principles as undeniably true, without consideration of evidence or the opinions of others. Strongly opinionated in an unwarranted manner. To be dogmatic is to follow a set of beliefs that is passed down and never questioned. It also refers to arrogant opinions based on unproven theories or even despite facts.

To be philosophical is to inquire whether a teaching is true or not, regardless of its status as a dogma. The philosopher is happy to discuss opposing ideas; the dogmatist seeks to silence or banish any contention or opposition to that which the individual or institution has established as a dogma. According to Krishna, a person situated in true knowledge is never dogmatic because true knowledge results in humility, pridelessness and absence of false ego (Bg 13.8-12). The question raised here is whether the GBC, and other spiritual directors of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, are going to be dogmatic or philosophic in their consideration of the nature of the Earth. The idea that the Earth is a globe in space is an unquestioned belief of most of the world; it is the unquestioned dogma of modern science. Will The TOVP management (with the institutional backing of the GBC), follow that dogma by enshrining it's own dogmatic statement about the Earth globe in a formal GBC resolution, or will it be courageous enough to challenge, or at least investigate, the legitimacy of the entire globe paradigm?

Since the Mayapur Temple of Vedic Planetarium is intended to teach cosmology to the people of the world, a decision about the nature of the Earth is obviously going to have momentous consequences for the world, and particularly for the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Does the Srimad Bhagavatam teach that the Earth is small globe in space, or does it teach that the Earth is a vast cosmic circle? The answer to that is straightforward, unambiguous, and unmistakable. The Earth of Srimad Bhagavatam is described as a vast circular plane. Our own Earth area is just a small part of this great circle, and is surrounded by other areas of the greater Earth. It is not a globe in space as has been presented to the people of the world. A faithful and accurate presentation of this description is obviously going to have enormous consequences in relation to ISKCON's dealings with the world's government, science, education, media, etc., who all propagate the idea that Earth is a small Earth globe, not a vast circular plane. To go against the globe, is to go against the unquestioned belief system of the rest of the world. The fact is, however, most people just believe the Earth is a globe, and have no independent means of personally verifying the fact.

An individual who denies that the Earth is a globe can be easily dismissed as a quack, stupid, or insane; it is not be so easy to dismiss the whole Vedic world paradigm upon which the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is based. Nonetheless, to challenge and debate the science supporting the globe is a challenge to the entire paradigm of the modern world. The TOVP management, along with ISKCON's leadership, may not be up for the challenge, preferring instead to integrate with the prevailing world paradigm rather than attempt to change opinion on the basis of Srimad Bhagavatam. The problem, of course, is that the TOVP management believe in the modern globe paradigm, and are stuck in that conception. However, the belief in the Earth globe, is not a belief based on faith in the teachings of Srimad Bhagavatam; it is a belief based on faith in the presentation of modern science. In later papers we will continue our look at the validity of this belief system. To challenge five hundred years of science/indoctrination supporting the globe conception is not a small task.

The real danger is that decisions made by the TOVP and the GBC on the nature of the Earth, may be motivated more by political considerations than the truth of the matter described in Srimad Bhagavatam. If the present world paradigm dictates that the Earth is a globe, then ISKCON's managers may convince themselves that concurrence with this idea is the safest option. A spiritually weak individual or society that is more interested in conformity with prevailing paradigms rather than meditation on the absolute truth (satyam param demahi SB 1.1.1) will naturally capitulate to whatever is politically expedient for acceptance by those who create and uphold the paradigm. In such circumstances, institutionalized support for the globe model in the manner of formal GBC resolutions (dogmas), may dominate regardless of the truth established by either science, philosophy, and most importantly theology itself in the form of Srimad Bhagavatam.

KRISHNA'S METHOD OF EDUCATION IS PHILOSOPHICAL, NOT DOGMATIC

Srila Prabhupada wrote that Krishna spoke to Arjuna, 'both as friend and philosopher' (Bg 2.34 purport).

The sankirtan movement is meant to be performed by people with highly developed spiritual intelligence (yajnaih sankirtana-prayair yajanti hi su-medhasah SB 11.5.32). Srila Prabhupada wished to attract intelligent people to his movement, but what intelligent person will be impressed by the idea that truth of something is established by a vote, and anyone dissenting from the vote is deemed heretical and duly suppressed. Any resolution on the issue of the Earth would amount to just another example of theocratic bureaucracy that will stifle independently thoughtful people and send them away. It would be just another sorry repeat of the Catholic Church's dictatorial policy. To avoid such extreme measures that amount to nothing more than thought control, let us proceed in a manner that teaches 'how to think, not what to think.' In that spirit let us take a look at how members of ISKCON can be taught how to think about the Earth in Srimad Bhagavatam, not what to think,' based upon theocratic decrees and resolutions made by members of the GBC.

Compelling people to think in a certain way about a certain subject is not the manner of education taught by Krishna. After speaking Bhagavad-gita to Arjuna, Krishna says:

    "Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do."(Bg 18.63)

Krishna uses the Sanskrit word vimrishya which means deliberate on this fully. The Sanskrit dictionary adds emphasis to the definition, stating that a thing is to be examined judiciously and cautiously. In order to examine statements with deliberation, one requires a whole list of other attributes such as thoughtfulness, discernment, insight, common sense, astuteness, discrimination, intelligence, knowledge, cleverness, rationality, logic, wisdom, enlightenment, etc. Although Krishna is the infallible Supreme Personality of Godhead, He sets a brilliant example as a teacher by not only requesting Arjuna to examine His own statements with deliberation, but then permitting Arjuna the freedom to make up his own mind, and to do what he wishes to do (yatha icchasi - as you like). Isn't that wonderful! How many teachers teach their own students to examine their teacher's teachings with deliberation? How many teachers allow their students to come to their own conclusion by careful deliberation? As the saying goes 'the truth fears no investigation.' If one is speaking the truth, then there is no fear of anyone questioning or challenging one's position. What has the truth got to hide or fear? Surely there is a lesson in this for the GBC!

On the question of the Earth, the devotee community should be respected with the freedom to come to their own conclusion. This is Krishna's method of education. It is a philosophical approach and avoids indoctrination. In order to come to an informed conclusion, one has to be allowed to freely research opposing claims and arguments. Doubts are welcome in Krishna's system of pedagogy. Doubt is one of the attributes of intelligence (SB 3.26.30). Doubts, however, are destroyed by the weapon of transcendental knowledge (Bg 4.41-42).

An open public forum where ideas about the Earth can be debated, allows the individual members of the society to become acquainted with the varying arguments and to make up their own mind. Krishna told Arjuna to deliberate fully on His instructions (Bg 16.83). If a decision regarding the nature of the Earth is to be made by a small group of people in the GBC, how does that facilitate the members of ISKCON to make their own full deliberation on the subject? It would show no respect at all for the process of Krishna consciousness taught by Krishna, but rather, would treat intelligent members of the Hare Krishna community like dull and slavish automatons who can't think for themselves, and who are required to accept decisions made for them by self-assumed authorities on the subject. The proposal is insufferable theocracy at its worst. In the following section we would like to present a way in which the spiritual leadership of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness can take a philosophical approach to the question of the Earth, and thereby avoid adding to the list of unnecessary and unfounded dogmatic decrees that seem to appear like perennial weeds in the history of religions.

TRUTH AND FALSEHOOD

Many devotees of Krishna whose interest is piqued by this subject of the globe will obviously want to present the question to their guru for clarification. However, asking one's guru a question about Srimad Bhagavatam's fifth canto may be like asking a question about a car engine. One's guru may or may not know anything about car engines. Similarly, one's guru may or may not know anything about the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the universe, and the nature of the Earth within it. The fifth canto may simply be a section of Srimad Bhagavatam that one's guru has not looked at in any detail. This does not diminish the stature of Sri Guru (by whose blessings all knowledge is revealed), but it is a practical consideration when asking advice about the Earth of Srimad Bhagavatam.

The guru's will naturally want to look to statements from Srila Prabhupada on the issue, or perhaps to a resolution from the GBC for clarification about the nature of the Earth. We have already looked at Srila Prabhupada's usage of the words globe and planet in the previous paper (see link above) and we humbly request to consider the arguments presented. Regarding resolutions made by the GBC, if the Governing Body Committee (GBC) of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is to certify the idea that Earth is a globe, on what basis is such a decision to be made? Let's apply a little philosophical investigation here! Do all the members of the GBC have individual knowledge, realization, or even an inkling of the Earth being described in Srimad Bhagavatam? Will it be a case of one or two so-called 'experts' from the Temple of Vedic Planetarium persuading everyone else to vote in a certain way? Will anyone be invited to present any alternative arguments or opposing evidence to the idea of presenting a globe in the TOVP?

In many walks of life, critical analysis, objections, and appraisal of one's work are an absolute necessity. A sensible student, for example, will have someone critique their thesis before submitting it for examination. Before building contractors start their construction, a planning notice is posted, and the public are invited to present their objections. Before canonizing a saint, the Catholic Church will engage a devil's advocate to state all possible objections to the proposed sainthood. Even at the most trusting of occasions such as a wedding, the participants are invited to state their objections to the proposed marriage. The question is sensible as it provides a public forum where an objection opportunity is provided for those with knowledge of why the marriage should not be allowed to proceed (such as bigamy, duress, deception about age or identity, etc.). Will a public objection opportunity be provided for members of the International Society for Krishna Conscious to present alternative arguments against the globe exhibition that will be presented in the TOVP exhibitions? Are the TOVP going to invite any constructive criticism to their conception?

If one's guru, or other members of the GBC have not made an objective study of the subject of the Earth in Srimad Bhagavatam, or have not been acquainted with any alternative scientific arguments to the modern globe concept, they may be easily swayed to a yes vote for the globe, simply on the basis of a few select quotations from Srila Prabhupada on the topic, a few interpolated verses from the Vedic literature, and a smattering of so-called scientific arguments in favour of the globe concept. Without understanding the context of Srila Prabhupada's many references to the Earth as a globe; without hearing any critical analysis of the selected verses from Vedic literature that are presented to support the globe model; and without hearing any opposing scientific arguments to the globe paradigm, any dissenting voice on the globe topic can be easily and quickly dismissed as a deviation. The staunch defense of the globe model on the part of the TOVP is both hugely ironic, and highly suspicious, considering there is no description of any Earth globe in Srimad Bhagavatam itself, or in any other Vedic literature.

How can anyone in good conscience vote yes to the idea that Srimad Bhagavatam describes Earth as a globe, when no such description actually appears in the text itself? The absence of a description of an Earth globe is not simply due to a small omission on Sukadeva Goswami's part. One may think that the description of a small Earth globe in a vast universe, is a minor detail that may have been overlooked, and requires bringing in evidence from other sources such as astronomical texts like Surya Siddhanta. On the contrary, Earth is clearly described as the largest feature in the universe and Bharata-varsha (our own section of the earth) is described as an area of hundreds of thousands of miles. The overall size of Bharata-varsha is 72,000 miles running north to south; and over 400,000 miles running west to east. The continents of our own Earth would make up just a small part of this vast landscape. Unfortunately, the TOVP management, have been allowed to completely disregard the description of Bharata-varsha's location on the great Earth circle as a factual description of the Earth's situation. Instead, the TOVP have been allowed to introduce the completely foreign idea that the Earth is a globe in dark space. Any GBC resolution supporting this globe concept, is a resolution based on complete ignorance of what is being described in Srimad Bhagavatam.

In any case, such voting procedures hardly establishes the truth of the matter. A formal GBC resolution on the subject would be nothing short of witless. A formal edict from the GBC declaring that the Earth is a globe, does not, cannot, and will not establish the truth of the thing. The Earth is what it is. If one knows what it is, then one should vote yes or no as to its nature. If one does not know what it is, then one should exercise some honesty and integrity by refusing to vote for something that one has no realization about. For all those on the GBC exercising a vote as to whether the Earth is a globe or not, the obvious recommendation is to go look at the Earth first with one's own eyes, then vote.

    Harikesha: They have pictures from the moon taken of the earth.
    Prabhupada: Pictures? First of all you see. Then take picture. You cannot see.
    (Morning walk, June 1975, Honolulu)

One may confidently believe that the Earth we live on is a globe in space, but the question is, which one of us have ever seen the full extent of the Earth? The only Earth that anyone in the Hare Krishna movement has ever seen, is an image of an Earth globe provided by other people. How do we know it's a real image? A little investigation shows that the images of the Earth from so-called outer space turn out to be either paintings, models, photos from high altitude airplanes that use a fish-eyed lens to create a curvature effect, or computer generated images. We have looked briefly at the question of faked images of the Earth in part one of this paper, and will return to the subject in more detail in a later paper.

Whether one believes photos of the Earth to be fake or not, for followers of the Vedas, the real evidence for the Earth's shape and location comes from Srimad Bhagavatam. Therefore, before speaking or voting on the nature of the Earth, it would be wise to consider Sukadeva Goswami's description of Bharata-varsha as a tract of land, situated at the southern side of an 800,000 mile island and surrounded by an 800,000 mile ocean. How is that a description of an Earth globe floating in dark space? What ramifications does this description of an extended Earth plane have for our belief in the Earth globe paradigm? Has anyone considered?

The idea of voting on the truth of the Earth by a committee of people who have never actually seen the Earth in its entirety, is not only patently ridiculous, but spiritually dishonest. In Srimad Bhagavatam it is said:

    "A wise person should not enter an assembly if he knows the participants there are committing acts of impropriety. And if, having entered such an assembly, he fails to speak the truth, speaks falsely or pleads ignorance, he will certainly incur sin." (SB 10.44.10)

'Failing to speak the truth,' means not only that a person knows the truth but fails to speak it; it can also mean that one speaks in ignorance of the subject and hence speaks an untruth. Likewise, 'speaking falsely' can mean not only deliberately speaking lies, it can also mean speaking a falsehood on the basis of false information or a false understanding. Again, 'pleading ignorance' means that one has knowledge of a subject, but because of a vested interest one does not present the facts of the matter. Lets consider these three points in relation to any proposals for a GBC resolution regarding the issue of the Earth.

In Mahabharata we often hear a common exclamation from the Brahmans and sages that "I have never spoken an untruth." This does not simply mean that they never told a lie; it also means that they never spoke of something that was not true, or rather, never spoke of anything that they did not personally know to be true. Vedic literature, of course, describes many aspects of the material and spiritual universe that are beyond our experience, and which we cannot verify to be true by personal experience. But the truth of the places or events described in Vedic literature are accepted by followers of the Vedas who have faith in the descriptions coming from spiritual authorities. For atheists and non-Aryans, these descriptions do not count for anything, but at least for those profess a faith in Krishna, the Vedas are the irrefutable source of knowledge on subjects both within and beyond our experience. Speaking on the basis of scripture for things beyond our experience is therefore an acceptable way to speak truthfully. In the case of the Earth, however, globe advocates have a difficultly, because the scripture describes the Earth as a vast circular disc, not as a small isolated globe in space. There is no description of an Earth globe in Srimad Bhagavatam that corresponds to our assumed Earth globe. Bharata-varsha (where the continents of our Earth area are situated), is described as being just a part of the vast landscape of Jambudwipa, the central island of Bhu-mandala.

A legitimate question may therefore be raised: If the GBC are to make a proclamation that the Earth is a globe, on what basis are the individual members of the GBC to make that decision? If truth is established on the basis of scripture, then the truth is that the Earth is not a globe. If truth is established on individual experience, again the truth is that no one on the GBC has ever seen the Earth globe. The most that anyone on the GBC has ever seen of an Earth globe is an illustration, model, or computer generated image of the so-called Earth globe.

In the case of individual GBC members voting whether the Earth is a globe or not, if one has no personal experience or realization of either the globe or the Bhu-mandala, how can one make a vote as to which version is true and which is false? If one has never seen the Earth, how does one know if it as an isolated globe in space, or just part of a vast circular Earth plane? Since it is sinful to speak an untruth, it would be better to say nothing, than to speak authoritatively on something that may or may not be true. One ought, therefore, be a scientist in the literal sense of the word, that is 'to know,' or have the realization of a subject before propagating something as correct and the truth, when it may not be. Otherwise one incurs sin as stated above for speaking falsely.

'Speaking falsely' can mean not only deliberately speaking lies, it can also mean speaking a falsehood on the basis of false information or a false understanding. One can be sincere and honest and still speak a falsehood by sounding false information. Unless one has personally realized the truth of the Earth, how can one avoid the danger of speaking falsely on the Earth if all of one's information about the Earth comes from secondary sources? Presenting scientific information that one thinks is credible, is not an excuse for speaking falsely. Arguments for the globe come from secondary sources such as empirical observations made by so-called scientists. The living entity, however, devoid of reference to the Vedas, is subject to four imperfections: the tendency to cheat, to be in illusion, to make mistakes, and to have imperfect senses. It is our argument that the whole Earth globe paradigm is simply a mental construct arising from a combination of these four factors. We are personally not enamored by the speculations of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton whose ideas on planetary motions, gravity, etc., can all be debated; nor do we docilely accept the images of Earth from outer space as authentic images. A little investigation into the subject reveals such images as clearly fraudulent.

We are not suggesting here that all empirical evidence is to be disregarded as mistaken, illusory, or deceptive. Indeed to the surprise of anyone who makes some investigation into the subject, it is found that empirical observation and experiment overwhelmingly disproves the globe. The massive indoctrination that the Earth is a globe can be rebuked by one simple fact - it is not possible to observe or measure any curvature on the Earth. The so-called example of ships disappearing on the horizon is due to the vanishing point on the horizon caused by perspective, as well as other atmospheric considerations, not by a so-called curve on the Earth. Water always finds a level and does not curve which would go against all physical laws that we observe.



One can observe frozen lakes all over the world covering hundreds of miles with no curvature to be seen. Lake Baikal in Russia for example is almost 400 miles long. Every year the lake freezes over completely except a small part in the source of the Angara. If the Earth was curved, one would see a huge curve of frozen water from one side of the lake to the other. But this is not the case. The frozen water as expected, is flat in all directions:


Frozen Lake Baikal, Russia


If the oceans were to likewise freeze, one would see that the Earth is a flat plane from one side to the other. In any case, we can all observe that whilst flying over land and sea, we fly over the same horizontal plane for thousands of miles. We have just been fooled into thinking that we are flying or sailing around a ball-shaped Earth. There are literally thousands of observations and experiments that disprove the globe, but we leave that for another time.

'Pleading ignorance' means that one has knowledge of a subject, but because of a vested interest one does not present the facts of the matter. In regards to those studying or writing on the subject of Srimad Bhagavatam's cosmology, it is obvious from the description that our Earth area of Bharata-varsha is just a small part of the super-continent of Jambudwipa, and thus connected to this greater area via ocean and air space. The Vedic history, indeed, speaks of a time when our Earth area in Bharata-varsha was connected to the greater Earth area of Jambudwipa. One pleads ignorance by not bringing scientific or historical information to the table for everyone's consideration. The same holds true for withholding scientific knowledge that disproves the globe model. One may have studied such objections to the globe, but due to attachment for the globe concept, one may not forward these counter arguments to the globe for the attention of all concerned. One can even plead ignorance by simply refusing to research counter-arguments to the globe, complacently believing that the Earth globe is an unquestionable truth, and not requiring investigation.

How does this relate to anyone within ISKCON (particularly the management of the TOVP and the GBC) who may wish to speak authoritatively on the subject of the Earth, or to pass resolutions on the issues that arise? Since the mandate of the TOVP is to display the cosmos as described in Srimad Bhagavatam, then it has to follow that description, and not bring in foreign concepts. In our previous papers we have established the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the Earth as a 4 billion diameter circular plane, and that Bharata-varsha is a small area at the southern end of Jambudwipa an 800,000 mile island which is the first and central land mass on the great Earth circle. So before speaking, voting, or presenting any exhibition that the Earth is a globe in space, please consider carefully whether one's words or resolutions are manifesting the truth of the Earth as described in Srimad Bhagavatam. Please be conscious that one may be otherwise propagating a falsehood (maya) based on a preconceived idea and assumption that the Earth is a globe. Do you really know the Earth is a globe? This is not a question about how much scientific knowledge one can present to support the idea. It is a very personal question. Do you really know the truth of the Earth, or do you just think you know? What does it mean to know? One may know the names and layout of one's street and surrounding area, but what about the Earth itself? What personal experience does anyone have of the true nature and extent of the Earth? Certainly Srimad Bhagavatam describes a very different Earth from the one that we have been presented. Surely, we ought to take this description seriously, by at least investigating the possibility that we may all have been misled into believing that The Earth is a globe.

SRILA PRABHUPADA THE PHILOSOPHER

We have pointed out in previous papers, with reference to the relevant verses from Srimad Bhagavatam, that neither Bhu-gola, Bhu-mandala, or Bharata-varsha, actually describe Earth as a globe in space, but rather describe Earth as a circular disc that extends to a diameter of 4 billion miles. This is the actual description contained in Srimad Bhagavatam. We are not introducing some speculation here; indeed, the TOVP will present this depiction of Earth in it's main dome exhibition. The previous acharyas confirm this description of Earth in their commentaries and do not describe a second Earth as a globe in space. So there are relevant questions about the nature of the Earth that can be raised in response to Srila Prabhupada's statements that the Earth is a globe. Srila Prabhupada did not avoid challenging questions or discussing issues. Either during a conversation or at the end of each discourse Srila Prabhupada always encouraged questions, and was always willing to discuss an issue. By his personal example, Srila Prabhupada did not reject such questioning when the issue of the Earth's shape was raised, for example, in the Bhu-mandala discussions of June/July 1977 by Tamala Krishna Goswami. Srila Prabhupada, in fact, requested him to research the topic further to see where the disparity lay between the Vedic and Modern conceptions of the Earth. This is both a scientific and philosophical approach. In the present circumstances, however, we are experiencing that the love of truth (philosophy), which Srila Prabhupada taught by example and encouraged in others, is sacrificed instead for blind allegiance to the official dogma that 'Srila Prabhupada said, "the Earth is a globe."'

Srila Prabhupada, was not personally impressed by blind following and dogmatic presentations of religious scriptures:

    Satsvarupa: The history of civilization in the West is that for centuries people believed whatever the Bible said about existence, and then, when science developed, the Bible did not appear very wise anymore, so they... They overthrew all the dogmatic teachings.
    Prabhupada: They are dogmatic teachings.
    Satsvarupa: So they take us like that too, another religious explanation.
    Prabhupada: No. Our religion is not faith. It is science. That is the fault. Fanaticism of Christianism, Muhammadanism, has created this godlessness. But Vedic knowledge is not that. It is really knowledge.
    Satsvarupa: And in the beginning, when science began, modern science, the scientists would say something against the Bible that was different than the Bible. Then they would torture him. The church would torture him, this Galileo, big scien... So they point these things out, that the church is not tolerant.
    Prabhupada: That is not our point. We want to understand God through philosophy. "Through philosophy" means logic. Blind faith is not our business."
    (Room Conversation, January 27 1977, Bhuvanesvara)

Here Srila Prabhupada rejects dogmatic presentations by proclaiming that 'blind faith is not our business.' He says that we want to understand God through philosophy, and that 'through philosophy' requires the use of 'logic.' Therefore if one wants to abandon critical thinking, logic, and reason in favour of dogmatism, then I don't think such a mentality belongs in Srila Prabhupada's school of Srimad Bhagavatam studies. Logic is an important principle to apply when understanding a subject like the Earth of Srimad Bhagavatam because even the authority of Srila Prabhupada can be used to make an illogical dogmatic presentation, such as that presented by Rajasekhara dasa (a disciple of Srila Prabhupada) who made the following statement in an article on the subject:

    "It is also my contention that all those who promote the 'Flat Earth' doctrine are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Shrila Prabhupada and the previous Acharyas and are thus committing the most serious offense by promoting publicly their false doctrine, for which there is no redemption in this lifetime.

    Mayesvara has a serious problem in that he does not believe in the words of Shrila Prabhupada...Therefore, the entire presentation of Mayesvara on the Shrimad Bhagavatam is null & void and equal to milk that has been touched by the lips of a serpent. One who hears the invalid explanations on Shrimad Bhagavatam given by Mayeshvara is simply going to be bewildered and ultimately die a spiritual death due to having consumed poison along with the milk."

And so the discussion would end there in stony silence, only I'm not one who can be silenced easily by such fanaticism. If one does a Vedabase search on the words 'blind faith' and 'dogmatic,' one will see how much Srila Prabhupada deplored blind faith and dogmatic thinking. Srila Prabhupada studied philosophy at college, referring to it as the science of sciences:

    "Philosophy is not for our or yours. Philosophy is philosophy. That is a science. Philosophy is the science of sciences. That is the description of philosophy. In our college days we were philosophy student of Professor, Dr. W. S. Hartford. He defined that "Philosophy is the science of sciences." There are different departments of scientific knowledge. When they are taken together, the original science is philosophy. Philosophy is the science. Tattva-jnanartha-darshanam etad jnanam. Tad ajnanam yad anyatha. It is not stated in the Bhagavad-gita? Tattva-jnanartha-darshanam. To know the Absolute Truth, that is philosophy."
    (Conversation, June 13, 1976, Detroit)

My first appreciation of Srila Prabhupada was as a philosopher for his brilliant logical presentations in establishing rational arguments for the existence of God and the soul, as well as defeating the unsound arguments of materialism, atheism, scientism, mayavada, etc. Although Srila Prabhupada quoted shastra (scripture) as his evidence, he was always able to give rational and logical arguments for doing so. Whilst studying the many transcripts of Srila Prabhupada's conversations, I found it remarkable how Srila Prabhupada maintained such consistent grace, tolerance, patience, humor, and rapport with his thousands of guests who presented a seemingly endless flow of speculations and misconceptions in regards to spiritual matters. Although Srila Prabhupada was a spiritual authority par excellence, he was always willing to discuss and debate in an amiable and equitable manner with his guests. My personal impression is that Srila Prabhupada simply wanted to help his guests understand what he had realized to be true; not that he was trying to force them to believe what he believed was true. In the age of relativism, Srila Prabhupada championed the cause of satyam param or the Absolute truth, but never in a dogmatic way, which is why he appealed to so many people. Srila Prabhupada personified Krishna's statement that a person situated in true knowledge is never dogmatic because true knowledge results in humility, pridelessness and absence of false ego (Bg 13.8-12). I mention this because it is important for a spiritual movement like ISKCON to imbibe the philosophical disposition of the Founder-Acharya, and thus avoid dogmatism.

The farcical idea of the GBC voting whether the Earth is a globe or not, would simply spell the end of philosophy in ISKCON. The truth of the thing is not established by votes and resolutions; the truth is of any matter is revealed to one who loves the truth. One who loves the truth loves Krishna because Krishna is the highest truth (satyam param). Krishna is the object upon who the truthful mediate: satyam param demahi (SB 1.1.1) Krishna is the benefactor of the truthful devotee (suhrt satam SB 1.2.17). To be a philosopher in its literal sense means to be a lover of the truth. In His lecture on Bhagavad-gita 7.16, Srila Prabhupada identifies the jnani or man of knowledge with the philosopher, and the one who is very dear to Krishna:

    "Now, so far the four classes of men who do not come to God... That means the impious, the foolish, the lowest of the mankind, whose knowledge has been taken away by the illusory energy, and the atheists. Apart from these classes of men, the four classes of men who come to God, just like arta, distressed, inquisitive, artharthi... Artharthi means poverty-stricken. And jnani means philosopher. Now, out of these four classes, Lord Krishna says, tesham jnani nitya-yukta eka-bhaktir vishishyate: "Out of these four classes, men, one who is philosophically trying to understand the nature of God with devotion, with Krishna consciousness, he is vishishyate."

    Vishishyate means he's specially qualified. He's specially qualified. Priyo hi jnanino 'tyartham aham sa ca mama priyaù. The... "For a person who is Krishna conscious, at the same time philosophically trying to understand what is the nature of God, so he is very dear to Me," Krishna says. "He is very dear to Me because he has no other business than to understand what is God."

    ... Therefore such a learned and who has understood his real position and his relationship with Krishna, he is jnani. He knows. Therefore he is very much dear to Krishna. And Krishna always guides him. This man, who is in distress, goes and prays to God. That praying of God is an asset to him, but it may be, when he is put into opulence, he forgets God. There is defect in that. But a jnani, one who knows, he'll never forget God. His business will go on, continue.

    Then, therefore, Krishna says, tesham jnani nitya-yuktah. Jnani is nitya-yukta. Jnani is not a... He is not a jnani, or man in knowledge, who is not eternally engaged in the service of Krishna."
    (Bg 7.15-18 New York, October 9 1966)

Krishna loves the philosopher (the lover of truth) and the philosopher loves Krishna (the Absolute Truth param brahman):

    "O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me – the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

    Of these, the one who is in full knowledge and who is always engaged in pure devotional service is the best. For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to Me.

    All these devotees are undoubtedly magnanimous souls, but he who is situated in knowledge of Me I consider to be just like My own self.

    Being engaged in My transcendental service, he is sure to attain Me, the highest and most perfect goal.

    After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare." (Bg 7.16-19)

To be a philosopher or lover of the truth, means to question what is real and what is false, in order to distinguish the truth from the illusion. Hence the epic statement of Srimad Bhagavatam's second verse: The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all (SB 1.1.2). What is real and what is illusion? Is this body really me; or am I something different from this body? This is a legitimate philosophical question. Similarly, to raise questions about the real nature of the Earth are legitimate philosophical questions: Is the globe real? Are the images of the globe in space authentic images? Is that what the Earth really looks like? Philosophy can also help with the answer to this question. For one thing, it is clear that due to merging the Srimad Bhagvatam's conception of Bhu-mandala/Bhu-gola with the assumed modern conception of Earth as a globe in space, an Earth globe has just been created that doesn't in fact exist. There is no Earth globe in Srimad Bhagavatam. So where does that leave us?

The questions being raised here about the Earth are legitimate philosophical questions. Generally when a religious protagonist or institution is unable to answer questions regarding its orthodox ideas, the easy option is to resort to dogmatism, fear tactics, and intimidation in order to silence any seeming dissenters. Unfortunately, Srila Prabhupada himself, the greatest philosopher of our contemporary world is used in many instances to perpetrate the new dogmatism. Yes, Srila Prabhupada said the Earth was a globe, but that is not a reason to end all discussion or dissent on the issue.

THE UNFOLDING OF THE EARTH'S TRUE NATURE

We have already highlighted the point in previous papers that the cosmology section of the fifth canto of Srimad Bhagavatam was one of the few areas that Srila Prabhupada expressed his own inadequate knowledge of the subject. In his own words: "I am a layman." By citing this statement, we don't mean to suggest that Srila Prabhupada was incapable of understanding the Vedic cosmology. Srila Prabhupada was a person of extraordinary transcendental intelligence; indeed the very name Prabhupada is an honorary title meaning the master at whose feet all the other masters take shelter (see purport Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya-lila 10.23). However, shortage of time (that could have been otherwise devoted to the subject of cosmology) meant that Srila Prabhupada delegated the responsibility of deciphering the fifth canto cosmology to his disciples. It was Srila Prabhupada's own expressed instruction to his disciples to study the Fifth Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam and basically figure it out. In a letter to Svarupa Damodara, Srila Prabhupada wrote:

    "So now you all Ph.D.'s must carefully study the details of the 5th Canto and make a working model of the universe. If we can explain the passing seasons, eclipses, phases of the moon, passing of day and night, etc. then it will be very powerful propaganda. I am sending this letter to you, and you can make photocopies of it and send to our other Ph.D.'s and begin serious research into the matter in detail." (Auckland, 27 April, 1976)

Again:

    Prabhupada: Now you all together make this Vedic planetarium very nice, so that people will come and see. From the description of the Srimad-Bhagavatam, you prepare this Vedic planetarium. How do you like this idea, Vedic planetarium?

    …Mayapura. My idea is to attract people of the whole world to Mayapura. So we are just trying to acquire three hundred fifty acres of land from the government…

    …So all of you now make a complete idea how to make Vedic planetary, planetarium.
    (Room Conversation, June 15 1976 Detroit)

In the Bhu-mandala discussions of July 1977, Srila Prabhupada repeats the same instruction in relation to questions about the disparities between the Vedic and modern conceptions of the Earth, "Find out from our side according to Srimad Bhagavatam." Since Srila Prabhupada himself gave his disciples the freedom to intelligently study the fifth canto and present a working model of the cosmos, the GBC should exercise a similar liberty. There may, of course, be differing views about what the Srimad Bhagavatam is actually describing in its depiction of the Earth; but an argument that rejects the globe concept entirely, in favour of a literal understanding of Bhu-mandala, can hardly be accused of going against the instruction of Srila Prabhupada. As cited above, Srila Prabhupada himself requested his disciples to 'study the details of the 5th Canto and make a working model of the universe.' (Letter to Svarupa Damodar, Auckland, 27 April, 1976). Take note, that Srila Prabhupada is not giving his own model here; he is requesting his followers to make a model based on the description provided in Srimad Bhagavatam. Whether the Earth is a globe or not remains to be seen.

If the Earth is part of a great Earth circle, and not a globe, why did Krishna not reveal the truth to Srila Prabhupada directly so that he could preach this important point to the world? Why would such an important subject, and particularly the nature of the Earth be left mysteriously vague and uncertain? Surely we have to see some very interesting plan of Krishna's behind the unfolding of this concept. One thing is for sure, the understanding of the Vedic cosmology and particularly the understanding of Earth or Bhu-mandala is a concept that is gradually unfolding.

In the 1970's, when Srila Prabhupada announced his decision to build The Temple of Vedic Planetarium at Mayapur, any understanding of the Bhu-mandala seems to have been almost completely lost. The Srimad Bhagavatam and Mahabharata both state historical accounts that provide evidence to show that our area of Bharata-varsha was once politically connected to the greater Bhu-mandala area. At the time of Krishna, five thousand years ago, both Yudhisthira and later Pariksit were emperors of Jambudwipa, the 800,000 mile central island of Bhu-mandala. Physical connection with the greater Earth area appears to have been severed when we entered the Kali-yuga (Kali-yuga only affects Bharata-varsha and not the other areas of Jambudwipa). Bharata-varsha was thus quarantined from the rest of Bhu-mandala and knowledge of the greater Earth area was lost. In recent times the speculative idea that Earth is a globe is a further covering of maya to convince everyone that they live on a small planet rotating in dark, lifeless, godless, space. This concept facilitates the materialistic and atheistic tendencies of the people of Kali-yuga:

    "vedah pasanda-dushitah the Vedas will be contaminated by speculative interpretations of atheists" (SB 12.3.32)

    "In the evening twilight during the rainy season, the darkness allowed the glowworms but not the stars to shine forth, just as in the age of Kali the predominance of sinful activities allows atheistic doctrines to overshadow the true knowledge of the Vedas." (SB 10.20.8)

The contamination of Vedic knowledge includes, of course, contamination of the Vedic cosmology. In recent times, since the arrival of the Europeans into India, Vedic cosmology was regarded as wildly fantastic and mythological. Translations of the Puranas by the Europeans meant that Bhu-mandala and Bhu-gola became identified with the assumed Earth globe. The vast areas of Bhu-mandala covering hundreds of millions of miles became falsely identified with places around India. In this way the understanding of Bhu-mandala as a factual reality literally vanished. Bhu-mandala disappeared over-night, and the Brahmans of India fell for the propaganda that Bhumi is an Earth globe in space.

Even within the Gaudiya-Vaisnava parampara, knowledge of Vedic cosmology appears to have practically disappeared. At the very least we can say that cosmology was not a prominent point of discussion, if at all. Certainly none of the prominent acharyas within the Gaudiya-Vaishnava linage such as the Six Goswami's, Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, etc. wrote any separate treatise on the subject. In 1977, Srila Prabhupada had to send some of his disciples out of Mayapur and Vrindavana (the stronghold of Gaudiya-Vaishnavism) to South India in order to locate Vedic astronomers who could help with drawing maps of the cosmos for the TOVP. Even here the search for knowledgeable Brahmans was unsuccessful.

At this point in 1977, any understanding of Bhu-mandala appears to have been buried under centuries of Western propaganda that dismissed Vedic cosmology as mythological. Srila Prabhupada's ultimate intention was to remove that covering of propaganda to reveal what the Vedic cosmos actually looked like. The appearance of Srimad Bhagavatam reveals the truth of the Earth as a vast circular landscape, but who in ISKCON will accept it? Unfortunately our own Brahmans in ISKCON are subject to the same misunderstanding, that Earth is a globe in space, and not part of the physical landscape of Bhu-mandala. The TOVP is meant to broadcast the truth of the Earth to the rest of the world, thus setting in motion a revolution against the cheating/deluded governments and space agencies of the world. Unfortunately, the present management of the TOVP are propagating the same paradigm as the rest of the world's governments and scientists - that the Earth is a small isolated globe in dark space.

How did it happen that the Earth globe concept has come to be accepted as part of ISKCON'S 'Vedic cosmology'? As we have seen from the history provided in section 1.2, Srila Prabhupada's statements about the Earth being a globe, were made prior to any serious research into the fifth canto cosmology which only began to surface at the end of June and beginning of July 1977, with a series of conversations called the Bhu-mandala discussions. Srila Prabhupada did not even have a map of the Bhu-mandala until late June 1977, and was anxious to procure such maps so that a full conceptualization or visualization of the Earth could be made. Thus, it must be borne in mind that until June/July 1977, Srila Prabhupada's was missing a visual conception of the Fifth Canto's cosmology. This explains perhaps why Srila Prabhupada always spoke in the conventional understanding that the Earth is a globe. Even the maps of Bhu-mandala that were eventually provided in 1977 were very vague. It would certainly be very difficult to envision the landscape of Bhu-mandala. It appears that in the absence of any visual model of the Bhu-mandala, Srila Prabhupada simply conflated the two terms Bhu-mandala and Earth globe into one entity. But the Bhu-mandala described in Srimad Bhagavatam is definitely not the same as the assumed globe in space. The result of conflating the names Bhu-mandala and Bhu-gola with the assumed Earth globe is to create the concept of an Earth planet that doesn't actually exist. There is no reality to this concept.

The truth of the matter is contained within Srila Prabhupada's translation of Srimad Bhagavatam, but at the time of Srila Prabhupada's manifest preaching, the description of the Bhu-mandala had not been completely deciphered. When Srila Prabhupada was eventually presented with the maps of Bhu-mandala, the questions about the Earth that arose out of these Bhu-mandala discussions (July 2-5 1977) were to set the scene for a complete revolution in our thinking about the Earth. Although specific questions were never really resolved at that point, the questions raised about the disparities between the Vedic and modern conceptions of the Earth are most easily resolved by understanding the Earth as part of a vast circular plane, not a small isolated globe in space. This is the model that is most consistent with the Srimad Bhagavatam's description.

IS THINKING OFFENSIVE?

For those pushing the globe model, the easiest line of attack is to defame their critics by creating the slander that they misrepresent or oppose Let us now look at the charges that opposing the globe is tantamount to opposing Srila Prabhupada. The issue of accurately representing knowledge coming in disciplic succession is, of course, paramount for the devotees of Krishna. Vedic knowledge is originally spoken by Krishna and is passed down through the ages by the guru/disciplic succession. To introduce speculations into these original and authentic Vedic teachings, or to go against statements of the Acharyas is considered a greatly sinful activity. The Acharyas who are empowered representatives of Krishna take birth in the material world for varying purposes such as awakening devotion and faith in the hearts of materialistic people; preserving, clarifying, or refining the understanding of the existing Vedic knowledge; or sometimes re-establishing the whole understanding of Vedic knowledge if the essential message of the disciplic succession appears to be lost or broken.

Srila Prabhupada spoke often of this disciplic succession, and warned on numerous occasions about trying to surpass the teachings of the previous acharyas by dint of one's own mental speculations:

    "Personal realization does not mean that one should, out of vanity, attempt to show one's own learning by trying to surpass the previous acharya. He must have full confidence in the previous acharya, and at the same time he must realize the subject matter so nicely that he can present the matter for the particular circumstances in a suitable manner. The original purpose of the text must be maintained. No obscure meaning should be screwed out of it, yet it should be presented in an interesting manner for the understanding of the audience. This is called realization.... No learned man should be willing to hear a person who does not represent the original acarya. (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.4.1)

    Srimad Bhagavatam has many tikas, or commentaries, following the parampara system, but Sridhara Svami's is first. The commentaries of all the other acaryas follow his. The parampara system does not allow one to deviate from the commentaries of the previous acaryas. By depending upon the previous acaryas, one can write beautiful commentaries. However, one cannot defy the previous acaryas. The false pride that makes one think that he can write better than the previous acaryas will make one's comments faulty. At the present moment it has become fashionable for everyone to write in his own way, but such writing is never accepted by serious devotees. Because of false pride, every scholar and philosopher wants to exhibit his learning by interpreting the sastras, especially Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, in his own way. This system of commenting in one's own way is fully condemned by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Therefore He says, 'artha-vyasta' likhana sei. Commentaries written according to one's own philosophical way are never accepted; no one will appreciate such commentaries on the revealed scriptures." (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Antya-lila 7.132-34)

So making a simple calculation one could quickly come to the following conclusion: (1) By his extraordinary potency in spreading Krishna consciousness throughout the modern world, Srila Prabhupada proved beyond a doubt that he is a fully bonafide acharya, a pure devotee of Krishna, and an extraordinarily empowered representative of God in the modern age. (2) Srila Prabhupada said the Earth was a globe and the statements of acharyas are to be taken as the truth. (3) Anyone who questions this authoritative statement of an acharya is offensive, heretical, and on the course of spiritual suicide. Such is the understanding of Rajasekhara dasa, a disciple of Srila Prabhupada who wrote the following statement to Mayesvara dasa:

    "You have attempted to contradict Shrila Prabhupada's teachings in a futile attempt to prove that the Earth is flat. All those who promote the 'Flat Earth' doctrine are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Shrila Prabhupada and are thus committing the most serious offense, for which there is no redemption in this lifetime. To contradict the Acharya, simply based on one's own pea-sized brain and completely limited sense perception is suicidal."

In support of such a position, one may take a quotation out of context to support absolutist statements on the infallibility of God's representative such as those contained in the following conversation by Srila Prabhupada:

    "But, anything spoken by God or His son or His representative, that cannot be changed. It is not that Christ said two thousand years ago, "Thou shall not kill," now it can be changed. That is rascaldom. They are doing that. If you do that, then, as it is said here, then it becomes lost. Then there is no meaning. If we take the instruction of God and His representative as temporary, then he is not representative, He is not God. Whatever is spoken by God and His representative, that is eternal. You cannot change by your whims. So that is going on. We..., I do not wish to discuss very much, but that is actually going on. As people they, by votes in the Parliament, they pass any nonsense thing, so they want to do that in the case of Bible also. Then where is the authority of Bible? If Christ says that "Thou shall not kill," and if people, say ten thousand people in a meeting pass resolution, "No, this is wrong," then where is the authority of Bible? Then you become authority."
    (Conversation with Mike Darby, June 30 1976, Wheeling, West Virginia)

In the above conversation, a definitive statement is made by Srila Prabhupada regarding the message of God and His representative: "Whatever is spoken by God and His representative, that is eternal. You cannot change by your whims." Such an absolute statement could be easily applied (or mis-applied) to prevent any further discussion on the subject of the Earth among the followers of Srila Prabhupada. An argument could be presented that (1) Srila Prabhupada said the world was a globe; (2) Srila Prabhupada said the word of God's and God's representative is eternal and cannot be changed by whim, therefore, (3) it is eternally true that the Earth is a globe, and any claim otherwise is heretical.

Unlike the question of the Earth, however, the topic under discussion in the conversation above is very straightforward. Srila Prabhupada is making the point that the Bible says "Thou shall not kill," and he objects that people are changing the meaning so that they can justify killing animals, and thereby substituting the authority of God or His representative with their own whimsical authority. The present issue of the shape and location of the Earth, however, is very different from the issue of killing animals, because the subject of the Earth is within the branch of cosmology, a subject that Srila Prabhupada delegated to his disciples to figure out. How then do we understand the truth of the matter?

Srila Prabhupada explains that the import of the scripture is revealed to one who has implicit faith in the bonafide guru and other authentic sadhus (saints) in the bhakti-yoga tradition:

    " "The real import of the scriptures is revealed to one who has unflinching faith in both the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the spiritual master." Srila Narottama dasa Thakura advises, sadhu-shastra-guru-vakya, hrdaye kariya aikya. The meaning of this instruction is that one must consider the instructions of the sadhu, the revealed scriptures and the spiritual master in order to understand the real purpose of spiritual life. Neither a sadhu (saintly person or Vaisnava) nor a bona fide spiritual master says anything that is beyond the scope of the sanction of the revealed scriptures. Thus the statements of the revealed scriptures correspond to those of the bona fide spiritual master and saintly persons. One must therefore act with reference to these three important sources of understanding." (Caitanya-caritamrta Adi 7.48)

Here Srila Prabhupada states that the characteristic of a bona-fide guru is that he simply repeats the version of the shastra without speculation, concoction, or interpolation on the texts. Indeed, of all three sources of knowledge, the shastra is the basis and the statements of guru and other sadhus must conform to the shastra.

    ""Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-shastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and shastra. The actual center is shastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the shastra, he is not a saintly person. Shastra is the center for all. Unfortunately, at the present moment, people do not refer to the sastras... (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madyam lila 20:352)

    "Sadhu-shastra-guru: one has to test all spiritual matters according to the instructions of saintly persons, scriptures and the spiritual master. The spiritual master is one who follows the instructions of his predecessors, namely the sadhus, or saintly persons. A bona fide spiritual master does not mention anything not mentioned in the authorized scriptures. Ordinary people have to follow the instructions of sadhu, shastra and guru. Those statements made in the shastras and those made by the bona fide sadhu or guru cannot differ from one another." (Srimad Bhagavatam 4:16:1 Purport)

    And sadhu means he gives quotation from shastras, authorized shastra He's sadhu. Sadhu will not give anything manufactured by him. No. He's not sadhu. Sadhu means whatever he'll speak, immediately he'll give evidence from the shastra. Sadhu-shastra-guru." (SB 1.2.7, Vrindavana, October 18, 1972)

This raises the interesting conundrum for followers of Srila Prabhupada. The dilemma is how to understand and present the Earth of Srimad Bhagavatam when seemingly there is a discrepancy between guru and shastra on the the issue of the shape and location of the Earth itself. Srila Prabhupada (the guru) consistently spoke of the Earth as a globe or planet, whilst Srimad Bhagavatam (the shastra) describes the Earth (Bhu-mandala) as a huge circular disc that spans the center of the universe. Bharata-varsha is described as a small part of the Earth plane, not a small planet floating in space as Srila Prabhupada seems to indicate. If shastra is the center, and a bona-fide spiritual master does not say anything not mentioned in shastra, then what are we to make of Srila Prabhupada's usage of the terms Earth globe when no such description actually occurs in the original text? Does Srila Prabhupada's usage of the words 'globe' and 'planet' necessarily imply or confirm that there must be a globe conception in the original text? Or does his usage of the terms go against the original description? Again, the issue is easily resolved if we take Srila Prabhupada's own stated instruction on the matter, namely, that we present the cosmology exactly according to the description of Srimad Bhagavatam. The description of the Earth in Srimad Bhagavatam is that of a massive circular disc, not a globular planet. Srila Prabhupada spoke of the Earth in conventional terms as a globe and a planet because the true nature and feature of Bhu-mandala had yet to manifest from the study of the fifth canto that Srila Prabhupada had delegated to his disciples. Despite speaking of the Earth as a globe and a planet, Srila Prabhupada repeatedly deferred to the authority of Srimad Bhagavatam. In the Bhu-mandala discussions, when questions were presented to Srila Prabhupada about the disparity between the modern conception of the Earth and the Bhu-mandala version of Srimad Bhagavatam, Srila Prabhupada did not present his own idea, but rather referred his disciples back to Srimad Bhagavatam:

    Prabhupada: Take the version of Bhagavatam.
    Bhakti-prema: Everything we conceived, that is wrong?
    Prabhupada: Everything you conceived, that is wrong. Yes. Therefore inconceivable.
    Bhakti-prema: The Lord is inconceivable always and any (indistinct), it is inconceivable.
    Prabhupada: But we have to accept shastra…We are not lying to you.
    Bhakti-prema: ...draw.
    Tamala Krishna: We're drawing according to the Bhagavatam.
    Prabhupada: We're not conceiving it. It is already there.
    Bhakti-prema: Then it is conceived, he says.
    Prabhupada: Conceived not by me.
    Tamala Krishna: But not by us. By the Unlimited.
    Prabhupada: I am imperfect. That is the difference.
    Bhakti-prema: Yes. It is conceivable by you.
    Tamala Krishna: By Krishna.
    Prabhupada: By Shukadeva... Not even Shukadeva Gosvami. He says shushruma.
    Tamala Krishna: "I heard."
    Prabhupada: Janmady asya yatah anvayad itaratash cartheshu abhijnah svarat tene brahma hrda [SB 1.1.1]. Brahma hrda. This is Brahma. Adi-kavaye. The Brahma is very significant. Adi-kavaye. So it is coming that way.
    (Discussion on Bhu-mandala, July 5, 1977, Vrindavana)

On many occasions Srila Prabhupada deferred to the authority of Sukadeva Goswami:

    Prabhupada: And I say they have not gone to moon, that is my point...I am speaking from the very beginning. Yes, I wrote that Easy Journey to Other Planets in 1958, and you'll find this statement in my book. It is all childish.
    Dr. Patel: You have to be yogi for that.
    Prabhupada: I am yogi because I am taking lessons from the yogis...
    Dr. Patel: Yoga dharana.
    Prabhupada: Yes. Yogi, I am taking lesson from Sukadeva Gosvami. I may be fool, but I am taking lesson from the yogi. Yes. So yatra yogesvarah krishnah tatra srir vijayo bhutir [Bg. 18.78]. I don't require to be a yogi. I take shelter of the yogesvara."
    (Morning Walk, December 20 1975, Bombay)

Again:

    "Geologists, botanists and other so-called scientists speculate about other planetary systems, but being unable to estimate the varieties on other planets, they falsely imagine that all planets but this one are vacant, uninhabited, and full of dust. Although they cannot even estimate the varieties existing throughout the universe, they are very proud of their knowledge, and they are accepted as learned by persons of a similar caliber. As described in Srimad Bhagavatam (2.3.19) ...materialistic leaders are praised by dogs, hogs, camels and asses, and they themselves are also big animals. One should not be satisfied with the knowledge imparted by a big animal. Rather, One must take knowledge from a perfect person like Sukadeva Gosvami. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah: our duty is to follow the instructions of the mahajanas. There are twelve mahajanas, and Sukadeva Gosvami is one of them.

    svayambhur naradaḥ shambhuh
     kumarah kapilo manuh
    prahlado janako bhishmo
     balir vaiyasakir vayam
     (Bhāg. 6.3.20)

    Vaiyasaki is Sukadeva Gosvami. Whatever he says we consider to be factual. That is perfect knowledge.

We can see in the few areas of cosmology that Srila Prabhupada picked out for preaching purposes, how he insisted on understanding the nature of the universe by closely following the description provided by Sukadeva Goswami in Srimad Bhagavatam. For example, Srimad Bhagavatam, fifth canto, chapter twenty-two, verse eight (see below), describes that the moon is 800,000 miles above the sun. Srila Prabhupada accepted that calculation, and often used it to disprove the so-called moon-landing. In many lectures and conversations, Srila Prabhupada taught consistently that the moon was higher (vertically) from the Earth than the sun, despite the modern understanding to the contrary:

    "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 saàvatsara 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. (SB 5.22.8)

    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."

Unlike the usage of the very specific measurements indicated in this verse to show the distance of the moon above the sun, Srila Prabhupada's identification of the names Bhu-gola and Bhu-mandala with the assumed Earth globe is not based on any verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam itself (which otherwise clearly describes Bhu-gola as having a diameter of 4 billion miles). Our simple request to all those propagating the idea that Bhu-gola of Srimad Bhagavatam is the same entity as the assumed Earth globe floating in space, is to please provide the verses that describe it as such. Rest assured, no such verses actually exit. Thus, although Srila Prabhupada equated the name Bhu-gola with the assumed Earth globe, we have to exercise some 'deliberation' on the issue (Bg 18.63) and go back to the original description of Bhu-gola to check what it actually says.

The measurement of the Earth at 4 billion miles was actually pointed out to Srila Prabhupada in the Bhu-mandala discussions of 1977, but the relevance seemed to have been missed because no one in the discussion seemed to really get to grips with what a 4 billion mile Earth meant in relation to the only concept of Earth that anyone knew – the globe:

    Prabhupada: No, about this earth globe. Bhakti-Prema: About the earth it describes four billion miles.
    Tamala Krishna: That means Jambudvipa.
    Bhakti-Prema: No, that means complete earth, four billion miles. That is eight lakhs miles, Jambudvipa.
    Tamala Krishna: Four billion is the universe.
    Bhakti-Prema: Bhu-mandala.
    Tamala Krishna: Bhu-mandala. Oh, the Bhagavatam describes Bhu-mandala as earth.
    Prabhupada: Oh.
    Yashodanandana: Bhumi.
    (Showing of Planetary Sketches, June 28 1977, Vrindavana)

In the absence of any model or clear visualization of the Vedic cosmos, Srila Prabhupada simply referred to the Earth in the conventional language as a globe and a planet. Srila Prabhupada, nevertheless, remained open to the idea that the universe may be a very different from what the scientists have assumed:

    "We have to describe according to our book. That's all. If they can understand, let them understand. Otherwise... It is not our business to satisfy the so-called scientists. We are giving the real description. " (Room Conversation, June 18, 1977, Vrindavana)

The present generation of devotees, however, take it for granted that the Earth is a globe in space, and thus unreservedly and uncritically bring that conception into their understanding of the Srimad Bhagavatam's cosmology. Although no Earth globe is described in Srimad Bhagavatam, the modus operandi of the TOVP is to somehow reconcile Srimad Bhagvatam's Bhu-mandala concept with the modern conception of the Earth globe. The result is that the Earth globe concept is simply superimposed onto the original description of Bhu-mandala provided by Sukadeva Goswami. Perhaps the TOVP are hoping no one will raise a stink, or even notice the placement of this foreign concept into the Vedic description of a radically different conception of the Earth. To speak bluntly and frankly, the super-imposition of the modern Earth globe unto the Srimad Bhagavatam's Bhu-mandala concept is pure concoction. The inability, or unwillingness, to follow Sukadeva Goswami's clear description of Bharata-varsha's location on the Earth circle, arises only on account of the preconceived idea that we live on a globe, not because it is described as such. The feeling is, that the description of Earth in Srimad Bhagavatam must be made to conform to the modern description, even when there is not the slightest convergence of the two world-views.

LOYALTY, BLIND FOLLOWING, AND COMMONSENSE

Undoubtedly, this issue will create two types of responses from within the followers of Srila Prabhupada. There will be those who insist that the Earth is a globe simply because Srila Prabhupada constantly referred to it as such; and there will those who will wish to present the Earth in line with the description provided by Sukadeva Goswami, a description that Srila Prabhupada himself insisted that we should follow. It appears like a catch-22. So let us raise another question here: do those who believe that the Earth is a globe simply because Srila Prabhupada referred to it as such, prove themselves to be loyal followers of Srila Prabhupada, or do they prove themselves to be blind followers?

Simply insisting that the Earth is a globe because Srila Prabhupada called it such, neglects his more instruction to follow the description provided by Sukadeva Goswami. A blind follower completely neglects the issues and questions that are raised as a result of following Sukadeva Goswami's description. We have pointed out with reference to the relevant verses that neither Bhu-gola, Bhu-mandala or Bharata-varsha, actually describe Earth as a globe in space, but rather describe Earth as a continual plane that extends to a diameter of 4 billion miles.

So how do we respond to that? Do we assail devotees who reject the globe concept as offenders for 'finding fault' in Srila Prabhupada, or do we exercise some intellectual credibility and integrity by acknowledging how the lack of information on the subject of Bhu-mandala led Srila Prabhupada to speak of the Earth in conventional terms as a globe and planet? For supporters of the globe, the easier option is to ignore the many (and often subtle details of the argument) and simply pinpoint other devotees as offenders who are possessed of hellish mentality; quoting Srila Prabhupada that:

    "A person who is liberated acharya and guru cannot commit any mistake… It is the injunction of the sastras that anyone who sees the Deity in the Temple as made of wood or stone, or considers the acaryas and gurus as ordinary common men, and discriminates Vaisnavas or devotees as belonging to a certain group or caste, are called hellish." (Letter to Janardana, New York 26 April 1968)

The idea here, however, is that the acharya never makes mistakes in the theological conclusions and practice of Krishna bhakti, not that he has to be perfect in all aspects of material knowledge. The idea is explained more clearly in the following conversation where Srila Prabhupada rejects the idea that an acharya must be all knowing and all-perfect like Krishna Himself:

    Prabhupada: Yes. Pure devotee does not aspire anything, simply to be engaged in loving service to the Lord, wherever it may be. It doesn't matter. Jayadvaita: They know everything and they are perfect in everything. But sometimes, from our material viewpoint, we see some discrepancies. Just like we think that … Prabhupada: Because material viewpoint. The viewpoint is wrong; therefore you find discrepancies.
    Jayadvaita: So we should think that we have the defect.
    Prabhupada: Yes. Acarya is explained, bhakti-samsanah: "One who's preaching the cult of devotional service, he's acarya." Then why should you find any discrepancy?
    Jayadvaita: Because we see … For instance, sometimes the acarya may seem to forget something or not to know something, so from our point of view, if someone has forgotten, that is an imperfection.
    Prabhupada: Then you do not understand. Acarya is not God, omniscient. He is servant of God. His business is to preach bhakti cult. That is acarya.
    Jayadvaita: And that is the perfection.
    Prabhupada: That is the perfection. Hare Krishna.
    Jayadvaita: So we have a misunderstanding about what perfection is?
    Prabhupada: Yes. Perfection is here, how he is preaching bhakti cult. That's all.
    Satsvarupa: Prabhupada, in one purport in the Bhagavad-gita, you write that a disciple of a bona fide spiritual master is supposed to know everything.
    Prabhupada: Yes, if he follows the spiritual master.
    Satsvarupa: But how could he know? … What does that mean, "everything?"
    Prabhupada: Everything means whatever his guru knows, he should know, that much. Not like God, everything. Within his limit, that's all. If he tries to understand whatever his guru has said, that much is "everything." Otherwise, "everything" does not mean that we know everything, like God, like Krishna. That is not possible. If he regularly chants and follows the regulative principles, follows the orders of guru, then he knows everything. That's all. Not very much … knows everything, then what is the use of reading books when he knows everything? You cannot expect anyone to know like Krishna, everything.
    Jayadvaita: Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita that one who knows Him knows everything.
    Prabhupada: Yes. Because if he knows that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then he knows everything. That's all. Not that he should know as Krishna. Yasmin vijnate sarvam eva vijnatam… If he accepts Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth, then he knows everything. That is finish.
    Jayadvaita: That knowledge itself is complete.
    Prabhupada: Yes.
    Satsvarupa: If there's some material information that such a person doesn't know, that's not really knowledge anyway.
    Prabhupada: I did not follow.
    Satsvarupa: If he doesn't know how many people live in …
    Jayadvaita: Just like Gaurakisora could not write. So it appeared that he did not, there was something that he did not know, although he knew Krishna.
    Prabhupada: Yes. He knows everything. Otherwise how Bhaktisiddhanta accepted him as guru? He knows Krishna. That's all.
    Naline-kanta: What the spiritual master says, that is also perfect?
    Prabhupada: Yes. Because he does not say anything concocted. Whatever he says, he says from sastra and guru.
    (April 8 1975, Mayapur, Morning Walk)

So here Srila Prabhupada rejects the idea that an acharya is omniscient or all-knowing like Krishna. Srila Prabhupada explains that the perfection of guru is in teaching Krishna bhakti, not that he has to be an expert in all aspects of the material universe. Acharya, Sri Vijayadhvaja Tirtha makes a similar statement in a commentary to the fifth Canto:

    "It may well be questioned that, "Is it not preposterous to suppose that sages who see past, present, and future can make mistakes? How could Parasara have attained divine knowledge by the grace of the Lord say untrue things?" But since it is established in the light of other authorities, the fact that anyone other than the Lord can theoretically have occasional mistaken notions is admissible." (Comment by Sri Vijayadhvaja Tirtha Sb 5.16.5-7)

It may be contended that in the above conversation, Srila Prabhupada says the bonafide guru "does not say anything concocted. Whatever he says, he says from shastra." So when Srila Prabhupada states that the Earth is round like a globe, should we instinctively assume that he must be repeating the standard version of guru and shastra? Again, in the case of the shape and location of the Earth, we have to remember that when the discrepancy between the Vedic and modern conception was pointed out to Srila Prabhupada, he directed his disciples to take the Srimad Bhagavatam's version (shastra). In this case, he did not present his own understanding as authoritative because by his own humble admission he was a layman in Vedic cosmology.

We have to apply doubt as an attributes of intelligence to this question:

    "Doubt, misapprehension, correct apprehension, memory and sleep, as determined by their different functions, are said to be the distinct characteristics of intelligence. (SB 3.26.30)

    Purport: Doubt is one of the important functions of intelligence; blind acceptance of something does not give evidence of intelligence. Therefore the word samshaya is very important; in order to cultivate intelligence, one should be doubtful in the beginning. But doubting is not very favorable when information is received from the proper source. In Bhagavad-gita the Lord says that doubting the words of the authority is the cause of destruction."

Here Srila Prabhupada says that we should exercise our faculty of doubt as a function of intelligence, and again admonishes the mentality of blind following. I believe Srila Prabhupada would appreciate that his disciples and followers are seen to be thinking about the subject, and that may mean questioning things that appear to be inconsistent in his own presentation. We have the example of Pariksit Maharaja who rejected the process of atonement offered by his guru Sukadeva Goswami. Prabhupada writes:

    "When Pariksit Maharaja inquired how a human being could free himself from sinful activities so as not to be forced to go to hellish planetary systems after death, Sukadeva Gosvami answered that the process of counteracting sinful life is atonement. In this way Sukadeva Gosvami tested the intelligence of Maharaja Pariksit, who passed the examination by refusing to accept this process as genuine. Now Parikisit Maharaja is expecting another answer from his spiritual master, Sukadeva Gosvami." (SB 6.1.10 purport)

We see here in this purport how Srila Prabhupada appreciates that Pariksit Maharaja was using his intelligence to question the logic of Sukadeva's presentation and not just docilely accepting everything that Sukadeva Goswami said. I believe Srila Prabhupada would similarly also appreciate some questioning of his belief that the Earth is a globe. Why do I say this? Because Srila Prabhupada's main concern was that the TOVP present the Vedic cosmology according to Srimad Bhagavatam. Srila Prabhupada himself admitted his own limitations in understanding the cosmology of the Fifth Canto and directed his disciples to make the necessary research to understand the thing correctly and present it in a scientific manner.

Doubt as an attribute of intelligence has to be applied to this question of the Earth's shape and location because obviously a disparity exists between the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of Bharata-varsha as a horizontal plane and Srila Prabhupada's description of Earth as a globe. In the above purport, Srila Prabhupada also cautions that we should not doubt information from the proper source or authority. Now the question that rises here is whether doubting Srila Prabhupada's words (the authority in this case) about the shape of the Earth will become a cause of destruction to the disciple or follower. Such is the course that Rajasekhara dasa threatens to anyone rejecting the globe model. Yet we see, from the available conversations that Srila Prabhupada himself was deferring his own understanding to the authority of Srimad Bhagavatam (shastra). Srila Prabhupada thus instructed his own disciples to try and understand Sukadevas Goswami's description. In other words, Srila Prabhupada is not presenting his own understanding or pronouncements on this topic as final. He is requesting his disciples and followers to present the version of Srimad Bhagavatam. That is what we are attempting by presenting the literal description of Sukadeva Goswami's Bhu-mandala, and explaining with examples from empiric observation how the flat-Earth science indeed confirms Sukadeva's description that Earth is situated on a horizontal plane, and is not a ball floating in space as presented by NASA.

Srila Prabhupada was convinced of life in other regions of the universe and this is the essential point for us to take. Srila Prabhupada referred to these other areas as 'Earthly planets,' but according to Srimad Bhagavatam there is only one Earth (Bhu-mandala) and the humans live along the seven dvipas or islands of Bhu-mandala. The dvipas are not planets floating throughout space; they are a series of islands that rest on the one continuous plane of Bhu-mandala. Bharata-varsha itself is part of the dvipa of Jambu (Jambudwipa). It is surrounded by a huge land mass to the north and by an 800,000 mile salt-water ocean. This description has no correlation whatsoever with the idea that Bharata-varsha is part of a small Earth globe in space. We will return to this important subject of Bhu-mandala's islands in another paper as the present TOVP model of the cosmos presenting the dvipas (islands) as circles in space is hopelessly wrong. In any case, the continents of our known Earth are surrounded by these other areas of Bhu-mandala, but the fake pictures of the Earth as a lonely globe in outer space has completely confused and bewildered everyone about the actual situation of Earth, and how its land and oceans continue further along the flat or horizontal plane of Bhu-mandala. The issue is relevant because it reveals the true features of Krishna's creation, and thereby exposes the great deception of the modern asuras.

SHOULD AN EARTH GLOBE BE PART OF THE TOVP EXHIBITION?

This brings us to an interesting dilemma on behalf of Srila Prabhupada: how should the Earth of Srimad Bhagavatam be scientifically presented and explained in the Mayapur Temple of Vedic Planetarium? Should the Earth be represented as a globe simply because Srila Prabhupada spoke of it in those terms, or should it be depicted exactly according to the description of Sukadeva Goswami without addition of any globe conception? One of two things must be the case for the followers of Srila Prabhupada:

(1) The Earth planet is real because Srila Prabhupada referred to it as a globe, and anyone denying it must be against the version of an acharya and the disciplic succession.

(2) The real Earth is the vast circular disc described by Sukadeva Goswami. Since none of the previous acharyas refer to the Earth as a small globe in space, but describe it as one massive continual plane divided into islands and oceans, the understanding of Earth as a circular plane is consistent with the opinion of the disciplic succession. Srila Prabhupada's stated desire is to bring our understanding of the Earth in line with Srimad Bhagavatam and the previous acharyas. Therefore, our Earth should be understood, explained, and depicted, as part of the great circular disc, not as an isolated Earth globe in space. As discussed in the previous part of this paper, for the most part Srila Prabhupada simply assumes the Earth to be a globe without any detailed reference to the description of Bhu-mandala in Srimad Bhagavatam.

Since Srimad Bhagavatam is the final authority, Srila Prabhupada's statements about the Earth 'planet' or Earth 'globe' must be considered in the light of Srimad-bhagavatam's description that the Earth is a massive circular plane, not a planet or a globe. If we follow the perfect description of Sukadeva Goswami, there are absolutely no grounds for thinking that the Earth of Srimad Bhagavatam is a globe, and thus it should not be presented as such.

If the presentation of the Earth within the TOVP is to be consistent with and faithful to Sukadeva Goswami's description of the Bhu-mandala, as well as consistent with Srila Prabhupada's instruction to present the thing exactly according to Srimad Bhagavatam, then there is no question of presenting the Earth as a globe in space. Srila Prabhupada's usage of the words 'Earth planet' and 'Earth globe' is not a license to present a globe into the Bhu-mandala concept when no such entity is actually described in the Srimad Bhagavatam itself. The introduction of this foreign element completely changes the meaning of what is being described by Sukadeva Goswami. The modern conception presents our Earth as an isolated globe in space; Sukadeva Goswami describes that our Earth continues into a greater Earth area that has yet to be discovered. The exhibitions in the TOVP must be consistent with the description of Bharata-varsha's location at the southern side of Jambudwipa. Bharata-varsha is surrounded by vast areas of land and ocean that make up the plane of Bhu-mandala; it is not surrounded by dark lonely space as in the globe conception. This is a revolutionary conception of the Earth that is meant to change the world.

Any advice from guru's or GBC ought to faithfully follow and be consistent with the literal description of the Earth by Sukadeva Goswami, as well as Srila Prabhupada's expressed desire to exactly follow that description. The description of Bharata-varshas location, simply and clearly describes our own whereabouts as a small part of a vast circular shaped Earth, not a globe in space. The obvious inference is that NASA are lying with their computer generated images of a globe-shaped Earth rotating in space. The people of the world need to be informed of this by first class exhibitions that expose the quasi-science and cheating methods of those who perpetrate and uphold this false construct of reality.

To avoid any controversy, some people argue that we should present both versions of the Earth; but Srimad Bhagavatam does not present two versions of the Earth. There is only one Earth described in Srimad Bhagavatam and the location of Bharata-varsha upon it is quite clear.

The idea introduced by Sadaputa dasa that Srimad Bhagavatam is describing a higher dimensional Earth seen by demigods, and a globe Earth experienced by humans is not described anywhere in the Bhagavatam itself, nor in the commentaries by the acharyas, nor by Srila Prabhupada himself. On the contrary, verses from Srimad Bhagavatam explicitly states that whatever is being described is for the understanding and perception of the fallen human beings of Kali-yuga:

    "This Bhagavata Purana is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krishna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this Purana. (SB 1.3.43)

    On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of transcendental words directed toward bringing about a revolution in the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such transcendental literatures, even though imperfectly composed, are heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest." (SB 1.5.11)

From the above verses, it is clear that whatever being described in Srimad Bhagavatm is for the understanding of the average Kali-yuga citizen. There is nothing hidden in Srimad Bhagavatam. Rather, Srimad Bhagavatam reveals the truth of all hidden things. The real feature of the Earth is a case in point. Srimad Bhagavatam reveals the true nature of Earth that was hidden by centuries of propaganda on behalf of the globe concept. We shall discuss in a separate paper this false idea that Bhu-mandala is in another dimension as it is one of the major arguments presented by the TOVP in the hope of explaining why Bhu-mandala does not physically appear in the images of the Earth globe provided by NASA. The reason why Bhu-mandala does not appear in the photos of the Earth globe provided by NASA, is because the so-called photos of the Earth globe surrounded by dark empty space are a fabrication; not because Bhu-mandala is in another dimension and therefore invisible to our sense perception. Bhu-mandala is made of the earth element; it is gross matter, not subtle. The physical landscape of our own Earth area continues into the physical landscape of the greater Bhu-mandala, and would thus be visible if we had access to it. Certainly Sukadeva Goswami does not present any such ridiculous conception that the Earth manifests as a round ball in space, and simultaneously as a flat plane in another dimension. Nor do the acharyas mention any such scenario. The description of the Bhu-mandala plane and Bharata-varshas shape and location upon it is straightforward and unambiguous and we should take it as it is.

So what to do? There is no question about Srila Prabhupada's own position, which is to present the version of Srimad Bhagavatam. The real question is whether the leadership of ISKCON are going to have the courage to present Srimad Bhagavatam as it is, which would mean accepting that the Earth continues on a plane into the greater Earth area, and basically having to change the opinion of the rest of the world about the nature, shape and location the Earth. Why fear this proposal to inform the people of the world, that according to Srimad Bhagavatam, the Earth is not a globe? Is one afraid that the Srimad Bhagvatam's description of the Earth is wrong, and one will look like a fool for arguing against the globe? The fear comes from a lack of faith in Srimad Bhagvatam itself, and from a lack of knowledge regarding the true feature of the Earth. If one believes in Srimad Bhagavatam, what is there to fear? Srimad Bhagavatam is intended to reveal the truth of who we are, our place in the universe, and the ultimate destination of the soul. Is that what we are afraid of - the truth?

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The shape and location of the Earth is an issue not just for the TOVP; it is an issue that affects us all. What if NASA was lying to you, and the Earth is not a globe floating in space after all? Would that not change your perception of the world? Would that not shake your faith in the government, education systems, and scientific institutions that have been perpetrating this idea to you and your society for the last few hundred years? Would it not oblige you to think deeper into what is real and what is illusion? The Earth of Srimad Bhagavatam changes everything. It even forces one to re-think Srila Prabhupada's own statements on the subject which, of course, is challenging; but as we have presented in earlier papers, Srila Prabhupada did not take offense when these kinds of questions and inquiries about the Earth were raised by Tamala Krishna Goswami. On the contrary, Srila Prabhupada instructed his disciples on numerous occasions to study the fifth Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam for the purpose of discovering and presenting what it is actually describing.

Is the globe real? Are the images of the Earth as a globe in space authentic? Are you being deceived? Distinguishing reality from illusion means to see through the eyes of shastra in order to ascertain what is true from the false. Is Srimad Bhagavatam's version of the Earth true? Or does NASA present the true version? Does it matter? Yes, certainly it matters. If people are involved in deceiving you about the real nature of the Earth, what lie and falsehood will they not tell? Upon investigation it will be discovered that the presentation of the Earth as a globe is all part of the same maya that teaches the Earth came from a big bang, and that all life including humans evolved by a process of chemical evolution. In this way, people are indoctrinated into a materialistic conception of life and obliged to work as soulless slaves on the prison planet. You have no soul, and thus do not need time for self-realization. You must simply hard work for brute survival. We (bankers, corporations, politicians, military, etc., are the masters of planet Earth that rotates without purpose in dark lifeless godless space. There is no God to save you. Submit to us! Obey us! The Srimad Bhagvatam presents knowledge of the satyam param or absolute truth to free the conditioned souls from this physical and spiritual enslavement.

Knowledge of our place on the beautifully created Earth circle, with its fantastic symmetrical and geometrical layout, featuring golden mountain Meru in the center, upon which the demigod representatives of the Lord control all movements of the living entities, spells the end of the asuras illusions about the Earth, and their control over it (at least for those who will take it).

The Srimad Bhagavatam's description of our place on the Bhu-mandala is a challenge that strikes to the core of our being. Now with so much science (both spiritual and empirical) to oppose the globe conception, the idea of an Earth plane (as opposed to an Earth globe), is no longer something that can be simply laughed away. It is a very real challenge to our entire world-view.

In a remote countryside with no electric light, the darkness of night covers the whole landscape in a thick black impenetrable darkness. One cannot even see one's own hand in front of one's face, what to speak of the external landscape. But as the dawn breaks and the sun begins to rise, things slowly start to become visible and one gradually begins to perceive features of the landscape, In full daylight one can perceive the complete landscape with all its features. A similar situation has been unfolding since the 1970's when Srila Prabhupada announced a plan to build a Vedic Planetarium. In the beginning, Srila Prabhupada's entourage were completely in the dark as to what the Vedic cosmos looked like, and particularly the description of the Earth was incomprehensible. But as the sunlight of Vedic knowledge rises in the world, dissipating darkness, ignorance, untruths, illusions and deceptions, the true feature of the Earth circle and our place upon it is becoming clear. In the light of this, and considering the present context (when information about the Vedic cosmology is still coming to light, and many questions remained unanswered) a GBC yes vote for an Earth globe would be a vote made in darkness/ignorance of the nature of Bhu-mandala.

Some people can immediately grasp that the description of Bharata-varsha's place on the Bhu-mandala means that the Earth continues on a plane into the greater Earth area; but for others who are attached to a globe concept of life, it is not easy to relinquish such a huge misconception. It may even take a few generations before the paradigm shifts from the globe concept of Earth to the Bhu-mandala concept. At the very least, the discussion should be left open for thoughtful members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness to make up their own minds on the subject, and to freely voice their objections to the globe construct of reality. The attempt to establish that the Earth is a globe by votes, decrees, and resolutions, and to shut down any opposing idea is a farce worthy of Monty Python's Inquisition, not the spiritual heirs of Srila Prabhupada.

Obviously the idea that the Earth continues into other lands on a continual Earth plane is a revolutionary concept that would bring the society into dispute with the belief system of the rest of the world. A question arises: is this an idea that the leadership of ISKCON will want to promote, or dare to promote, even if it is true? The answer to that depends upon to what degree the leadership of ISKCON are invested in either continuing or shattering the illusions of the present world paradigm?

In the creation of the Lord there are many wonderful things we can see with our own eyes every day and night, but we are unable to reach them equipped by modern materialistic science. We should not, therefore, depend on the fragmentary authority of materialistic science for knowing things beyond the range of scientific purview. For a common man, both modern science and Vedic wisdom are simply to be accepted because none of the statements either of modern science or of Vedic literature can be verified by him. The alternative for a common man is to believe either of them or both of them. The Vedic way of understanding, however, is more authentic because it has been accepted by the acaryas, who are not only faithful and learned men, but are also liberated souls without any of the flaws of conditioned souls. The modern scientists, however, are conditioned souls liable to so many errors and mistakes; therefore the safe side is to accept the authentic version of Vedic literatures, like Srimad Bhagavatam, which is accepted unanimously by the great acaryas. (SB 2.2.26)


Bhaktivedanta Book Trust


Homepage


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

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

Copyright 2005, 2017, HareKrsna.com. All rights reserved.