"Does Hinduism Subscribe to the Flat-earth?"
BY: MAYESVARA DASA
Aug 22, 2020 — IRELAND (SUN) — A Reply to the Praveen Mohan Channel
PART FIVE - Conclusion
In this final section of A Reply to the Praveen Mohan Channel, we shall look briefly at Praveen Mohan's presentation of the concave-Earth theory, then we shall discuss whether there is 'one' or 'many' concepts of the Earth in Hinduism, and finally we shall conclude with Praveen Mohan's welcome appeal for an open and uncensored discussion on the flat-Earth issue. Links to the previous four parts of this paper can be found here.
Perhaps to fill up some space on the video, Praveen Mohan throws in the 'concave-Earth' theory as one of four models of the Earth supposedly found in ancient India. Here the speculation begins in earnest as Praveen Mohan proceeds to show us the evidence for the concave-Earth. The image below shows an ancient sculpture of Varaha lifting the Earth:
Praveen Mohan states:
"In this theory some ancient Indians believed the Earth looked like a hollow bowl. It is very interesting that the Earth is visualized as a concave structure". Praveen Mohan then shows a painting of Varaha lifting the Earth as supporting evidence for the concave-Earth theory."
Praveen does not specify what he means by 'concave-Earth' except to say that these images of the Earth look like 'a hollow bowl'. However, neither of the above images support the idea that ancient Indians believed the Earth was a concave shape or like a hollow bowl. Both images clearly depict the Vedic flat Earth (the surface on both depictions is completely level). The rounded bottom of the Earth is merely to suggest that the Earth has depth wherein the subterranean realms are located.
At the start of his description of the Earth Sukadeva Goswami informs us that he will specifically describe the names and shape (nama-rupa) of the Earth (SB 5.16.4). The Sanskrit verses narrated by Sukadeva Goswami do not use the word 'concave' or 'bowl-shape' in relation to the Earth. When speaking of the shape (rupa) of the Earth, Sukadeva Goswami uses words which easily translate as circular, e.g., Bhu-mandala, Bhu-valaya, etc. We have discussed these various names in part 3 of this paper.
The Puranas describe that the depths of the great Earth circle (Bhu-mandala) are hundreds of thousands of miles deep and contain inner civilizations wherein the asuras and nagas live. This explains the idea of an inner Earth, though the word 'concave' would not be an appropriate term to describe it. For our previous article on underground civilizations, see here.
As further 'evidence' for the concave Earth theory Praveen Mohan shows a goblin-like being holding a bowl and asserts that it is a concave-Earth:
This is pure speculation on Praveen Mohan's point. The statue is not holding a form that matches any description of the Vedic Earth. The Vedic Earth is circular, not square, and it is held on the head of Ananta-sesha—a thousand headed serpent; it is not held in the arms of a goblin-like creature. Praveen Mohan does not provide the source of the image that we can ascertain the actual identity of the figure in question, but the object in the figurine's hands looks like a dish or container of some kind, perhaps depicting some type of offering. There are no grounds here for accepting the image as a proof that ancient Indians believed in a concave-Earth theory. Certainly ancient Indians believed in the underground worlds (Patala), but that is a different idea from a Concave Earth.
ARE THERE MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE VEDIC EARTH, OR JUST MANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL FLAT-EARTH CONCEPTION?
Although Praveen Mohan did not mention them, there are some who claim that early Indian astronomers such as Aryabhata, Bhaskara, etc., had argued for a spherical shaped Earth. The difficulty here is in understanding the original intention of these early astronomers in a manner which is free from the modern globe bias that often comes along with the translation and interpretation of the above authors' work. The very idea that they were describing a spherical Earth is problematic as it is uncertain what these astronomers actually meant in context of the wider Puranic world-view.
However, even accepting for the moment that some early astronomers did conceive of a spherical shaped Earth, one will not find references in the Puranas that support such an idea. Due to a lack of support from the Puranic world-view, the idea of a spherical Earth was always contentious, it never met with wide-spread acceptance, and the vast majority of people continued to believe that the Earth is as described in the Puranas—a stationary circular flat plane that is held by Ananta-sesha. Indeed, as documented in Sumathi Ramaswamy's book called Terrestrial Lessons: The Conquest of the World as Globe, the British colonialists in India were engaged in a full-scale ideological war on the Puranic world-view right up until the end of the 19th century. It was largely the British colonialists who pushed the idea that the Surya-siddhanta along with various ancient astronomers were advocates of the spherical Earth theory. By translating, interpreting, and presenting the texts in a particular way, the British were able to exploit the ambiguities in the presentation in order to create contention among the brahmanas, and ultimately to undermine the Puranic world-view. We shall review Sumathi Ramawamy's very important historical book in a forthcoming series of papers for the Sampradaya Sun, and also show how the British introduction of the seemingly innocuous globe into Indian society contributed to the rapid advance of the world's greatest spiritual nation into the modern milieu of secular science, materialism, atheism, and impersonalism.
If by ancient Indian culture we mean the Vedic culture—which was certainly the dominant ideology in ancient India, and which remains strong even in the modern era—then there were not four conceptions of Earth, but only one, namely the belief that the Earth (Bhu-mandala) is a gigantic circular plane held by Ananta-sesha. The Bhu-mandala is unquestionably a flat Earth concept. We have seen that the other three ideas presented by Praveen Mohan, namely a 'globe-Earth', an 'oblate spheroid-Earth' and a 'concave-Earth' were simply Praveen Mohan's own superimposition of these modern ideas onto several artefacts from ancient India which are depicting an entirely different scenario. Whatever alternate ideas about the Earth that did manage to surface in ancient India such as those found in the works of Aryabhata and other astronomers, were never actually part of the mainstream Puranic understanding of the Earth as a flat circular plane which existed right up until the 19th century when the British finally subverted the Vedic understanding of the Earth with the modern Western understanding. The image below of Varaha lifting the flat circular Earth is typical of traditional depictions of the Vedic Earth that lasted up until the end of the 19th century.
Please bear in mind that depictions of the Earth such as the one in the above image are simplified versions of the Bhu-mandala that otherwise require very technical maps to illustrate. The scene below shows a brahmana teaching about the Bhu-mandala with reference to traditional maps.
The exhibition of the Bhu-mandala at the Temple of Vedic Planetarium will be the first ever attempt to create a full scale three dimensional model of the Vedic Earth as it is described in the Puranas.
Praveen Mohan is not entirely mistaken in his idea that artifacts from ancient India appear to show different conceptions of the Earth. One may find curious historical artifacts such as the so-called Bhu-gola shown below which purports to show the Earth as a globe; however, upon the simplest investigation one will find such creations are either absurd attempts to merge the Puranic flat-Earth model onto the globe-shaped Earth, or else obvious examples of the foreign Earth-globe ideology that had been introduced into the original culture. In either case they do not represent the Earth in 'Vedic cosmology' as presented by Srila Vysadeva to his disciples. In future papers we can continue to look at several artifacts that are mistakenly presented as evidence for a spherical Earth in Vedic cosmology.
SRIMAD BHAGAVATAM IS THE HIGHEST VEDIC AUTHORITY REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE EARTH
The Vedic conception of the Earth is 'one', not 'four'. The description of the Earth is found in the cosmological section of all 18 major Puranas, and is repeated verbatim with more or less detail according to the particular Purana. Why are the Puranas regarded as the authority on the question of the Earth? Regarding what ancient Indians believed, we can say for sure that they believed whatever was stated in the Vedas. The four Vedas were regarded in ancient India as the ultimate source of all knowledge having come directly from the breathing of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, thus not of human origin. In the Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad is said, asya mahato bhutasya nisvasitam etad yad rig-vedo yajur-vedah samavedo 'tharvangirasah. "The four Vedas-namely the Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, and Atharva Veda—are all emanations from the breathing of the great Personality of Godhead." (Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad, 4.5.11) .
The Srimad Bhagavatam states that the Puranas are to be regarded as the fifth Veda (itihasa-puranam ca pancamo veda ucyate).
"The four divisions of the original sources of knowledge [the Vedas] were made separately. But the historical facts and authentic stories mentioned in the Puranas are called the fifth Veda". (SB 1.4.20)
Since the Puranas are regarded as the fifth Veda, they are no less authoritative than the original four Vedas; indeed Srimad Bhagavatam is declared by Srila Vyasadeva to be the essence of all Vedic Knowledge, and the literary incarnation of Godhead:
"This Srimad-Bhagavatam is the literary incarnation of God, and it is compiled by Srila Vyasadeva, the incarnation of God. It is meant for the ultimate good of all people, and it is all-successful, all-blissful and all-perfect.
"Sri Vyasadeva delivered it to his son, who is the most respected among the self-realized, after extracting the cream of all Vedic literatures and histories of the universe". (SB 1.3.40-41)
Here it says sarva-vedetihasanam saram saram samuddhritam, "Srimad Bhagavatam is the essence of all the Vedas".
sarva—all; veda—Vedic literatures (books of knowledge); itihasanam—of all the histories; saram—cream; saram—cream; samuddhritam—taken out.
The idea that Srimad Bhagavatam is the essence of all Vedic literature is a theme that is repeated throughout Srimad Bhagavatam, see, for example: SB 3.5.15, SB 12.13.11, SB 12.13.15. In the Tattva Sandarbha, Srila Jiva Goswami has provided all the evidence to establish the Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam) as the highest Vedic authority, and thus it is to that text that we all must turn in order to understand the original conception of the Vedic Earth.
More than the original four Vedas, the Puranas fill in all the details regarding creation, and the history of the universe. Indeed the Puranas and other histories like Mahabharata and Ramayana form huge volumes of literature, and a wealth of detail regarding the variety of life in various locations throughout the universe. The idea that the Vedas present different ideas regarding the shape and size of the Earth is simply due to a lack of understanding of the Bhu-mandala as it is described in the Puranas, and particularly the description of the location of our own small area of the Earth in (Bharata-varsha) as it is situated on the larger Earth plane (namely in the southern region of Jambudvipa). To answer the question raised by Praveen Mohan, "Does Hinduism subscribe to the flat-Earth theory?" we can say for certainty that if modern Hindus believe the Earth is a globe floating in space, it is only because they are not aware of, or simply do not follow the original Puranic teachings which describe the Earth and our situation in the universe in a radically different way.
With regards to the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, and other features of the physical universe, modern Hindus have been taught to believe the presentation of secular authorities like NASA, rather than Vedic authorities like Srila Vyasadeva. Thus we see that whilst many modern Hindus retain a pious devotion to the forms of Sri-Krishna such as Varaha and Ananta-sesha, and though they may retain a faith in the supernatural existence of devas such as Surya and Chandra, the actual understanding of what is 'real' about the physical side of the universe (i.e. the shape and size of the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon, along with their relative distance and situation to one another) is based for the most part upon faith in the world-view according to modern so-called 'science', not the world according to Srila Vyasadeva. Hindus have for all practical purposes left the Vedic cosmological paradigm and are now living in a mental construct of what is 'real' based on a presentation that is largely the creation of non-Vedic secular forces with a specific atheistic world-view. Srila Prabhupada wished to reverse this situation by constructing a Temple of Vedic Planetarium which would act as a direct challenge to the atheistic understanding of life and the universe. Unfortunately those currently in charge of constructing the Temple of Vedic Planetarium are for the most part completely under the spell of the Earth globe illusion/deception, and have yet to transition to the transcendental world-view that the Earth is a gigantic circular plane, not a small globe floating in space.
CREATING A FALSE EPISTEMOLOGY IN ORDER TO CONCOCT A FALSE SENSE OF THE VEDIC EARTH
In a Youtube video called, Examining the Vedic Universe's Vertical Axis, Radha-Mohan dasa from ISKCON's Bhaktivedanta Manor Temple cites a verse from the Sri Caitanya-caritamrita as a basis for constructing a false methodology that allows for contradictory presentations of the Vedic Earth. The verse reads:
"Srimad-Bhagavatam is as great as Krishna, the Supreme Lord and shelter of everything. In each and every verse of Srimad-Bhagavatam and in each and every syllable, there are various meanings." (Sri Caitanya-caritamrita, Madhya-lila, 24.318)
Radha-Mohan dasa utilizes the above expressed idea as an epistemological tool for arguing that the Vedic Earth can be perceived as both a circular disc and a spherical globe. The Srimad Bhagavatam and other Puranas, however, describe the Earth in a specific and objective manner presenting its size, shape, and characteristics in an unambiguous way. The idea that each verse in Srimad Bhagavatam contains 'various meanings' does not mean that the Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the colossal Earth circle held by Ananta-sesha can metamorphose at one's whim into a small globe-shaped planet that floats in space. This is not a case of one perceiving 'various meanings' in the Srimad Bhagavatam, it is a case of one completely deviating from the Srimad Bhagavatam's original meaning.
To help illustrate the mistake in Radha-Mohan dasa's reasoning, let us consider the example of a motor car which is a particular mode of conveyance, and distinct from other modes of transport such as roller skates, skateboards, bicycles, buses, trains, ships, submarines, hot-air balloons, aeroplanes, etc. The car is distinct from the other modes of transport due to its having a different size, shape, mechanism, function, etc. Though a car may be perceived differently due to the various perspectives of those who have a relation with it, and though 'various meanings' can be ascribed to the car, the car nonetheless remains in a specific category with objective and measurable statistics, features, purpose, etc. If a person crashes their car into a truck, the insurance company wants to know the specific details of both the car and the truck; one cannot speculate that the car is something other than what it is. The car in question is a particular type of vehicle, and not something else.
For the owner of a motorcar, the car is first and foremost a means of conveyance, although it may also function as a source of pleasure, pride, status, etc. For the owner's dog (who also gets to travel in the car), there is no egoistic involvement in the machine, except perhaps in the sense that he guards the car from thieves. To the mechanic, the same car is mostly perceived in terms of the engine or electronics. To the government and insurance companies, the car is a source of revenue. To the environmentalist the car is regarded as a source of pollution. The same beautiful car is eventually nothing but scrap to the scrap merchant. Despite the different perspectives and meanings ascribed to the car, the car remains a particular model of car with particular statistics, name, model, size, colour, engine size, etc. The name (nama) shape (rupa) size (mana) and characteristics (laksana) of the car enable us to distinguish the car from a skateboard, a bicycle, a bus, a train, an aeroplane, a submarine etc. We cannot entertain the idea that because people see things from different perspectives that a person who sees the car as a skateboard or a bicycle is correct. The car is not a skateboard or a bicycle, and the person who believes that the car is a skateboard or a bicycle is simply in error—not that his or her opinion is valid.
The Earth is described in the Puranas as having a particular shape, size, and situation; this means that the rishis who reveal the Earth present an objective description of the Earth to which a commentator must conform—it is not that one can present an idea of the 'Vedic Earth' which contradicts the original description found in the Puranas. As with the car which is a particular type of conveyance in which people travel, and thus distinct from skateboards, bicycles, buses and trains, etc., so the Vedic Earth is described as a particular type of landscape upon which people live, and thus distinct from other conceptions of the Earth such as the modern Earth-globe conception. The idea, for example, that Bharata-varsha is an independent globe-shaped planet floating in space is in direct contradiction to the Puranic description that Bharata-varsha is a small part of the larger landscape of Jambudvipa. Thus anyone attempting to turn the idea of Bharata-varsha into the modern globe which floats in space is not presenting a consistent, reasonable, or acceptable idea, despite the contortions of logic that attempt to make it so. Though certain members of ISKCON may refer to purports such as SB 2.7.10 wherein Srila Prabhupada himself refers to Bharata-varsha as 'this planet Earth', the procedure completely ignores Srila Prabhupada's explicit instruction to construct the exhibitions at the Temple of Vedic Planetarium 'exactly to the description of Fifth Canto' (Room Conversation, May 8, 1977, Hrishikesh). The Srimad Bhagavatam's description of Bharata-varsha's location at the southern side of Jambudvipa (See SB 5.16.9) clearly indicates that Bharata-varsha is part of a larger Earth plane, and thus rules out any possibility that it is an independent planet floating in space. Srila Prabhupada's manner of referring to the Vedic Earth as an 'Earth globe' or as the 'Planet Earth' was simply utilizing the conventional language of the day. The Srimad Bhagavatam describes 'the Earth' in a radically different way. We have discussed Srila Prabhupada's presentation of the Vedic Earth in a paper called, Why Did Srila Prabhupada Call the Earth a Globe?.
The ability to correctly apprehend the Puranic description of the Earth depends on one's level of knowledge, devotion, gunas (qualities of nature), etc. which can create correct apprehension in some, and delusion in others. We have discussed the issue of perception in a previous paper called Perception of the Earth According to the Three Modes of Nature.
The difference in opinion regarding the shape and size and situation of the Vedic Earth is not because it actually appears in different forms, but simply because those writing on the subject may neither understand, or accept, or choose to work consistently with the description of the Earth as it is given by Srila Vyasadeva in the Puranas.
There are members of ISKCON, for example, who cite from an astrological text called Surya-siddhanta in order to present an idea that the Bhu-gola mentioned therein is a description of the Earth-globe found in modern Western cosmology. But how can that be acceptable when the Bhu-gola is measured in Srimad Bhagavatam as having a diameter of 500 million yojanas and as being held by Ananta-sesha (not floating independently in space). Indeed, it was the very lack of consistency to shastra that led to the historical contention between the Puranic and Siddhantic world-views. We shall explore this contention at a later date. Again, others quote from Indian astronomers like Aryabhata or Bhaskara, but without considering that neither of these astronomers ever cite references from Srila Vyasadeva in order to confirm their ideas regarding the size and situation of the various planets.
The Vedas do not present contradictory ideas of reality. For those who claim to follow Vedic culture, if something is shown to be in contradiction to the version of reality presented by Srila Vyasadeva then that idea is to be discarded as 'maya' (illusion). It is not that one claiming to be a Hindu or a follower of sanatana dharma can concoct ideas that are contradictory to scripture, and then try to pass it off as one of many 'various meanings' that can be taken from the verses of Srimad Bhagavatam. The point is explained by Srila Prabhupada during a philosophical discussion on the ideas of philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:
Prabhupada: My point is that he says that there are two types of truth. No. There cannot be two types of truth. That is my protest. I say there is only one truth. When you think two types of truth, then you are mistaken. Then same thing: when you think that two plus two equals five, then you are mistaken. Two plus two is always four. That is truth. Similarly, snow is white always. That is truth. When you think it is red, it is untruth. But you cannot say it is another type of truth. Mistake cannot be accepted as another type of truth. Mistake is mistake...This is reason, that truth is one. When we find another competitor truth, that is maya. Truth cannot be two.
Syamasundara: This is what he says, that these innate truths are governed by the principle of contradiction. That is, the opposite of the truth is impossible to conceive. If something is true, the opposite of that truth is impossible to conceive.
Prabhupada: The opposite is maya. Opposite to truth is maya.
(Philosophical Discussions with Syamasundara dasa on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz)
In another discussion with a reporter Srila Prabhupada reiterated the same point:
"Vedic understanding means there is no different Vedic version...Our basic knowledge is on the Vedic principle...Just like we are explaining now, veda-vihito dharmah. We have to understand everything from the Vedas, from this Vedic knowledge. So anything which does not speak in terms of the Vedic formula, we do not accept such knowledge as valid." (Conversation with Reporter, June 4 1976, Los Angeles)
Certain persons within ISKCON are presenting various arguments that the modern idea of Earth being a globe-shaped planet floating in space is compatible with the Puranic description that the Earth is a circular plane held by Ananta-sesha. This is not a case of deriving 'various meanings' from the Srimad Bhagavatam, it is a case of having made a mistake in comprehending what the Srimad Bhagavatam is actually describing; it is also a case of superimposing the modern Earth globe idea onto Srimad Bhagavatam's description of the Earth which is actually describing a completely different version of reality. It is not that Srimad Bhagavatam has to conform to the world-view of modern science, rather it is the world-view of modern science that has to be reconsidered in the light of Srimad Bhagavatam. Does acceptance of the Puranic world-view mean the rejection of 'science' in favour of a wholly 'religious' world-view? No! It means employing the actual scientific method to refute the false claims to 'science' which support the existing Earth globe ideology.
Presenting quotations from Surya Siddhanta or Aryabatta as evidence that ancient Indians believed in a globe-shaped Earth is not a way to reconcile the Vedic world-view with modern science, rather it is a complete displacement of the Vedic world-view with an entirely different conception of reality. As Srila Prabhupada states in the above discussions, 'Vedic understanding means there is no different Vedic version', and 'there cannot be two types of truths'. Since Srila Vyasadeva and his disciples present the teaching that Bharata-varsha is a small part of the larger plane of Jambudvipa, it cannot be the case that Bharata-varsha is an independent Earth globe planet floating in dark space. Such an idea would be a 'different version' from that presented by Srila Vyasadeva. If Srila Vyasadeva had wanted us to understand that Bharata-varsha is a globe–shaped planet flying around in space, he would have plainly stated it—not left it to some astronomer to figure out the mystery. If one accepts Srila Vyasadevas description of the Earth as the truth, then presenting anything contrary to that is a case of being in maya. It is a case of being opposite to the truth. One is not, of course, obliged to accept Srila Vyasadeva as their authority, but those who do claim to be followers of Vedic culture cannot cite dubious translations and interpolations of texts such as Surya-Siddhanta, or from Indian astronomers such as Aryabhatta or Bhaskara in order to present a version of reality that is in complete contradiction to that described in Srimad Bhagavatam. One either accepts the version of Srimad Bhagavatam or goes against Srimad Bhagavatam by accepting the version of something contrary.
The Sanskrit word astikya refers to those who believe in God and the afterlife, and who have faith in scripture. Those Indians who have no regard for Vedic authority are outside the category of 'Hinduism', and thus their opinions cannot be considered relevant in the answer to the initial question raised by Praveen Mohan, do Hindus subscribe to the flat-Earth theory? Those who do not accept the Vedas as authoritative are regarded by followers of Vedic culture as nastikas or atheists. Srila Prabhupada defines the term as follows:
"Anyone who doesn't care for Vedas, they are technically called as atheist. Veda na maniya bauddha haila nastika. Nastika means atheist." (Lecture on Bhagavad-gita as it is, 4.11, Bombay, March 31, 1974)
Some Indians may take pride in the notion that they have progressed from religion to atheism, but Sri-Krishna warns on numerous occasions about the danger of disgrading shastra:
"He who discards scriptural injunctions (shastra-vidhim utsrjya) and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination". (Bg 16.23)
"But those who, out of envy (asuya), disregard these teachings and do not follow them regularly are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and ruined in their endeavors for perfection." (Bg 3.32)
"But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next." (Bg 4.40)
Modern Hindus should be aware that arguments for a spherical Earth have no backing in the original Vedas or the Puranas. As we have seen in previous papers, the Puranas describe the Earth in a radically different way. Though certain ancient Indian astronomers may have speculated that the Earth is spherical, the idea of a globe-shaped Earth was never part of mainstream Indian culture which was a deeply religious culture, and which faithfully accepted the description of the Earth as it is given in the revealed scripture.
SCIENCE PROVES A FLAT EARTH
There is a tendency to presume that ancient Indian astronomers who supposedly argued for a spherical Earth were 'correct' simply because that idea happens to align with the modern 'scientific' idea of a spherical Earth. However, there were also thinkers in ancient India such as Carvaka who advocated atheism, but it doesn't make atheism correct simply because some ancient Indians happened to advocate it. Likewise, the notion that some ancient Indian astronomers may have presented the idea of a spherical Earth doesn't make their idea correct. Indeed, it is the so-called science supporting the globe idea which is now being called into question. Both from the point of view of shastra, and from the point of empirical observation, the science supporting the globe ideology can be shown to be not only incorrect, but part of a grand illusion that covers the truth of God's creation. The only reason why one never gets to hear a critique of the science supporting the globe idea is because such alternative ideas are deliberately omitted from the school curriculum, and effectively banned or shadow banned from all social media platforms (see section on censorship below).
Should modern Hindus wish to take pride in the idea that a spherical Earth concept is found in the works of ancient Indian astronomers such as Aryabhata etc, it needs only to be pointed out that the empiric method can also be shown to disprove all of the so-called science upon which the Earth globe stands. The Suez canal, for example, is 120 miles long and was built without requiring any gates or locks. The reason why no locks are required is because the land is totally flat for 120 miles.
According to the Pythagorean Theorem if the Earth has a circumference of 25,000 miles then there will be a curvature drop of 8 inches per square mile. The calculation is squared for each successive mile because on a round globe each mile is curving away from the other, not just forming a downward slope (obviously the further one travels on a circle, the more one is going to dip). Thus, after 2 miles the curvature drop would be 32 inches; after 3 miles 72 inches; 4 miles 128 inches; 5 miles 200 inches; and so on.
If the Earth was a curved shape like a globe, then over a length of 120 miles (the length of the Suez Canal) there would be a curvature drop of 9,600 feet from one side of the canal to the other. But the Suez Canal runs for 120 miles without any curvature at all. It's completely horizontal from one end to the other. Aside from changing tide levels, the mean sea level on the Mediterranean side is at the same level as that on the Red Sea side. So if the canal is flat, and both the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea are level with it, where is the curvature? If there was any convexity to the Earth the canal would be totally dry, if there was any concavity to the shape of Earth it would be flooded over, yet none of these two events ever occur and the canal is always level, never dries up and it never floods over. Every aspect of the globe ideology can be disproved using the empiric method. One has to only take the time to research the alternative scientific arguments. The description of the gigantic flat circular Earth by Srila Vyasadeva is not a reason for losing faith in the Puranas, it is rather a reason for losing faith in anything that goes against the Vedic world-view, and especially the world-view of mainstream science which is decidedly non-Vedic, inherently atheistic, and subject to the four defects of conditioned existence (1) to be in illusion (2) to have imperfect sense perception (3) to make mistakes (4) to cheat and deceive others.
Instead of trying to promote the secular world-view that ancient Indian astronomers were 'advanced' because they had a conception of the Earth globe (even that idea is problematic as it is uncertain what these early astronomers actually meant in context of the wider Puranic world-view), we encourage modern Hindus such as Praveen Mohan to take heart in the fact that the ancient Vedic rishis such as Vyasa, Narada, Markandeya, etc., were certainly much more 'advanced' than their modern 'scientific' counterparts, but they were advanced because of their knowledge of the larger Earth plane which is full of innumerable other civilizations, not because they believed the Earth is a small globe floating in lifeless dark space.
The doctrine that all matter emerged from nothing, that conscious life evolved from lifeless matter, that we are only one inhabited planet hurtling purposelessly through a dark space which has no center and no end, that there is no soul and no afterlife, that there is no God, that there is only the philosophy of work hard and die, is the philosophy of atheistic demons who keep humankind in perpetual existential anxiety due to a limited understanding of material and spiritual reality. The Srimad Bhagavatam's revelation of the great Earth-circle blows all of that deception apart, and the Srimad Bhagavatam itself predicts that it will bring about a new era of spiritually enlightened people.
"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)
"Those words which do not describe the glories of the Lord, who alone can sanctify the atmosphere of the whole universe, are considered by saintly persons to be like unto a place of pilgrimage for crows. Since the all-perfect persons are inhabitants of the transcendental abode, they do not derive any pleasure there. 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 1.5.10-11)
CENSORSHIP OF THE FLAT-EARTH DISCUSSION
After presenting his four versions of the Earth, Praveen Mohna states:
"So what did the ancient Indians really believe? The most important point to remember is that there was more freedom of speech in ancient India that we have now. There were several schools of thought, and you could believe whatever you wanted. Today if someone says the Earth is flat then everyone wants to ridicule him or try to convince him with various evidences. But ancient India had much more freedom of speech. You could come up with any theory, and even if your theory flies in the face of the established theory, you were free to hold your ideas."
We certainly agree with and appreciate Praveen Mohan's point that ancient Indians had a tolerance for debate and open discussion, and that the same procedure should be applied to discussion of the flat-Earth; however, whilst it is true that debate was an integral part of Indian philosophical and religious life, it was not that speculation was entertained. The Indian people valued the teaching that God is the source of all knowledge, and therefore rather than taking pride in one's own speculations, a sublime humility was exhibited before the authority of God's revealed word. Thus whilst in the modern world speculation is regarded almost as a virtue, in ancient India one's own speculation was frowned upon, and traditional debates were won or lost on the basis of an appeal to the authority of Vedic texts.
In her book called Terrestrial Lessons: The Conquest of the World as Globe, Sumathi Ramaswamy presents evidence to show that up until the 19th century (when the British began to dramatically change the indigenous education system), the majority of Indian people who were following Vedic culture had a common conception of the Earth based on that described in the Puranas—namely that the Earth is a flat circular disc having the characteristic feature of seven islands and seven oceans and as being held by Ananta-sesha. The British managed to subvert this idea by opening schools all over India, and basically indoctrinating the people with a foreign cosmology. In regards to the Puranic v Scientific world-view, the British may have temporarily won the battle, however they did not win the war. In 1975 Srila Prabhupada initiated a grand plan to once again resurrect the Vedic cosmological world-view via the Temple of Vedic Planetarium. Surprisingly as the building began to take shape around 2015, an almost overnight revolution in science turned against the very globe itself. This revolution became known as the flat-Earth movement, and is the subject of the censorship issue raised by Praveen Mohan towards the end of his video.
To his credit, Praveen Mohan makes some extremely important points regarding the importance of allowing a free discussion on the subject of the shape of the Earth. Praveen first points out how Galileo was persecuted in his day because of his radical idea that the Earth is round and moves around the Sun, but now the same spirit of persecution is turned on those who wish to contend Galileo's ideas with alternative scientific viewpoints. Praveen Mohan comments,
"This is mainstream now [Galileo's ideas] but at the time it was a huge alternate theory. You know what happened to him when he published this theory? The authorities put him under house arrest for the rest of his life. He basically could not go out of his house for ten years and he died in his house. And then the authorities did something even more vicious, they tried their best to suppress all his findings and his books were banned and no one was allowed to talk about his alternate theory. This is really scary, but now history is repeating itself; 400 years later the tables have turned, literally the exact opposite is happening. Galileo's theory has become the mainstream now, and the flat-Earth has become the alternate theory. But round-Earth theorists are not only ridiculing the flat-Earth theorists, they are actually trying to suppress information about flat-Earth theory. For example, YouTube has put in an algorithm to suppress flat-Earth videos. This is a screenshot from the offical Youtube blog [Praveen Mohan shows a screen shot from a Youtube blog which reads: "To that end, we'll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the Earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11".]
Praveen Mohan continues:
"Try searching for flat-Earth videos—YouTube will not show you the people talking about flat-Earth; it will only show you videos which oppose the flat-Earth video. And this is very interesting to watch, how social media like YouTube and even the scientific community suppresses the flat-Earth theorists with an iron fist. And we can understand something from this—we have not changed much in the last 400 years. In a truly free society people must be allowed to examine and re-examine anything they want. You can disagree with them, but if you are going to suppress the alternate point of view that is not only wrong, that is barbaric. And I think this is the big difference between us and ancient Indians, they just were more civilized than us and anyone was free to believe anything".
Praveen Mohan continues about the difficulties involved in trying to 'prove' the globe:
"Why is the flat-Earth theory so popular now? Because you cannot demonstrate this easily to make me understand that the Earth is round. The shape of the Earth is a unique issue. Let's take some other problem that we don't understand intuitively. Let's say that someone claims that white light is not made of different colours; you can literally do a demonstration and prove it to them right in front of their eyes. But you cannot easily demonstrate and prove the shape of the Earth. You can infer this indirectly from some experiments, or you have to choose to believe the scientists. So that is exactly what we choose to do today—most of us just choose to believe the scientists. I have not physically travelled to space and seen the Earth's surface from space, I have only seen the videos given by the scientists, so I believe the Earth is round even though I have never seen it with my own eyes. So you too have a choice of believing the scientists, or not believing them, but a free society must allow free thinking; it can teach us how to think, but it cannot limit information and it cannot tell us what to think...In order for a society to advance rapidly, all theories must be examined and re-examined...A free society must allow all alternate ideas freely in order to reach the ultimate truth".
As a follow-up to this series of papers reviewing Praveen Mohan's presentation of alternate ideas of the Earth in ancient India, we shall review Sumathi Ramaswamy's book Terrestrial Lessons, which documents how the Puranic flat-Earth conception was the dominant idea in India right up until the 19th century when it was eventually displaced by the education system imposed by the British colonists.
