The Cosmos of the Bhagavata - Split from "Treating scripture as evidence"

As a prelude, here are some interesting observations from the fifth canto of the Bhagavata:


Jagat cited the following from an article he once wrote:



Later on, Bhrigu commented:


Whether it was intended to be a primer in astronomy, or even primarily an accurate account of astronomy, is brought into question in the very beginning of the narration (BhP 5.16.3) as Maharaja Pariksit expresses his interest:


Thus the speaker was requested to narrate on how Bhagavan is perceived in the cosmos, instead of describing the nitty-gritty of the cosmos. Since the whole point of the narration was to see the cosmos as the sthUla-rUpa of Bhagavan, it would make little difference which model the narration was based on, as long as known phenomena was explained in connection with Bhagavan, thus enabling the mind to first focus on something tangible that is of spiritual significance, an intermediate stage to perceiving that which is truly beyond.



I would be interested in knowing more of Vamsidhara's views on this, as well as the world-view of Chandogya you mentioned.

I really don't know more about it than what I read ages ago in Sadaputa's Vedic Cosmography. Basically, Vamsidhara somehow tried to harmonize the cosmos of the Bhagavatam with that of the astronomers. In that book, Sadaputa accused him of "speculation" -- something that I have heard Sadaputa has been critized for himself in his later books.

I mentioned the world-view of the Chandogya just as an example, since I happen to be working on it at the moment. It is different to the Bhagavatam in every way. The first chapters are all about Samavedic chants (particularly the Udgiitha), presenting homology after homology, how one should revere the different parts of the hymn as rain, the praa.nas, and so on. The universe is seen in a tripartite way, consisting of earth, the sky (where birds fly), and heaven. Duure hari-kathaamr.taat!

That's interesting. I'd really be interested in hearing more about this.

Now, where is Elpis when you need him the most?

That's interesting. I'd really be interested in hearing more about this.

Now, where is Elpis when you need him the most?

= = =

I've moved the thread into this forum, since we will inevitably be reviewing the ancient world-view in comparison to the modern and the recent Indian views, and in doing so will inevitably cross into a dialogue which some may consider too liberal an approach.

I am here. Sort of. I do not have much time to read all the discussions here what to speak of contributing.

I have not read VaMzIdhara's BhAgavata commentary, so I do not have much to add about him. However, the attempt to harmonize the two cosmologies antedates VaMzIdhara. One could argue that this attempt goes back to the very beginning, the introduction of spherical astronomy in India. The astronomers placed the ocean of liquor, etc. in the southern hemisphere (a place that nobody had actually seen), Meru at the North Pole, and so on--all an attempt to find room for the old geography in the new system. Brahmagupta (an early Indian astronomer), for whom any stick is good enough to hit AryabhaTa (another early Indian astronomer) with, attacks AryabhaTa for breaking with the orthodox tradition regarding the yuga cycles. According to AryabhaTa, a kRta-yuga, a tretA-yuga, a dvApara-yuga and a kali-yuga are all equal periods of time, each being a quarter of 4,320,000 years. This is not what the purANas teach, so Brahmagupta attacks AryabhaTa for this unorthodox point of view. Also, after explaining the real cause of eclipses, that the Moon enters the shadow of the Earth during a lunar eclipse and the disc of the Moon blocks the light of the Sun during a solar eclipse, Brahmagupta then goes on to say that it is RAhu who enter the disc of the Moon or the shadow of the Earth during an eclipse. In other words, he is trying to be faithful to the traditional account, but this is impossible; he has to step outside the traditional account to write a proper astronomical treatise. I believe that Brahmagupta is well aware of this; if I remember correctly, his commentator PRthUdakasvAmin says that he is afraid of the opinion of the common people when he suddenly introduces RAhu after giving a perfectly sound account of eclipses. Later on astronomers like Lalla wrote refutations of the cosmology of the purANas in which ideas such as the Earth being flat, RAhu being the cause of eclipses, etc. (i.e. the elements of the cosmology of the purANas, the Buddhists and the Jains) are refuted. Lalla brings up a number of good points. For example, he points out that during a solar eclipse one observer will see a total eclipse, another a partial eclipse and a third will not see the eclipse at all, and thus conclude that nothing actually swallows the Sun during an eclipse. However, BhAskara says the same thing as Brahmagupta: that RAhu enters the shadow of the Earth during a lunar eclipse, etc. JJAnarAja, an author I am working with, claims that ZeSa supports the Earth from the inside, not from below; another attempt at reconciling the two cosmologies.

In fact, there is a whole literature out there that deals with reconciling the two cosmologies, a literature that spans centuries. Arguments such as "The BhAgavata's cosmology pertains to the spiritual and the astronomers' cosmology to the material," etc. are found there. This literature has not been studied very much though, and Sadaputa (since his name was mentioned) seems to be ignorant of it.

Speaking of Sadaputa, then he is speculative. He draws on outdated translations to draw unwarranted conclusions. For example, he cites a passage that is based on the Vedic idea that the Sun has two sides, one bright and one dark. When the Sun, from morning to evening, travels from east to West, it has its bright side facing us. At night, it travels back with its dark side towards us. Sadaputa, however, uses this passage as a platform for a claim that Vedic astronomy was very advanced.


Well, I am not sure that one can call the cosmology of the BhAgavata "the science of its times." It is a traditional and popular account, but not one that had much relevance to the actual astronomers of that time.


As I pointed out above, this question was dealt with before, even before the composition of the BhAgavata-purANa. However, you are raising a good point. Consider an average Indian village. There would probably be one jyotiSI there who would calculate the position of the planets for the sake of making horoscopes. How would he do this? Well, in the best case probably by using a karaNa, but more likely simply by using tables. In other words, this person need not have any knowledge about the geometrical model that is the basis for his computation and he need never realize that there is a contradiction with the traditional cosmology that he adheres to. So yes: these issues probably had little practical implication for the common people; this is not so today.

Well, I could go on with this, but as it is peripheral to the gauDIya tradition, I am not sure of how much interest it is. And it is getting late here...

Sincerely,
Elpis

Thank you, Elpis, for sharing this information with us. I think that another point one must consider when reading such descriptions in the Bhagavatam is that it is a text that deliberately wants to sound "old" and "traditional", while introducing new and even revolutionary theological ideas. It includes paraphrases of the Purusa-sukta, of many upanishadic passages, the Gita, and so on. It also deals with the standard subjects of a purana, but of course gives them a Krishnaite slant. Descriptions of the cosmos is such a standard puranic theme, and therefore one which the Bhagavatam more or less has to contain.

Below is a passage of interest I haven't seen anyone highlight. It appears to be a disclaimer of sorts, if you will (5.16.4):



This is said right after the aforeposted words of Maharaja Parikshit, where he expresses his desire of hearing of the cosmos as the gross appearance of the Lord.

Tripurari cited this passage some years ago, see here.

the key to understanding Vedic Cosmos is the understanding of the Vedic concept of space.

for starters, Vedic space is multidimensional and non-linear.

the dimension we inhabit (where the Earth is only a small fraction of the Bhu-mandala) connects with other dimensions (or worlds) like Nagaloka through certain passageways - some natural, some induced by magic. Markandeya Purana has many verses describing both the separation of these worlds and secret passages connecting them (see the story of Naga king attacking the kingdoms on Earth)

non-linearity simply put means, that we can travel in any given direction at the highest speed imaginable (the speed of mind), and still never reach the outer layers of the universe.

the distances given in the shastra allow us to imagine the basic proportions of the universe and nothing more.

While I appreciate the idea of non-linear space, I have to wonder where the idea is derived from.

With regards to Earth, the fifth canto of the Bhagavata described the Earthly Plane (bhU-maNDala) as divided into seven islands surrounded by seven oceans. Of these, the innermost is jambudvIpa, surrounded by the salt ocean. Of its nine varSas, the southernmost is known as the karma-kSetra while the other eight are sub-heavenly divisions inhabited by people descending from svargaloka. This tract of land is also known as the bhArata-varSa. Its limit in the north are the himAlaya-mountains, and the limit in the south is the shore of the salt ocean.

The descriptions of the dvIpas, and particularly of the varSas, do not strike me as non-linear at all. I sometimes wonder, when reading of the varSas, just how far beyond the Indian subcontinent their concept of the world reached. The Himalaya, on account of its massive size and expanse, blocked the subcontinent from cross-cultural exchanges, particularly with the lands of the orient, to a grand extent.

Geologically, the Himalaya - born from the collision of the Indian subcontinent with plate of Asia - is only some 40 to 50 million years old, being among the youngest mountain chains of the world. That is, according to modern theories on continental drift.

. . .

For reference, there's also an older topic on this theme called Vedic Cosmology.

This is interesting , by passage ways could you say portals? I can certainly accomodate this idea and others above. It's a tricky subject. Perhaps the narrative is also to be relished with a sense of wonderment, beyond the verification of technology, the later being limited to certain bounds like karanApatava or the natural incapacity of the senses rendering occular proof uncertain.

Yes, we only need look at the multi-dimensionality of our own minds, our non-linear dreams, the portals to intuition. We are indeed microcosms of the greater universe. That scriptures and scientists cannot adequately and accurately describe it is itself a celebration of the vast and reticulate nature of the universe. It warrants fascination or wonderment as you put it. Wonderment itself is a rasa - adbhuta.

Aha, but I would'nt go quite so far as to say the Vedic scriptures can't/don't describe it acurately or adaquately. They are the basis and sourse of what we're chating about, in particular the Puranic topography of the universe. And just as we have maps with sometimes exagerated scale or dimension all to serve the purpose of creating a conception or even just a basic outline. For example the Yogapitha lotus.

kalpadrumAdhah sthita ratnamandiraM
gopAla siMhAsana yogapITham/
yamAgamajnAh pravadanti yaM hareh
priyAgaNah kelinikunjamAha ca//

While depicting the sylvan beauty of Govinda Sthali, Sri Kaviraja Goswami makes this observation.

In that place, 'neath the umbragious shade of the Wish-yealding tree, stands the jewel-studded temple, which the wise knowers of the rituals of the Agama sastras call the YogapItha where stands Sri Gopala's lion-throne, but which his dear beloveds call Hari's play-bower.
GLA 21,94

yes, one can describe the surface of a globe in many ways. if you simply describe what you see as you travel over the various continents someone may even get the impression you are describing a flat earth.

You're right about the recent formation of the Himalayan mountain range, Madhava. Plate techtonics today is a mature field with accurate measurements of the annual movements of the various continential plates as incontrovertible proof of its reality. If you turn the clock back far enough, the whole configuration of the continents was vastly different from what it is today.

This new edition of the Bhagavata I have translated by Swami Tapasyananda has an interesting prologue to the 5th Skandha.

"From the 16th chapter to the end of the Skandha, eleven chapters are devoted to what looks like a schematic description of the universe. The geography and astronomy of the descriptions may look queer and fantastic to us who are conversant with the discoveries of modern science. But we should not labour under the impression that the object of these writers is to teach us geography and astronomy. It is clearly stated at the beginning of the section that these descrptions are given in order to impress on man that this universe is the gross form of the lord, and that by meditating on it and by being impressed by it's wonderful uniqueness and by the might and wisdom revealed in it, one's mind is helped to grasp the subtle, the spiritual essence that gives substantiality to the universe. God, who is otherwise some imaginary extra-cosmic being, becomes the real of the real, the ultimate reality, when he is conceived as the support of what is real and most concrete to us. Just as an image or a yantra ( ceremonial design ) becomes a symbol for worship, an aid for grasping the immaterial ( aprakrta) spirit, the whole universe can be used for such a purpose with great effect by a man endowed with faith.

There's more.

By the way, this is a great edition of the Holy Bhagavata in four vols., with devanagari slokas on the top half of the page, and the English fills the bottom half in double collums.
Skandhas 1-4 then 5-9 then 10 then 11-12 , so the 10th Skandha is in one fabulous volume . anyway;

"The description is absolutely schematic but idealistic too. It is poetical not prosaic; and often poetry can convey to us the essence of things more powerfully than dull verbose prose*. What is required for meditation is not the so-called exact factualness of description, but it must be powerfil, stimulating and suggestive enough to generate a vivid and convincing experience of this divine might, wisdom and beauty, transcendance and accessibility. Those to whom this outlook appears appealing can profitibly study these descriptions of the earth and the universe. Others may do well to skip them.

*dig that

Well put.

Can this edition be easily obtained in the west? If so, where?

www.ramakrishnamath.org

mine came in four days!

This URL doesn't seem to take me where I want to go -- could you double check it, please? It seems to be one of those generic search-the-web sites. I tried .com and while it was a real Rama Krishna Math, it didn't seem to have the book.

Dandvats,
Lancer

1,000 appologies.

www.sriramakrishnamath.org