Numerologia Ridiculosa

Consider this: how could numerology possibly work with modern calendars (Gregorian) and alphabets (English) that weren't even around back in the day? 

There are many systems in numerology; Hindu (Vedic/Sanskrit), Hebrew (Qabbalah), Zoroastrian (Chaldean), Greek (Pythagorean), Chinese, Tamil, Aztec, etc., go knock yourself out. 

My practical experience is that Pythagoras was Greek. Therefore he would've used the Greek alphabet, not English. Similarly Chaldeans spoke Neo-Aramaic. Note that Pythagoras is the Anglicised version of his Greek name. Note also that the double consonant of 'th' (worth 2 + 8 =10!) is represented in Greek by the single letter theta θ (worth 9!)... so, the numbers don't add up depending on the system used! 

Now, combine differing alphabets with the fact that both cultures used different calendars - neither of which were the present day Gregorian Calendar - and you get alphanumerical soup á la Monty Python which cannot possibly mean anything contingent nor coherent except for arbitrary value systems imposed upon the letters and numbers. Take for example:

Pythagoras born circa 570 BC becomes Πυθαγόρας c. 570 BC. Let's break it down.. 

Pythagoras/English: 7+7+2+8+1+7+6+9+1+1 = 49 = 13 = 4

Πυθαγόρας/Greek: 80+400+9+1+3+70+100+1+200 = 864 = 18 = 9. 

Two different results. (Greek values are derived from ancient Isopsephy using Latin letter names. They may not be correct, but some other sources concur.) 

Also, Πυθαγόρης in Ionian Greek is different again. Pythagoras lived c. 570 – c. 495 BC. Of course none of this makes any sense because it can't. It is nothing but magical thinking. What would his numerology chart look like then ha ha ha! Like this…

Straight away what we're seeing here is how different it is from modern charts, that the modern numerological diagram is based purely on the 2nd Millennium calendar, not any dates pre-Christianity (BCE). Modern dates are based on a ten-integer system of 12 months in the year, 100 years per century, and 1000 years for a millennium. Clearly Pythagoras would've lacked any knowledge of Christ's Advent and most probably they didn't use 4-digit calendar years e.g. 1960. The modern diagram only has pictorial relevance for those living in the modern era and possibly does not represent BC factors. 

At this point it's worth bringing up the question of why people accept so-called Ancient Truths as being factual, or historically correct. There is no documented attribution of Pythagoras using the tic-tac-toe chart. It seems to be a modern 20th century invention. 

Okay, if you're still buying into the Pythagorean tic-tac-toe chart theory, how and where the fuck did Pythagoras get his year numbers from? The Gregorian Calendar (or for that matter, ANY calendar?) is purely a social construct. It does not exist outside of human reckoning. It is an invention, not Absolute Truth. How then, can arbitrary or random numbers assume significant meaning? 

For comparison; this author's chart:

Notice how conveniently a 20th century birth fills most of the squares? In fact I'm guessing that back in Pythagoras's day he only used names, as birthdates would surely have been meaningless. I challenge anyone to show how Mr. P used calendar years! 

~~~~

Furthermore, regarding a² + b² = c² (the sum of the two squares sitting either side of the triangle is equal to the square of the high pot 'n user):

No, Pythagoras didn't 'invent' the theorem, he learnt it along with the eternal nature of the soul and the concordant practice of yoga and vegetarianism when he visited India. The theorem falsely attributed to him was previously recorded in the Śulba Sūtras compiled by Baudhāyana in the 8th Century B.C.E., several centuries before Pythagoras was even born.

A similar plagiarism happened with the so-called Fibonacci Sequence and Pascal's Triangle which both came from Pingala's writings. These plagiarisms helped promulgate Eurocentric propaganda and the myths of European invention still exist to this day.

The problem with gender classification in sport is that gender, like race, is a social construct.

The problem with gender classification in sport is that gender, like race, is a social construct. As such there is neither an exact scientific definition nor test. 

There is no way DNA is or can be linked to anyone 'classified' (stereotyped) according to the controversial and purely hypothetical Race Theory. Yes, ancestry can be traced using mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) but that only determines the matriarchal line of heredity. You could have more genes in common with someone overseas 'from another race' than somebody in your own country 'of the same race'! 

Social constructs are ideologies invented by humans that don't have any strict scientific basis. They're just concepts, or boxes to put people in. 

Prior to the discovery of gene mapping, anthropologists classified 'races' using biological characteristics like skin colour, stature, size and shape of the skull, facial characteristics etc., much in the same way they classed 'gender' by genitalia. With the advances in DNA analysis, chromosomes and genetics, scientists discovered that there is so much variation between social constructs, be they gender or race, that they couldn't pin down anything to a definitive category. 

This causes problems in competitive sport with intersex sportspeople because of the restrictions of Men not being allowed to compete in Women's competitions and of 'gender' being an unverifiable social construct. In the past, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) have tried and abandoned various tests such as buccal smear for sex chromatin, then DNA tests for the presence of Y-chromosomes, now the ever-changing testosterone level criteria. At one stage the IOC even made some women athletes parade nude in front of the judges! 

A possible solution would be to create a third category for Intersex competition. The Men's comp would be open to all genders; Women's comp would be restricted to women only (although no-one is currently certain of by which criteria this is determined as no test is yet to be verified 100% accurate) and Men would be barred from both Intersex and, as normal now, Women's competition.

There is obviously one really simple solution… abandon all divisions and make competition open, a level playing field for everyone (I couldn't resist the pun). Of course women will complain and say that isn't fair as the men have a physical advantage. And so we're back where we started…

And still no definition and therefore no solution. 

Typos in Srimad Bhagavatam have confused the editors, proof-readers and typesetters!

Typos in Srimad Bhagavatam have confused the editors, proof-readers and typesetters!

20. FEBRUARY 2022 BY PRABHUPADA NEWS1 COMMENT

TYPOS IN BHAGAVATAM CLOUDS THE VEDIC UNIVERSE 

(the webmaster's title - not mine!) You are here: Home / prabhupadanugas / Typos in Srimad Bhagavatam have confused the editors, proof-readers and typesetters!

Distances between planets in 5th Canto, Book Two, Chart Three differ not only from the texts – the texts differ from the purports. Even the heavenly bodies change names in some places! It is no wonder Vedic Cosmology has devotees confused the world over. It definitely seems to have confused the editors, proof-readers and typesetters!

Planetary distances don’t match up

Hare Krishna, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Śrīla Bhaktivedanta Swami and His translations and purports to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam! All glories to Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī and His translations and annotations of Sūrya-Siddhānta and Siddhānta-Śiromaṇi (as Bimala Prasad Datta)! All glories to both Prabhupadas!

Using scriptural knowledge and empirical information to arrive at an intellectual and philosophical understanding is bona fide and not the same thing as wild mental speculation about mundane affairs. In fact, one is always encouraged to use one’s brain to understand instead of just parroting things like a robot! Inquisitiveness coupled with healthy scepticism may open many a door locked to even the most pedantic lover of doctrinal dogma.

First, I wish to make it clear that I am comparing at least four systems here – (1) Puranic cosmology, and (2) astronomy, both (i) eastern (Vedic/Jyotisha) and (ii) western (eg NASA), not excluding (iii) astrology, using both the sidereal and tropical zodiacs. So there is a fair amount of subject matter to reconcile. Also I would like to acknowledge that as Bimal Prasad Datta was awarded the title Bhaktisiddhānta for his work on the Siddhāntas before he accepted Abhay Charan De as his disciple (later A. C. Bhaktivedānta Swami), we therefore we cannot dismiss the Siddhāntas just because they present a different perspective to the Bhāgavatam, as both scriptures have commentaries authored by both Prabhupadas.

Regarding the differences between Puranic cosmology (the Bhāgavatam) and astronomy including both zodiacs (sidereal and tropical) of Vedic Jyotish (the Siddhāntas) and Western systems (astronomy and astrology) we encounter an apparent paradox. Sūrya-Siddhānta, Siddhānta-Śiromaṇi and western astronomy/astrology are by and large mathematically the same, apart from any minor difference between nomenclature and the use of geocentric or heliocentric systems – superficially the geometry may differ but the respective calculations result in the same outcomes for both systems. For the purposes of making observations and erecting charts and horoscopes using the motions and positions of the heavenly bodies there is no technical argument therein. It must be made clear that Puranic cosmology does not deal with any of that – for example Ekādaśī is calculated using the jyotisha of the Siddhāntas, not the cosmology of the Bhāgavatam!

Again, I repeat: Using scriptural knowledge and empirical information to arrive at an intellectual and philosophical understanding is bona fide and not the same thing as wild mental speculation about mundane affairs. In fact, one is always encouraged to use one’s brain to understand instead of just parroting things like a robot! Inquisitiveness coupled with healthy scepticism may open many a door locked to even the most pedantic lover of doctrinal dogma.

Personally, in comparing cosmology to astronomy I wouldn’t have expected that our solar system could be mathematically reckoned to a cosmological universe. But in researching this I happened to stumble across one possible explanation – Demigod Yojanas! We already know that demigod time is different to Earth Time – so why not distance as well? After all, time and space are both ‘dimensions’. Read on if you’re interested…

In astronomy the approximate figure of 4 billion miles for the Sun/Pluto distance is a radius, whereas the roughly 4 billion miles wide universe quoted in cosmology is a diameter. This makes our Solar System twice larger at 8 billion miles wide. So, aren’t we trying to compare chalk and cheese here? Something else must be going on.

Before we get to the concept of demigod yojanas…. this is not the place to argue about Flat Earth, Moon Landing hoax, fake NASA, etcetera etcetera. Do that somewhere else and at another time. Sticking to what is relevant here, first we must acknowledge that the SB 5th Canto Chapter 22 is a minefield of typos! I will no doubt be accused of fault-finding but really I am just trying to get to the bottom of this and the truth. What I want to bring attention to here (rather than to nit-pick) is that the confusion caused by differences in the two models (cosmology vs astronomy both eastern and western) is compounded many times over by the errata and typos in the 5th Canto.

Although eastern and western astronomy closely align, if we compare the three models they don’t match up, and we’re used to that. For example, Lord Brahmā’s planet Satyaloka at the top of the cosmological universe, being some 2 billion miles above the Sun, would work out to be closer than our astronomical Pluto at roughly 4 billion miles out. This doesn’t make any sense – two completely different sized models.

 

Charts 1, 2 & 3

  

Now… add in the typos and see how even more confusing it becomes!

Take Śanaiścara (Saturn) for example. Using the texts from SB 5.22.8-16 or Chart Three at the front of the volume we find that Saturn is 1.3 million yojanas (10.4 million miles) above the Sun in the text – yet from Chart Three it is 1.4 million (11.2 million).

Which one is it?

Alas, the figure given by western astronomers is over 70 times that, around 886 million miles, illustrating the vast difference in the sizes of the two models. Adding Pluto to that equation emphasises that even more so.

Now… SB 5.22.8 re Sun/Moon distance clearly states ‘lakṣa-yojanataḥ’ and in the translation 100,000 yojanas…

… yet in Chart Three we find the Moon drawn above the Sun by 200,000 yojanas – not 100,000!

Which one is it?

Nowhere in the ślokas or translated verses do we see the Sun referenced as 100,000 yojanas above the Earth. We only see it using the chart (you may also be able to find in English in a purport) but I cannot find that figure anywhere in Sanskrit or the translation – even using online search tools! Why did Śrīla Prabhupāda use NASA’s figure of 93,000,000 miles in the purports? And anyway 800,000 miles is nothing like the 93 million miles we are all familiar with.

Which one is it?

It is a mystery where the unnamed artist who drew the Chart Three obtained the figure of 100,000 yojanas from for the Earth/Sun distance (perhaps Vishnu Purāṇa?). It’s not in the ślokas or the translated verses, and can only be arrived at by working backwards from the 4 million miles stated in the weird Text 11 purport which comes from the incorrect distances found in Chart Three. Very confusing!

Further investigation led me to realise just how astronomical the size difference (pun intended) of the two models is, the cosmological universe being a mere fraction of the astronomical universe that uses Light-years to measure vast distances (six trillion, or 6,000,000,000,000 miles approx = 1 light-year).

I do remember reading elsewhere that a yojana is a relative measurement – which may or may not account for the discrepancy between the two sizes of universe ie Earth vs Demigod yojanas – also it has various values ie 8 miles, 5 miles or 8 kilometres, etc as used by different Jyotish practitioners. ‘As far away as a bull can be heard bellowing’ and ‘as far as one can see clearly’ are two examples I have also come across for 1 yojana. Perhaps a yojana means one thing in outer space and another in a paddock? Or a more feasible explanation as one author suggests, is that in the same way that Demigod time is different to Earth time (eg one day of Brahmā equals 4.32 billion Earth years) perhaps a Demigod yojana is much, much bigger than an Earth yojana!

https://m.facebook.com/VedicCosmology/posts/our-universe-is-4-billion-miles-in-size-but-is-that-demigod-size-or-earth-size-k/1652037028437556/

This actually makes a lot of sense to me in a way when I take the time to ponder the possibility. For quite some time I have agreed with Richard L. Thompson’s view that Vedic Cosmology is described as seen from the Heavenly Planets – perhaps why it seems so perplexing to us. It is no wonder Vedic Cosmology has confused devotees and scholars the whole world over when we try to impose Earth value systems upon it.

We have all heard the expression “Too many cooks spoil the broth”. There was more than one editor who worked on Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and similar works with the Devanāgarī, romanised Sanskrit, transliterations, translations, and purports and I think it is safe to say that some have made a few mistakes here and there, as we are all human. This is separate from any confusion caused by any measurement of spatial differences.

Personally I have no objection to the numerous typos in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s books – and I am certainly not criticising Him. Not only do I not mind them, I value them – as they provide a valuable function! These typos serve to identify His Divine Grace’s original books because they have since been removed from the edited, so-called ‘corrected’ and changed modern BBTi versions.

Besides, most of the typos are so glaringly obvious as mistakes that they generally don’t cloud any meaning. Forr eximple, you moste probbly hav no diffculity unda standing wot this sentence meenz. Similarly with figures, when different numbers describe the same phenomena (such as 10,000 yojanas and 1,000,000 yojanas for the same distance of Siddhaloka below Rāhu) we can do the sums in our head and work out with simple arithmetic, which one is correct.

Distances between planets in 5th Canto, Book Two, Chart Three differ not only from the texts – the texts differ from the purports. Even the heavenly bodies change names in some places! It is no wonder Vedic Cosmology has devotees confused the world over. It definitely seems to have confused the editors, proof-readers and typesetters!

Using both the search engines built into Vanipedia and Gitabase as well as reading and skimming through the actual 5th Canto, I cannot find a single Sanskrit reference to the 100,00 yojana distance between the Earth and the Sun anywhere in the texts (either in the Devanāgarī script, the Sanskrit, the transliterations, or nor the English translation of the Sanskrit). It appears in Chart Three as 100,000 yojanas; elsewhere in English in the purports varying as either 100,000 yj or 93 million miles; yet not a single mention in the actual Sanskrit ślokas – at least not in the 5th canto which deals with our position in the material universe in detail.

Now, some of you might gloss over my pedantry as being trivial. But as having a western-type triple Virgo symbolism I was born to focus on these sorts of things. If it exists somewhere else in Sanskrit I would be very grateful if someone can show me where – IN SANSKRIT – in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, the Earth/Sun distance is (I am NOT referring to in the English in the purports). As far as I can see there is no reference IN SANSKRIT to either 100,000 yojanas nor 93 million miles which is a NASA figure. I would be very happy to be proven wrong, please do!

When using the search tools built into Vedabase, Gitabase and Vanipedia, with the words “Sun”, “Earth”, “distance”, “above” in quotation marks – even including the Boolean term AND between them to narrow down the results – I didn’t find ANYTHING in the actual Sanskrit-to-English text. There are plenty of references everywhere else but they all use figures based on western astronomy, not Vedic. I guess this is why Śrīla Prabhupāda uses the 93,000,000 figure. As far as I could fathom the actual figure of 100,000 yojanas (or 800,000 miles) comes from the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, not the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.. but that still doesn’t explain how 100,000 yojanas found its way into Chart Three mistakenly as double that figure.

So we have these unusual entries:

#1. SB 5.22.8, the Moon is listed as 100,000 yj above the Sun; whereas in Chart Three it is drawn as 200,000 yj;

#2. SB 5.22.11 is an absolute ripper of an example of errata and typos in 3 ways. The bold text says that the 28 Stars are 1,600,000 miles above the Moon, yet in the purport it reads “above the Sun”. The whole purport 5.22.11 says:

“The stars referred to herein are 1,600,000 miles above the sun, and thus they are 4,000,000 miles above the earth (sic).”

If we take the Earth/Sun distance as 800,000 miles (and ignore what is written elsewhere in SB about 93 million miles) it can only add up to 3.2 million. The distance of the 28 Stars above the Earth at 4 million miles only adds up using the Chart 3 distance of the Moon being 1,600,000 miles above the Sun instead of 800,000 as it the text. Therefore the 5.22.11 purport is wrong in three ways because it uses:

a. Double the Moon/Sun distance resulting in the wrong figure;

b. An unexplained figure of 100,000 yojanas for the Earth/Sun distance found nowhere but in the incorrect chart. Nowhere in the body of the text EXCEPT THE PURPORTS is the height of the Sun above the Earth given – and even then in other places it is 93 million miles; and

c. It says the sun and not the moon;

#3. SB 5.24 chapter introduction states re: Siddhaloka, etc are below Rāhu “by another 1,000,000 yojanas” whereas 5.24.4 says only 10,000 yojanas;

#4. Chapter 24 goes on to say that the seven Subterranean planets, each the same size as Earth, are 10,000 yj apart. Chart Three shows them situated as starting at 70,000 yj beneath the Earth (which is about 1,000 yojanas diameter according to Sūrya-Siddhānta). This is also summarised previously in the last verse 5.23.9 which says 30,000 yj below the subterranean planets lies the Garbhodaka ocean some 130,000 yj below Earth. None of this adds up when looking at Chart Three.

The only way anyone can interpret subterranean as meaning ‘inside hollow Earth’ is obviously by taking its meaning literally and disregarding the arithmetic. They can’t all be the same size as Earth and yet fit inside it! Yes, ‘subterranean’ means ‘below the crust of the Earth”, as in underground – but certainly not below the Earth’s plane which is the context in which it appears to be used! Perhaps an overzealous editor substituted or suggested the word not knowing the correct context of ‘subterranean’?

These are just a few typos that I found by double-checking a few chapters of just one book. My point is, the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is wonderful, but regarding these minor discrepancies, anyone who takes EVERYTHING they read literally, especially the multitude of contradictions in the 5th Canto, is sure to be getting the wrong picture. Perhaps they spent a little too much time experimenting in Haight-Ashbury during the 60s? Maybe that explains how some people can accommodate both a Flat Earth and a Hollow Earth at the same time…

From what I have read, besides Hayagrīva who was very qualified and did most of the editing and proofing before anything was sent to the printers, there were others who at various times may have ‘helped’ eg typed, copied manuscripts, dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s etcetera to get everything ready for printing. We take it as a given that the Devanāgarī script, Sanskrit romanisation, word-for-word transliteration, and all the text translations were all done by highly qualified and experienced people. You will be hard-pressed to find any mistakes there.

It is in the purports that we invariably find all the discrepancies, not just typographical errors, for in some places the information is for the wrong śloka, partially scrambled, or completely incorrect, rendering it very confusing to the reader. This is where I suspect some garden-variety editors made very human mistakes.

We all agree that Śrīla Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam are masterpieces. As I have said before, the typos that they do contain help identify them as the originals because subsequent edited and altered editions don’t have them. Therefore they serve a valuable purpose rather than detract from the greater body of work.

No-one can deny that human error has crept into the editing of SP’s books. These listed typos are proof of that. Yet it does not stop us from marvelling at these most sacred of scriptures.

In your service,

Sam, Melbourne

Hare Kṛṣṇa

हरे कृष्ण

My comment (the sole reply) 

Bhakta Sam says:

4th March 2022 at 3:12 am

Hare Kṛṣṇa Prabhus,

Firstly, may I begin by thanking our gracious Webmaster for improving my submitted article with much needed diagrams and pertinent emphasis in bold type. I appreciate it very much, namaste.

Secondly may I follow that by asking the reader to entertain that so long as the differences are recognised there is no conflict or confusion if we acknowledge the different purposes of Srimad-Bhagavatam and Surya-Siddhanta. Cosmology is not astronomy and vice versa.

All I am trying to do here is highlight several typographical errors – it is not so much a criticism but an observation. I am certainly not the first to fail in their attempt to reconcile the differences between the systems – if that is at all warranted, let alone possible! Countless pundits (way, way more qualified than I) have each made their unique contributions, all of them differing in some slight way.

Hey, even the ancient recognised Jyotish experts Aryabhata, Bhaskara, Brahmagupta, Kalidasa, Varahamahira, Vateswara etc didn’t agree on everything and gave different values for one yojana, used different terminology and methods of calculation and interpretation. Not only that, but the Surya-Siddhanta (both ‘old’ and ‘new’ versions), Siddhanta-Siromani, Vedanga Jyotisha and Visnu Purana all differ vastly in astronomical methodology from the cosmology of the Bhagavatam. Jyotish is Vedic astronomy and astrology, not cosmology. They are separate ‘sciences’ if you like (also, there are different horoscope systems and terminology in North and South India and dozens if not hundreds of calendars used all across the Subcontinent. Not all Indian astrologers are the foremost experts in Jyotish! Again, that is not a criticism, just a fact. Oh, oh, oh… and then… we have the TVOP, the Temple Of Vedic Planetarium…. alas…

Basically what I am trying to say is that puranic cosmology is not Vedic astronomy, and the TOVP will be a laughing stock if they try to present it as such – because the heights above the plane of Bhu-mandala have nothing to do with the order of the orbits of the planets or for that matter, calculation of Ekadasi and erection of horoscopes.

Correction and additional information:

Surya-Siddhanta lists the Earth/Sun distance as 4,331,500 yojanas. Based on the averaged orbital distance of 93 million miles (NASA) this equates to a yojana of 21 to 22 miles give or take a furlong or two (using a yojana of 8 miles that equals 34,652,000 miles. At 9 miles it equals 38,983,500). To this day there is no known definite value for a yojana – and it is highly unlikely that it would happen to be an exact whole number like 5, 8 or 9 (miles weren’t even around at the time the Jyotish shastras were written). Many Vedic astrologers use a yojana of 9 miles; some use 8 miles (like Prabhupada quotes); and others use 5 (like the British Raj made official when they assumed dominion) and yet others, 4½ miles.

The only planet diameter/distance that Surya-Siddhanta got right is the Moon¹. Based on that, a yojana works out to be roughly 5 miles. Why should a yojana always be a static number? (All evidence points to it having different values depending on context, at least according to Surya-Siddhanta and Siddhanta-Siromani.)

This Moon data was correctly calculated by ancient Greek and Indian astronomers using parallax. By viewing the Moon² against the background of Fixed Stars at the same time of day from separate places on the globe, this enabled them to triangulate, and using the different data from these, they could compute the actual distance and size. And they got it right³, thousands of years ago. This was not possible using other heavenly bodies as they are too far away for any meaningful parallax to be observed.

Footnotes:

¹according to NASA data, verified by shooting a laser at a mirror placed there and measuring the time interval for reflection

²the atmosphere bends light (refraction) making observations with the eye subject to varying degrees of error. Straight up has the least refraction. The closer to the horizon, the greater the error as the atmosphere is ‘thicker’ and bends light more. So much so, that at sunset, when looking at the setting sun it is already below the horizon. This is why the sun appears to rise and set slowly yet moves faster across the sky during the day. On the horizon, it looks like it is taking twice the time to move through a degree of arc due to refraction, keeping it visible by bending the rays of light. Therefore there is less error when measuring bodies close to Earth (even then, because of the error introduced by refraction even Surya-Siddhanta isn’t accurate for calculating where on the globe an eclipse will be partial and where it will be full).

³the Moon distance of both assessments is very close:

NASA: 252,088 to 225,623 miles (furthest to nearest; elliptical orbit, not circular)

S-S: 257,831 miles. Renowned ISKCON author on the subject Richard L. Thompson (Sadaputa das) calculates that by using the circumference of 324,000 yojanas we divide by π (3.141592) to get 103,132.4245796 yj and again by 2 to arrive at 51,566.2122898 yj as the radius, or, the Earth/Moon distance in yojanas. Then, using a yojana of 5 miles we multiply that to get 257,831.061449 miles, very close to the NASA figure. He therefore summises that in this instance one yojana equals approximately (and certainly not exactly) five miles. Give or take a furlong.

It seems there are discrepancies not only between Surya-Siddhanta and Srimad-Bhagavatam but also between S-S and NASA. None of them concur – which is not really a problem at all! The Puranic Cosmology of S-B is not designed for astrology i.e. calculating Ekadasi or eclipses, and Surya-Siddhanta is positionally similar to the astronomical model NASA gives.

So as long as those differences are recognised there is no confusion so long as we acknowledge the different purposes of Srimad-Bhagavatam and Surya-Siddhanta.

Thanks again,

Ys Sam

हरे कृष्ण

Okay so Jesus...

Okay so Jesus was born during the Roman Empire and was subjected to persecution because He said God was mightier than the ruling Emperor - then, considered the ultimate blasphemy - and, therefore, punishable by death. 

 And so shit happened. But 300 years later with the decline of the Roman Empire, the most recent emperor Constantine saw the strategic importance of resurrecting Jesus to Divine status; so he reported he had seen a flaming sign on a cross (fraudulently?) proclaiming victory as he headed into battle, and thus he declared Christianity to be the sole legal religion in the newly-named Holy Roman Empire because he was "ordained by a vision". Too good to be true? 

 A couple of years later he hung his second wife and son from his first marriage when he found they were screwing behind his back. Not very Christian of him to kill his family, eh. Any hoot, over the next several centuries there followed a series of 'Ecumenical Councils', a fancy Christian term for 'changing the rules and moving the goalposts'. 

Generally, Christianity had moved underground by necessity through persecution (hence the symbolic fish painted over doors due to covert worshipping places) and had dissolved into a multitude of teachings.

 Bits of The Bible were chucked out and others brought in. There is even speculation/evidence of an early form of Christianity that accepts reincarnation as a valid doctrine! Even King James got in on the act and had an altered bible named after him (KJV, the official King James Version, for the Church of England). The height of the entire farce was when the Vatican approved the questionable practice of "Indulgences" whereby "sinners" could "atone" by paying (seriously!) a sum of money to the Holy Fucking Church thereby settling the moral debt. FFS! 

 Okay so then came the Age of Enlightenment, or the Renaissance, or the end of the Dark Ages, or whatever. Martin Luther (not the negro activist) got involved with the Gutenberg Press and organised a new printing of the Bible to be distributed everywhere. This is arguably the most important and first technological revolution that changed the modern world as we know it! 

 This really pissed off the clergy because prior to this, the only way laity (the common people) had access to scripture was through ordained Priests reading it aloud at congregation (bibles were hand-written and therefore scarce). This meant 'no need to congregate' which really pissed off the Church. 

 Power To The People!

 The protests that arose (and the book burning?) gave rise to the Protestant Movement. Derr. And Lutherans. And later Methodists. And yeah, you know the rest. Gone was Constantine and the Vatican's monopoly of Christianity. Next was evangelicals, pentecostals, mormons, adventists, born-again, you name it. Roman Catholics no longer had a monopoly on Christianity. Sure enough, just like Hinduism with its endless string of "avatars of Vishnu", along comes a bunch of "Second Coming Of Jesus" wannabes. Except their dates for end of the world Armageddon never materialise on schedule. Whoops. Another prediction, then another failure. Starting to wear thin now. 

 No, I will not digress into fake Bart Simpson Version or Ron L. Hubbard nonsense. Although i DO believe that there are authorised versions out there, I have no idea which is which. That is entirely outside the area of my expertise as I am not a cleric.

How To Measure God And Personal Power

However noble the concept of 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit' may be, in practice Wikipedia falls down for that very same reason. 

The best cyclopaedias are written, overseen, proofread and edited by experts, pundits and leading academia in every category. Although the president of the local footy club may indeed provide keen insights into the regional competition they can hardly be regarded as the most reliable knowledge base of the global game. 

Likewise, Wonkypedia cannot be considered an authority on noumena (non-phenomena). Noumena is a Kantian term coined by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant to refer to 'the thing in itself', devoid of outward manifestation. Because science is based on observation and data collection, by such definition noumena is non-scientific. 

Therefore God, by a similar definition, is non-scientific. God is practically 100% noumenal, i.e. 'in the eye of the beholder'. There is a saying that God only appears in front of believers and hides His form from the non-faithful (the literal meaning of infidel). Atheists demand proof of God's existence, of course of which there is none; simultaneously reinforcing their beliefs yet at the same time strengthening the argument for noumena. As the saying goes, 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'.

The theosophical reasoning behind why it is necessary for God to hide goes as follows:

Let's say the kiddies are playing dress-ups. The eldest son pretends to be the father, the eldest daughter the mother, and the rest of the siblings and friends play the part of naughty children. This can only convincingly take place if the parents are absent - for if they were present, the child actors would cringe in their rôles. 

In the same way, for the individual spirit souls to play out the false dream of material life seeking happiness independent of any supreme authority, this can only be convincing in the absence of any such authority. So God hides, that we may continue with the fanciful delusion that we answer to no-one. Otherwise there is no meaning to 'independence'. 

Actually we are never truly independent. Whatever independence we achieve is an illusion granted by our Lord, just like the fanciful playing of children playing dress-ups. 

We depend on air to breathe but we have no control over the atmosphere. We need water but can't control weather. We need sunshine for warmth but can't control that either. None of the force majeure do we have control over. We can control little things, like how much sugar to put in our tea, when to turn up to work, which route to take on the roads, whether to return a phone call. 

If it is by those minutiae that we define our lives then our lives are indeed trivial. This is where Whakypedia comes in. Wankerpedian editors may war unendingly over moot points that really have little influence on the world outside their desk. They are, in effect, 'playing God' in their tiny little worlds, incapable of allowing opposing opinions to breathe precious air. Who made them 'God'? They did, themselves in a self-indulgent display of excess hubris. 

Look, if God wants to thump His chest saying "I am the best", I don't have a problem with that. It's when pissweak little Johnny down the road does it that I take offence.