Another Way To Look At The Flat Earth Debate.

I am reminded of the old joke about the English professor and the boatman ferrying him across the Ganges whenever I come across the Flat Earth debate on Vaishnava websites. Having knowledge is one thing, but if it can't be practically applied, it is useless. It would make no difference to anyone trying to practice bhakti-yoga whether the Earth was round, flat, spiral or pyramidal. Using such 'knowledge' to prove a point or score points for that matter is an exercise in pedantry. The art of practicing bhakti-yoga remains the same regardless of the geometry of Earth. 

Even more humorous is how various scientific arguments are misused, either incorrectly or out of context. For example "vanishing point" is a 2D concept illustrating when three-dimensional geography is represented on a two-dimensional plane – say, a drawing of the view looking down a straight road with buildings that progressively get smaller and smaller until they disappear. The vanishing point has nothing to do with ships sinking below the horizon in the distance as they leave port. That is a 3D effect, not 2D! And I don't know how those flat-earth trains manage to continue running on tracks that merge in the distance! 

Rather than beginning with jargon which sounds more like a thesis being submitted for a Masters Degree than an internet blog on spirituality – I'll just say this...

The easiest way to measure the curvature of the Earth is to observe the distance at which objects disappear below the horizon. For the purposes of demonstrating this, let's assume that the Earth is perfectly spherical with a radius of 6,378.137 kilometres and the height at which distant objects is obscured is expressed as 

                   h₁ = √[(d₀ - [√h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R]])² + R²] - R8

[trust me - I'm no mathematician, and have no idea what all this gobbledygook means. It's factual enough, but I just thought it looked impressive.] 

Now if we take a body of 'flat' water such as a lake (or the Suez Canal at 102 miles/164km or the Panama Canal at 48 miles/77km) we have a relatively calm, waveless surface to conduct our experiment. At one end we have a strong waterproof LED lamp mounted at water level. We need to take into account that even on the clearest day the atmosphere will limit visibility somewhat. 

Then we proceed to travel away from the light in a craft, seated  so that our eyes are three feet above water level. At some point (actually 2.121 miles) the horizon will begin to obscure the low part of the lamp. We can repeat the experiment altering the relative heights but until we eventually either run out of room or aren't able to get high enough, we will always observe the lamp disappearing below the horizon. 

There will be some optical distortion at greater distances due to light bouncing and refracting off the water and the humid air above it. Another method, which counters this, is to set markers at a given height above water level in a straight line every mile or so. Then with a telescope at a good distance you will observe differing heights. The markers further away will appear lower due to the curvature of the Earth similar to the way a ship 'sinks' as it drops below the horizon as it recedes into the distance. 

Arguing that the surface is perfectly flat and level (which in fact it isn't because of the curvature of the Earth) and that the "vanishing point" is causing the lamp to be obscured (or the ship to 'sink') is terribly illogical thinking. If the surface (Earth) was truly flat, the lamp would remain visible regardless of how high or low our vantage point is - up to 10 miles for even just one candlepower! In fact, if we jumped into the water, according to the Flat Earth theory we still see the lamp no matter what distance! With our eyes 6" above water though, the horizon would start to obscure the lamp less than a mile away. At 2 miles our eyes would need to be 3' above sea level. And so on. 

Anyway...

So, in one of my many information gleaning excursions I came across this gem regarding Astrology, not entirely unrelated because it deals with cosmology:
here (http://vedicastrology.wikidot.com/physical-astronomy-and-surya-siddhanta)

(like me, you'll probably speed-read or flip through the highly technical parts - but it's well worth persevering with!)

Without entering into whether or not this is valid Vaishnava scripture, it poses some interesting food for thought. We've all heard the various arguments of Jyotish versus Western Astrology, Tropical vs Sidereal, etc but here's another one: a system, Surya Siddhanta, that uses the "divine positions" of each planet's Deity or Demigod rather than the physical positions of the planets. It reasons this is why traditional Jyotish is faulty and therefore fails sometimes.

These 'Divine positions' are often any number of miles, kilometres, yojanas (or whatever) different from each planet's observed measurable position. For instance Divine Meru is reckoned to be some 28.9 km above the peak of physical Mt. Meru! 

Furthermore, the formulae for calculation Divine positions is never published or made public, for it is only passed down orally in the traditional guru-disciple system.

And it reasons that during dissolution of material universes as Lord Brahma is sleeping, this is how time is calculated in the absence of any physical planets.

Now do I have your attention? Thought so! Go to the linked article and read on. 

Apparently the physical Mt Meru is in Africa. That line running through the middle of the map is the Equator, centre of the Earth, with Mt Kenya and Meru either side of it (if you're impatient, go straight to the section "Ancient Cosmogony and Geography" which contains the Sanskrit origins of these African place names).  

The joke:

An English Professor was visiting India. He wanted to go from one side of the Ganges River to the other so he approached a Boatman who agreed to take him across.

 On the way the Professor said, "Tell me, Boatman - what do you know about literature?"

The Boatman said, "Oh not much. I'm just a boatman and I'm illiterate."

The Professor said, "Well then, 10 percent of your life is wasted. Tell me then, what do you know about mathematics?"

The Boatman replied, "Oh, not much, just basic arithmetic. I can only count to a hundred."

The Professor said, "Well then, 20 percent of your life is wasted. Tell me then, what do you know about philosophy?"

The Boatman said, "Oh not much. I'm just a boatman."

The Professor said, "Well then, 30 percent of your life is wasted.

Then the wind picked up, and the river's waters became greatly agitated. The Boatman struggled against the current. The Boatman looked over his shoulder and saw ominous storm clouds gathering in the sky. All of a sudden thunder and lightning broke out. He started to worry that they weren't going to make it to the other side. 

The Boatman turned to the Professor and said, "Tell me Professor, what do you know about swimming?"

Horrified, the Professor screamed, "Nothing! I can't swim!" at which point the Boatman yelled:

"Then 100% of your life is wasted!"