As an astrologer I am familiar with western astronomy and to a lesser extent Jyotish astrology and the Vedic Cosmology model. Jyotish is based on the 'modern' Siddhantic model which closely aligns with astronomy whereas Vedic Cosmology is based on the ancient Puranic model.
The thing I am trying to address here is the potential humiliation of the TOVP if they try to build a model based on the spiritual, non-scientific (some would say 'mythological') Puranic model of ancient times – so old that it is literally pre-historic. Modern Jyotish is based largely on the Surya Siddhanta (of which Śrīla Bhaktisiddhanta wrote a commentary) and differs vastly from the Puranic model, aligning more closely with Western astronomy, the difference being that western is geocentric and uses the tropical zodiac and Jyotish uses instead the sidereal zodiac and is heliocentric - a difference in point of view rather than mathematic abstractions. Nevertheless, Siddhantic Cosmology uses basically the same formulae for calculations as Western astronomy, so it makes little difference when it comes to transits, eclipses, etc which system you use.
This is all semantics regarding NASA vs Rahu and Ketu. The Moon's North Node is the same as Rahu. The Moon's South Node is Ketu. The Moon's North and South Nodes mark the points where the Sun/Earth/Moon orbital planes intersect. If a lunation (new or full) occurs near the nodes an eclipse occurs. That is the geometry. It is not necessary for NASA to acknowledge Rahu and Ketu as planets for their calculations to be made. The Nodes are invisible points and the calculation of the timing of eclipses is exactly the same no matter what they are called in either astronomy or Jyotish. You can argue that their knowledge is deficient but it doesn't change the geometry.
The thing I am trying to address here is the potential humiliation of the TOVP if they try to build a model based on the spiritual, non-scientific (some would say 'mythological') Puranic model of ancient times – so old that it is literally pre-historic. Modern Jyotish is based largely on the Surya Siddhanta (of which Śrīla Bhaktisiddhanta wrote a commentary) and differs vastly from the Puranic model, aligning more closely with Western astronomy, the difference being that western is geocentric and uses the tropical zodiac and Jyotish uses instead the sidereal zodiac and is heliocentric - a difference in point of view rather than mathematic abstractions. Nevertheless, Siddhantic Cosmology uses basically the same formulae for calculations as Western astronomy, so it makes little difference when it comes to transits, eclipses, etc which system you use.
This is all semantics regarding NASA vs Rahu and Ketu. The Moon's North Node is the same as Rahu. The Moon's South Node is Ketu. The Moon's North and South Nodes mark the points where the Sun/Earth/Moon orbital planes intersect. If a lunation (new or full) occurs near the nodes an eclipse occurs. That is the geometry. It is not necessary for NASA to acknowledge Rahu and Ketu as planets for their calculations to be made. The Nodes are invisible points and the calculation of the timing of eclipses is exactly the same no matter what they are called in either astronomy or Jyotish. You can argue that their knowledge is deficient but it doesn't change the geometry.
Back to Puranic Cosmology. On the subject of geometry, the Moon cannot always be further away than the Sun otherwise it can never form a (dark unlit) New Moon. As it approaches a conjunction with the Sun (a Lunation but not an eclipse) if it was on the other side it would appear almost full, not the crescent we see as a result of the geometry of its proximity. The argument that the brilliance of the Sun hides the Moon's illumination does not account for the crescent we see. (A full moon occurs when we, Earth, are between the Sun and Moon. A new moon is when the Moon is between Earth and the Sun. If it was on the other side it would be Full. Do you understand the geometry? If not I shall draw a diagram.) New Moons can only occur when it is inside the Earth/Sun or it. There is no their way. There is no other way. There is no other way.
Therefore SB must be describing the Cosmos in some other time or circumstance, eg on another plane or dimension, as in viewed from the Heavenly Planets or a different cycle of Yugas where our current situation is not the normal cosmology that generally prevails. We know for a fact that the orbits of all bodies change over millennia, even the Fixed Stars. To say that Vedic Cosmology is static and always applies is a questionable proposition.
Therefore, what the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam describes (Puranic cosmology) and what we see (modern astronomy) don't have to concur for both to be valid. Different time and circumstance. For the TOVP to build a Puranic model and say "this is reality, NASA has got it all wrong", and expect to be well received – well, they're stark raving mad.
No longer do I feel discumbobulated with the clash of paradigms. We use modern methods to observe and calibrate the current real world we live in. We use the Puranas to marvel at the incomprehensible timeless qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and to wonder at the vastness of all His creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment