Bhagavatam cosmology 3- Difficulties in approaching

Podcast:

Video:

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

So this is Bhagavatam 5.24.19, these verses are difficult to recite for ordinary human beings. पात्र उप्पन्ने परया श्रद्धया परमादारण परमादार समाहितमनसा संप्रतिपादितस्य साक्षाद अपवर्गद्वारस्य यत् बील निलय अईश्वरम् word for word translation न नौट एव इन्दीड एतद्धिस् साक्षाद कारः the direct result भुमिदानस्य अपवर्गद्वारस्य यत् बील निलय अईश्वरम् अपवर्गद्वारस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य अपवर्गद्वारस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमि� यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य यत् भुमिदानस्य By the topmost Shraddhaya Param Aadhara With great respect Samahit Manasa With an attentive mind Sampradipaditasya which was given Sakshaat directly. Appavarga dvaarasya, the gate of liberation.

Yath, which. Bil-nilaya of Bilasvarga, the imitation heavenly planets. Aishwaryam, the opulence.

Translation, My dear King, Bali Maharaj donated all his possessions to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vamandev, but one should certainly not conclude that he achieved his great worldly opulences in Bilasvarga as a result of his charitable disposition. The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the source of life for all living entities, lives within everyone as the friendly super soul, and under his direction, a living entity enjoys or suffers in the material world. Greatly appreciating the transcendental qualities of the Lord, Bali Maharaj offered everything at his lotus feet.

His purpose, however, was not to gain anything material, but to become a pure devotee. For a pure devotee, the door of liberation is automatically open. One should not think that Bali Maharaj was given so much material opulence merely because of his charity.

When one becomes a pure devotee in love, he may also be blessed with a good material position by the will of the Supreme Lord. However, one should not mistakenly think that the material opulence of a devotee is the result of his devotional service. The real result of devotional service is the awakening of pure love for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, which continues under all circumstances.

Translation, next verse, text 20. Translation purport by His Divine Grace, Sri Swamiji. Translation, if one is embarrassed by hunger or who falls down or stumbles, chants the holy name of the Lord even once, willingly or unwillingly, is immediately freed from the reactions of his past deeds.

Karmis entangled in material activities face many difficulties in the practice of mystic yoga and other endeavors to achieve that same freedom. Purport, it is not a fact that one has to offer his material possessions to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and be liberated before he can engage in devotional service. A devotee automatically attains liberation without separate endeavors.

Bali Maharaj did not get back all his material possessions because of his charity to the Lord. One who becomes a devotee, free from material desires and motives, regards all opportunities, both material and spiritual, as benedictions from the Lord and in this way his service to the Lord is never hampered. Bhakti, material enjoyment, and mukti, liberation, are only by-products of devotional service.

A devotee need not work separately to attain mukti. Sri Bilwamangal Thakur said, mukti svayam, ukulitanjali, svayavate sman. A pure devotee of the Lord does not have to endeavor separately for mukti, because mukti is always ready to serve him.

In this regard, Chaitanya Charita Amrit Antya 3, 177-188, describes Haridas Thakur's confirmation of the effect of chanting the holy name. Keha bale naam haite hai, paapaksh hai. Keha bale naam haite hai, jivera moksha hai.

Some say that by chanting the holy name of the Lord, one is freed from the reactions of sinful life, and others say that by chanting the holy name of the Lord, one attains liberation from material bondage. Haridasa kahen, naamera ei dui phala nai, naamera phala krishna padae, prema upa jai. Haridas Thakur, however, said that the desired result of chanting the holy name of the Lord is not that one is liberated from material bondage or freed from the reactions of sinful life.

The actual result of chanting the holy name of the Lord is that one awakens his dormant Krishna consciousness, his loving service to the Lord. Anusangika phala naamera, mukti paapanaash, tahara drishtanta yai che, suryera prakaash. Haridas Thakur said that liberation and freedom from the reactions of sinful activities are only by-products of chanting the holy name of the Lord.

If one chants the holy name of the Lord purely, he attains the platform of loving service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. In this regard, Haridas Thakur gave an example comparing the power of the holy name to sunshine. Ei shlokera arthakara pandite ragan, sabhe kahe tumi kaha artha vivaran.

He placed a verse before all the learned scholars present, but the learned scholars asked him to state the purport of the verse. Haridasa kahen, yai che suryera udai, udaina haite aramba tamera haikshe. Haridasa Thakur said, as the sun begins to rise, it dissipates the darkness of night even before the sunshine is visible.

Chaurapreta rakshasadhi, rakshasadhir bhayah inaash, udaya haile dharmakarma adi parakaash. Before the sunrise even takes place, the light of dawn destroys the fear of the dangers of the night, such as disturbances by thieves, ghosts and rakshasas. And when the sunshine actually appears, one engages in his duties.

Similarly, even before one's chanting of the holy name is pure, one is freed from all sinful reactions. When he chants purely, he becomes a lover of Krishna. A devotee never accepts mukti even if Krishna offers it.

Mukti, freedom from all sinful reactions, is obtained even by namabhasa, or a glimpse of the light of the holy name before its full light is perfectly visible. The namabhasa stage is between that of namaprat or chanting the holy name with offense and pure chanting. There are three stages in chanting the holy name of the Lord.

In the first stage, one commits ten kinds of offenses while chanting. In the next stage namabhasa, the offenses have almost stopped and one is coming to the platform of pure chanting. In the third stage, when one chants the Hare Krishna mantra without offense, his dormant love for Krishna immediately awakens.

That is the perfection. Namah Om Vishnupadaya Krishna Prasthaya Bhutale Shrimate Bhakti Vedanta Swami Itinamne Namaste Saraswati Deve Gauravani Pracharine Nirvishesha Shunyavadi Ashyatya Desha Tare Vancha Kalpataru Bhashcha Krupasindhubhyaya Ucha Patitanam Pavanebhyo Vaishnavebhyo Namo Namaha Jai Shri Krishna Chaitanya Prabhu Nithyananda Sri Advaita Gadadhara Srivasadhi Gaurabhakta Vrinda Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Hare Krishna I am grateful to be here with all of you today. And we see in this section of the Bhagavatam especially in the purports of Srila Prabhupada his singular focus in focusing in highlighting the Siddhanta the essential message of scripture This section of the Bhagavatam is one of the most challenging for the rational mind Just yesterday I got a message from a devotee I read the fifth canto.

I have decided to resign from Krishna Consciousness I cannot accept this. This is completely irrational So it can be quite challenging. I said let's meet and have a discussion further This is not unique It is quite difficult for somebody coming from today's educational world view when confronted with the fifth canto Bhaktivinoda Thakur wrote an essay on the Bhagavatam and that was his break out It was his first major literary contribution as a Gaudiya Vaishnava Bhaktivinoda Thakur as we know was born in the Shakta family and then he joined the elite at that time called the Bhadraloka and most of them were somewhat sceptical about especially Vaishnavism But Bhaktivinoda Thakur studied Mahaprabhu's life, Chaitan Charitam and then studied Bhagavatam and then he came out for the first time as a Gaudiya Vaishnava and then he empathized with his audience that why the Bhagavatam is so difficult to understand and he talked about three challenges.

He said the philosophy can sometimes seem very confusing because there are some sections of the Bhagavatam which seem Dwaitic and some sections which seem Adwaitic So what is the Bhagavatam actually teaching? The philosophy can be confusing then he says the morality can be bewildering especially Krishna's activities with the Gopis and the third he says the cosmology can be mystifying So philosophy, cosmology and morality all these three he talked about as obstacles for the contemporary mind in understanding the Bhagavatam Now this section of the Bhagavatam extends from almost the 16th chapter to the 25th chapter So we will see here the focus of the Bhagavatam in one sense coincides the focus of Prabhupada The Bhagavatam is describing cosmology and it comes to Bilvaswarga Now without going into the specifics of the cosmology, Bilvaswarga is a subterranean planetary system. So we have the terrestrial we have the celestial and then we have the transcendental above that Terrestrial is the earthly planetary system, celestial is the heavenly Transcendental is beyond the material world and below the earthly below the terrestrial is the subterranean So those lower worlds are being described and the Bhagavatam what it does is, when it comes to Bilvaswarga, it doesn't go too much into the geography of Bilvaswarga, how big is it, what are the kind of vegetation there, is it a plateau, is it a hill what kind of terrain is there? It focuses on a character over there and that character is Bali Maharaj and how he was such a great soul that he sacrificed everything for the Lord and then the Bhagavatam itself emphasizes that he got this Bilvaswarga but one shouldn't think that this is due to his Punya. Bhakti is very different from Punya and then Prabhupada taking that point further elaborates on the next verse that the holy name can give far far more than what any Punya can give Sarvapapaksha and Muktihai, both of these, freedom from sinful reactions and liberation from material existence.

These are just the fringe benefits of the holy name. So from both the emphasis in the Bhagavatam and the emphasis in Prabhupada's purports, what we see is that even while describing cosmology, the focus is on the principles of spiritual life of what are the principles and practices of spiritual life in fact whichever area of the universe the Bhagavatam is describing, it focuses there on, ok these are the residents over there and this is what they do and most of them are worshipping the Supreme Lord in his various manifestations and where the Bhagavatam describes those who are doing some other forms of piety. It also points out, ok this is not the highest that they are doing.

So in this way the Bhagavatam focus is not so much on cosmology as on consciousness. It is describing cosmology but as soon as it gives a little description of cosmology, after that it focus shifts to the consciousness of the residents who are living in different parts of the cosmos So the Bhagavatam is primarily a consciousness conscious book Its focus is on consciousness and how that consciousness can be elevated, purified, transformed. So with this quick overview of what is happening in this verse, I will now move towards the broader subject of Bhagavatam cosmology So there are three difficulties, so when I was talking with this devotee I was trying to understand, what was it about the Bhagavatam that he found so, 5th Canto cosmology, that he found so radically difficult.

So I have tried to deconstruct it into three parts, that when we study the 5th Canto there will be difficulty in understanding. I just can't make sense of it. Then, ok, I understand it but I can't accept it.

Ok, this is the particular worldview but I can't believe it, I can't accept it. That acceptance could be a second problem. And third could be, I can't apply it What is the relevance to me? What is there to apply for me? I can't apply it So let's look at these three difficulties in approaching the Bhagavatam and see how we can address them So why is the Bhagavatam cosmology difficult to understand? To some extent I'll echo what Bhaktivinoda Thakur says in his essay on the Bhagavatam also Now first of all, cosmology itself is an extremely difficult subject to understand.

When we go through our normal life we face our challenges and we try to deal with the challenges But there are some times when we just become aware of how tiny we are and how huge the universe is. How actually we live unconscious of the vastness of reality. So whatever be the conception of the universe we may have, but the universe is incredibly large and naturally anything that is so big will be difficult to understand After all we are just tiny mortals In fact according to modern science, one of the things they say is that religion makes people arrogant and science makes people humble Now what is their reasoning? So it's come from the Judeo-Christian worldview which held that the earth is the center of the universe and humans are the purpose of the universe They said when science revealed how vast the universe is then humanity was displaced from the center of the universe and thus religion which had made humans arrogant, science made them humble So that is their idea.

But that humility is intrinsic in the Vedic worldview. That not only are we a tiny part of the universe, but even this one universe is among many many universes So first of all cosmology is difficult to understand. On top of that the Bhagavatam is not describing contemporary cosmology It is describing the cosmology in accordance with the worldview that was prevalent at the time when the Bhagavatam was composed So just to understand why this is so difficult I was talking with a devotee who did the Bengali translation of the Chaitanya Charita Amrit of Srila Prabhupada So I said why did you have to translate it? Chaitanya Charita Amrit is in Bengali itself.

He said yes, but that Bengali is 500 years old. And today's Bengali people don't talk exactly like that. So how it was that the book is in Bengali, Prabhupada translated it into English and now devotees have to translate it again into Bengali.

So even for people today, the same language 500 years ago is difficult to understand. They don't want to speak of cosmology which was thousands of years ago. So difficulty is just natural and it is completely reasonable.

And it is not just we who are having difficulty. Many of us probably know about prominent astronomers in the Indian tradition like Aryabhatta and Bhaskaracharya So even Aryabhatta confesses in one of his books that the Puranic cosmology is very difficult to comprehend. Now he focused on Jyotisha cosmology and I will explain what that means a little later.

But he focused more on observational cosmology and inferential cosmology. You observe the universe and you try to understand it. And he came up with many findings which not only parallel but precede the findings from western cosmology So it is not just we today are having difficulty Even thinkers about 1000 years ago or 1500 years ago, even they had difficulty in understanding the Bhagavatam cosmology.

And not only that, it is the tradition itself We say okay, he was not a devotee. But even Prabhupada when he was commenting on the Bhagavatam, Prabhupada said that he gave his commentary and when devotees started asking him, how do we do this, how do we do this especially in the planetary worlds we constructed. Prabhupada said that you consult somebody who is an expert.

Go through the various sampradayas and find out if somebody is an expert in this. And devotees are consulted. It is very difficult to find out somebody who can give an intelligible explanation of the Bhagavatam cosmology.

So it is not just us, it is not just the broad Vedic tradition, but even in the Vaishnava tradition, this is difficult to understand. So the difficulty is not unique to the cosmology for that matter. If you study the third canto Sankhya description, it is not easy to understand.

Especially if you go to the fundamental characteristics of material nature, that chapter, there are many sections which will, if we really try to understand that, we will start scratching our heads so much that not only the hair the skin can come out. So there are sections that are difficult to understand. So in general our mood in studying the Bhagavatam is serving the Bhagavatam.

Bhagavatam is non-different from Krishna so we serve, just as we serve the deities, we serve Krishna, we serve the Bhagavatam. So we don't have to obsess over the incomprehensible. I can't make sense of it.

We will continue serving the Bhagavatam. This particular section, when I serve it by reading, I understand it. This particular section, when I serve it by reading, I don't understand it.

But I continue serving. Just like if you are serving some senior devotees, sometimes they may give us some instructions which make sense to us. Sometimes they may give us some instructions which may not make sense to us.

Now we obey as much as we can. So the idea is we approach the Bhagavatam in a mood of service. So difficulty is there in any subject which is really deep or complex.

Even if you are going to modern academia there are some subjects which are very difficult to understand. Now the challenge is that, okay, Sankhya cosmology, Sankhya analysis of the universe is also difficult to understand. But Bhagavatam cosmology falls in a slightly different category.

Because the Sankhya analysis doesn't challenge our contemporary understanding. Okay, matter can be analyzed in different ways. There is elemental theory of matter.

There is atomic theory of matter. So the atomic theory is what modern science uses. That means all matter is said to be made of fundamental components or atoms.

But elemental theory is that not atoms but elements are the fundamental components of matter. That is another theory. That doesn't challenge our conceptions as strongly or as violently as cosmology does.

Because the vision of the cosmos that we get from modern science seems to be radically different. And that's why there is a difficulty in accepting. Sometimes you may not understand some things.

But then you say, okay, I don't understand. Let me move on. So we may suspend judgment.

I can't understand this. I can move on with it. What happens is that I was talking with one devotee in America.

So he is very fluent in English. So I asked him, generally Indians when they go to America they become fluent. But he was exceptionally fluent.

So how did he become so fluent? He is an upcoming devotee. He said, I used to watch a lot of English movies. I said, okay.

And how much would you understand? He says, initially I didn't care if I didn't understand. Just keep watching and then I would read the subtitles. And then while watching the movie, I would look at the dictionary.

I said, okay. That's a very long cut way of learning English vocabulary. I said that you could have better read a book and learn vocabulary from there.

He said that my point was to learn language, not watch the movie. I said, that's an interesting way of looking at it. But the point is that there are so many areas, especially some English movies, their plots are so intricate that people don't understand what is going on.

Even if you read the words, you don't understand what is going on. But people keep watching. So sometimes what happens is do we understand everything that happens in the world? Even when we read news, do we understand everything in the news? Just because we can't understand something, that doesn't stop us.

But if we not only can't understand something but it contradicts what we knew previously, then it becomes a problem. So what do we do with this aspect? So does Bhagavatam Cosmology contradict science? Well, not necessarily. Because what science describes is not reality.

Science describes a model of reality. What is the difference? It's just like if we have a territory. Say, we have Pune and then we have a map of Pune.

So a map is a representation of the territory. But the map is not the territory. Similarly, science observes the world around us and then gives us a model, like a map.

Karl Popper, the famous philosopher of science, he said that science is the art of systematic oversimplification. So what he meant by that is, now he is not a critic of science. We are not criticizing science over here.

The world around us is so complex that we cannot possibly take all of it and process it. So what science does is, we look at the world around us and decide that these are the parameters of the world we want to study. So what do we want to study? Physical parameters.

Physically measurable parameters. Length, breadth, mass, velocity, density, luminosity. So just as when we have a map, we don't describe everything in the territory in the map.

Similarly, science takes some parameters of reality and describes it. And as a science, in one sense, leaves out consciousness. Science doesn't consider consciousness.

It just says that we focus on the physical aspect of reality. So currently in America, there is an infamous Roe v. Wade case going on. Roe v. Wade was the court case which legalized abortion all over America.

So what happens is, America is a confederation. So each state has its own laws. Some states allowed abortion, some states did not allow abortion.

But then the activists championing abortion, they realized that by political legislation, we will not be able to get abortion through. So they decided to go to legislative means. And they appealed to the Supreme Court.

At that time, the judges were very liberal. So they got the legislation passed. So now currently it is being challenged.

And they are turning to scientific evidence. So they are trying to decide when the embryo becomes conscious. Is the fetus? Fetus is not conscious.

Is the embryo conscious? Yes, no. But then, there was a philosopher of science who wrote an article in the Journal of Bioethics. He said that actually speaking, what to speak of allowing abortion? When the child is in the mother's womb, we should allow the mother the right to abort the child even after he is born.

Now when he made that comment, it created a furor online. How monstrous does somebody have to be to actually conceive killing a newborn child? Even the most hard-hearted people when they see an infant, it brings out the caring tender part within them. Want to offer care.

So his response to all this criticism is, all of you are being sentimental. Just be objective. From the perspective of science, in the status of the embryo based on its physical location.

Whether it is inside or outside, it doesn't make any difference. So he didn't realize he had undercut his own argument. So he was saying that if you can abort inside, you can abort outside also.

But hardly anyone will think of aborting a child after they are born. So if there is no difference, then what is outside is also the same as inside. If you can't abort outside, then you should not abort inside also.

So the problem is that when it comes to science, you cannot actually, in a very strict way, quantify consciousness. From the scientific perspective, is the embryo conscious? From a scientific perspective, there is no way to actually measure whether you and I are conscious. Now you can study brain waves, but brain waves indicate the state of consciousness.

They don't indicate the presence of consciousness. They are two different things. I won't go into the technical details of this right now, but the point I am making is that consciousness is not measurable by science.

So science leaves out certain things. So scientific models, we are talking about right now cosmology. So science offers a particular vision of the cosmos.

And scientific models, I am in no way here trivializing or demonizing science. I am simply contextualizing it. That science offers valid and valuable tools for navigating reality.

Just like a map. If you are lost, a map is very valuable in navigating reality. But the scientific models are neither exhaustive nor exclusive descriptions of reality.

Exhaustive means they don't describe reality completely. And exclusive means they are not the sole descriptions of reality. They are two different things.

So they are useful tools. Very useful tools, but at the same time they are limited. If I say that the President of America is not the emperor of the whole world.

Now is that a criticism of the President of America? No, it is an objective fact. So similarly if we say that science does not have a monopoly on description or describing reality. That is not a criticism of science.

Science is a valuable tool, but it is not the only tool for describing reality. And even within science, it is understood that reality can be described in different ways. So physics has two different models of reality.

Quantum physics and relativity. And these two according to some scientists are violently contradictory. Steven Weinberg said that in the last, he is a Nobel laureate scientist, the last several decades we have made fantastic progress in science.

But the more progress we make, the further quantum physics and relativity seem to be drifting apart. So they are two completely different models of reality. And the problem with science is, in science usually the test is which model works.

That is real. But the problem is both models work. Both models work in their own domain.

So scientists just become pragmatic. Whichever model works, use it. And don't bother about how to put them together.

So, Richard Dawkins, not Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking said before he passed away, he says, I am happy to announce that humanity's quest for knowledge will never end. What he meant that, he just admitted that we will never be able to reconcile these two together. So that, the point is that, not everything in science is crystal clear.

Science does not have a monopoly even on describing reality. So just as science can have different models for describing reality, even Bhagavatam or the Vedic tradition has different models for describing cosmology. So even, we may say, okay, this science is okay, science is after all speculative.

But even within the tradition, the Bhagavatam cosmology and Jyotisha cosmology are two different cosmology models. And even the Bhagavatam commentators like Vishwanath Chakrathakur, when they are describing that they, say I have to analyze the horoscopes of Lord Chaitanya or Krishna, they don't use Bhagavatam cosmology. They use Jyotisha cosmology.

Jyotisha cosmology is another way of looking at the cosmos. So basically, there are these two visions of cosmology within the tradition. Jyotisha cosmology, it describes astronomical details.

And those astronomical details are used to make astrological calculations. Such as like, determine the Muhurta, what is a good time, what is not a good time. And in contrast, there is a Bhagavatam cosmology, which describes the universe and its residents, for what purpose? It is to appreciate how dharma and devotion pervade the whole universe.

And thus, we can remember Krishnamur. So these two are different models of the cosmos and they have different purposes. So that's why okay, I can't accept it.

Well, nobody is telling that in accepting Bhagavatam cosmology, we have to reject scientific cosmology. There are two different ways of looking at reality for two different purposes. So the two don't have to neatly fit into mutually reconcilable categories.

We understand that reality is complex. And there are two different models for two different purposes. So, we may say, but all this doesn't make sense.

Is it reasonable? Is it rational? So, when we are using the rationality in understanding the Bhagavatam, one extreme would be that we make reason our master. If this doesn't make sense, then I reject it. I reject it.

But reason is my master. I need the sanction of reason to understand everything. The other extreme idea is that we consider reason as an obstacle.

Oh, you know, logic, reason, all these are obstacles. You have to reject it all. Well, that will make us irrational.

So, the Bhagavatam describes reality in a way that is both rational and trans-rational. So, we see reason we see reason, logic, intelligence, all this as a valuable tool. It's important, but it goes so far.

It doesn't go all the way. So, the reality described in the Bhagavatam is rational in many ways. But then it goes beyond reason.

So, Jiva Goswami says, if the ultimate reality is truly ultimate, then that reality will be superior to our intelligence. Otherwise, our intelligence will be supreme. So, we use our reason, but we don't stick to our reason.

So, it's like, we don't let reason be our master. We let reason be our minister. Minister means like an advisor.

You take counsel from him, but we make our decisions. That's why the Bhagavatam is not irrational. It's trans-rational.

Once we understand that, and I don't have to reject science to accept Bhagavatam, then it becomes relatively easier to accept Bhagavatam cosmology. And the last part is with respect to applying. So, now, when we talk about applying, how exactly does the Bhagavatam itself talk about application? And Parikshit Maharaj has renounced the world to sit on the banks of the sacred river to hear the Bhagavatam.

He is not interested in getting a PhD in cosmology. That is not his purpose. His purpose is what? To remember Krishna.

To immerse himself in remembering Krishna. And cosmology within the Bhagavatam is one resource for remembering Krishna. Tomorrow afternoon, I am doing an overview of the Bhagavatam.

Then we will discuss more about how in the progression of the Bhagavatam, cosmology, where does it fit in? But the point is, the Bhagavatam offers many resources and cosmology is one resource. And what is the idea over here? From the familiar to the transcendental. That means that for Parikshit Maharaj, he is living at a time when the cosmology that the Bhagavatam is describing, that is familiar to him already.

The similar cosmology is described in the Mahayana Puranas, that is already known to some extent to him. So, what Parashur Dev Goswami is doing is, what was already in his consciousness, the cosmology as described in the Bhagavatam, it is already in his consciousness. What Parashur Dev Goswami is doing is, showing him how there is Krishna throughout, how to see Krishna within the cosmology.

So, what is already in his consciousness, how to see Krishna within that consciousness? How to see Krishna within that? That was the purpose of the Bhagavatam. Bhagavatam's description of cosmology. So, just like when Prabhupada started the Bhaktivedanta Institute.

He wanted devotees to scientifically establish the basis of Krishna consciousness. Now, does that mean that every single person who comes to the Krishna consciousness movement has to study science? Not necessarily. Now, science modern science is already in the minds of people.

Then, okay, through modern science, how can you see Krishna? So, what is already familiar for us, use what is familiar, use what is already in our mind to take our mind, our consciousness towards Krishna. So, this works very well for Parashur Dev Parikshit Maharaj because he is already familiar with cosmology. But for us, it is from the unfamiliar to the transcendent.

So, our situation is that the Bhagavatam cosmology is not already in our consciousness. It is not a part of our culture. It is not a part of our education.

So, maybe we went to some traditional temples and we saw some Meru Parvat or something like that. But that was never a prominent part of our consciousness unless of course some of you are very exceptional. So, it is all unfamiliar for us.

So, now we don't have to first bring the Bhagavatam's cosmology into our consciousness and then bring Krishna into the cosmology. We can just directly focus on bringing Krishna into our consciousness. And that means there are so many other sections in the Bhagavatam which we can read, which we can relish, which we can focus on and that can immerse our consciousness in Krishna.

So, here we are seeing the cosmology in the light of the purpose of the Bhagavatam. To apply the Bhagavatam means to remember Krishna. And for Parikshit Maharaj, cosmology means help him to remember Krishna.

For us the cosmology may just be not a devotionally absorbing activity, it may just be an intellectually exhausting activity. So, how do I figure this out? What do I do? So, we don't have to necessarily exhaust ourselves that way. And that's why this is how we need to approach Bhagavatam with a devotional purpose.

And approaching Bhagavatam with a devotional purpose means we avoid the extremes of absolutizing and relativizing. Absolutizing means every single section of the Bhagavatam is equally important for every sadhaka to study. Yes, every section of the Bhagavatam is important, no doubt about that.

But is every section of the Bhagavatam equally important for everyone to study? Not necessarily. But when Prabhupada was not sure whether he would live long enough to be able to translate the whole Bhagavatam, what did he do? He gave Krishna a book because he considered that the most important. So, when Prabhupada himself asked my professor, which do you consider the most important among your teachings? So, Prabhupada quoted 1.2.9 and 10 when he talked about what is the purpose of life.

So, there is in one sense, every section of the Bhagavatam is important. In another sense, there is a hierarchy. I'll explain how that hierarchy works.

So, absolutizing every section of the Bhagavatam doesn't work. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said that he would like to hear the stories of Dhruva and Prahlad hundreds of times. Why not the story of Vara? Why not the story of Vamana? Well, he is a person.

He is a person who is attracted to the Supreme Person. So, we don't have to absolutize everything. Now, the fear whenever we say don't absolutize, the fear is then do we relativize? No.

Absolutizing and relativizing are two extremes. Relativizing means this is not true, this is not valid, just reject it. It's all relative.

Well, we are not relativizing. Between absolutizing and relativizing is contextualizing. Contextualizing means what? That the Bhagavatam is spoken at a particular time in a particular context and certain sections of the Bhagavatam may be more relevant in particular contexts and less relevant in other contexts.

So, we are not saying that there is a difference between relevance and validity. When we relativize, we say they are not valid only. When we are saying about contextualizing, what is relevant? What is applicable for me? So, we understand that certain sections of the Bhagavatam may not be that helpful for me in remembering Krishna and other sections of the Bhagavatam may be much more helpful for me in remembering Krishna.

So, what do we do? We focus on those sections which enhance our remembrance of Krishna. We don't reject, we don't minimize, we don't mythologize the Bhagavatam cosmology, we respect it. But that need not be our priority in studying the Bhagavatam.

So, we approach the devotional purpose and the application of the Bhagavatam is to help us remember Krishna. So, Bhagavatam cosmology is a resource for us in remembering Krishna. So, one extreme is that this is a resource that everyone has to utilize.

Everyone has to study Bhagavatam cosmology thoroughly. Krishna doesn't say at the end of your life you have to remember Bhagavatam cosmology to come to me. At the end of your life, you have to remember me to come to me.

Otherwise, reject Bhagavatam cosmology. It's all a distraction. Well, it's not a distraction.

It just may not be what is relevant for us. Now, for whom is the Bhagavatam cosmology as a resource valuable? For those who are already interested in cosmology. Now, those who are already interested especially in traditional conceptions of cosmology.

So, there are dedicated devotees who are doing research in this field to try to understand it, to try to present it and it has its importance. But does it have such a great importance that we have to focus only on that? No. My point is that Brahmapada did not start the international society for Bhagavatam cosmology explanation.

It is the international society for Krishna consciousness and Bhagavatam cosmology is a aid in that. It is a tool in that. So, what I spoke today, I tried to briefly summarize to this devotee and he told me, okay, you know, I have not yet changed my mind but I have decided to suspend my resignation.

So, let me think a little bit more about it. Let me think. So, ultimately it is Krishna consciousness is a matter of consciousness.

Once the heart experiences Krishna, then everything else will be seen in context. Not that it will become unimportant but it will be seen in context. So, as devotees, we sometimes have to be careful that we don't make people feel that you have to reject science or reject rationality in the name of faith.

Have faith in the Bhagavatam. How can you not have faith? No, you cannot guilt people into having faith. Faith is at one level rationally developed and at another level it is divinely gifted.

We use our reason, our logic to understand things and then by that we develop some faith and otherwise it is divinely gifted. Faith comes when we practice bhakti and do seva and we get the blessings of the Vaishnavas. Then we get faith.

But it is not that faith requires us to reject reason. That is not the point of faith. Faith doesn't require us to reject reason.

Faith requires us to transcend reason. Yes, reason takes us so far but there are domains of consciousness and domains of reality which go beyond what reason can take us. So, let's be open to exploring it and the Bhagavatam takes us not just to cosmology.

It takes us beyond the cosmology to the abode of the Supreme Lord and we also need to focus on going toward that abode, at least taking our consciousness toward the Supreme Lord at that abode, our beloved Lord Shri Krishna. So, I will summarize. I spoke today about in this section of the Bhagavatam, although describing cosmology the Bhagavatam is consciousness conscious.

Focusing on the consciousness of Bali Maharaj. In what consciousness is he offering himself not to gain a bigger kingdom like that. And Prabhupada is also focusing on the practices and principles of spiritual life which will elevate our consciousness.

So, then with respect to difficulties in approaching the Bhagavatam, I discussed three difficulties. First is understanding itself and Bhaktivinoda Thakura acknowledges that cosmology, morality and philosophy may be difficult to understand in the Bhagavatam. But the cosmology itself is difficult naturally because the cosmos is so vast and it is not that in every area of life that we study, we understand everything.

So, even if we don't understand we continue serving the Bhagavatam. And for that purpose, the problem may come. This is Sankhya may be difficult to understand.

It's not that we alone. Aryabhatta had difficulty in understanding. Prabhupada said go to some specialist to understand it.

So, it's not unique. Then problem is that it seems to contradict science. That's why we can't just leave it aside.

How do I accept it? So, then we discussed that it doesn't necessarily contradict science. Science offers a model of reality which can be valid and valuable but it is neither exclusive nor exhaustive. There can be other alternate visions of reality.

And even within the Indian cosmological tradition itself, there are alternate visions of the cosmos. The Jyotisha cosmos which was cosmology for astrological, astronomical purposes and Bhagavatam cosmology is more for contemplative, devotional purposes. So, just as our Acharyas did not hesitate, did not consider as unfaithful to Bhagavatam, to use Jyotisha cosmology, although it is different from Bhagavatam cosmology.

So, we don't have to make it a competition between Bhagavatam cosmology and modern scientific cosmology. There are two different visions of reality for two different purposes. Just like scientists are pragmatic in terms of using both quantum physics and relativity.

So, we can be pragmatic. For navigating the world, we can use modern cosmology. For raising our consciousness, we can use Bhagavatam cosmology.

Then how to apply this? The purpose of Bhagavatam is to help us remember Krishna. And for Parikshit Maharaj, the cosmology was already familiar. So, from familiar to the transcendental.

For us, it is unfamiliar. So, we don't have to bring the cosmology into our consciousness and then bring Krishna into it. We just directly bring Krishna through the other resources offered by the Bhagavatam.

This does not mean that we are trivializing Bhagavatam cosmology. Discuss the two extremes of absolutizing and relativizing. And between is contextualizing.

And Bhagavatam cosmology is a valuable resource for those who are already interested in the cosmology and especially the traditional conception of cosmology. They can go deep. They can understand.

They can specialize. And for those who are interested, they can explain. But for most of us, we focus on remembering Krishna and raising our consciousness towards Him.

We don't have to reject reason in understanding the Bhagavatam and approaching Krishna. We have to accept reason but accept that there is reality beyond reason also. The Bhagavatam is not describing something that is irrational.

It is describing the reality that is rational and trans-rational. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.

I know we are already a little over time. One question. Somebody has? Oh.

Okay. Krishnagiru. Hare Krishna.

Thank you very much. Always a pleasure hearing you. So, as you were mentioning in the class, I was thinking on this point.

I'll make that and then ask the question. You were saying that people used the Jyotisha Shastra for astrological purposes. So I was just thinking that traditionally, it's something very amazing how people did it.

When they had to do some samskara, whether it's a wedding, anything, they would use the principles of Jyotisha Shastra and the panchanga to calculate the muhurtha and when to do. But when they would sit for that ceremony and they would do the sankalpa, that time it was the puranic cosmology they would bring in. Saying, you know, Bharatavarshe, Bharatakande, Sumeroho, Dakshineparshwe, you know, that whole sankalpa if you see, that is not according to the Jyotisha.

So, right? And then they would say, this is the Manvantara, Ashta, Vimshate, Kalyuge, Prathame, Paate, you know, they would say the whole thing. That means the time and place when they would do sankalpa, it would be according to the puranic. But the actual calculation of when to do itself was according to a completely different thing.

So how do you think that these people, you know, and this is going on since, we can say, forever, because that's how it has been always. So how do you think these people managed to integrate both into their system? Because it is not that the Bhagavatam cosmology did not have a role. It had a role, you know, even now in any wedding, anything, any death, anything.

Two things. First is that this is a characteristic of the Eastern wisdom tradition that it is comfortable with uncertainty. So, it's like, actually it comes from Greco-Roman tradition.

I think Plato had his principle of non-contradiction. Say, if A is true and B is the opposite of A, then B cannot be true. And that's like a cardinal basis of Western thinking.

So that's why it's this or that. But Eastern thinking is more this and that. That's why, is God personal or impersonal? He is both.

He is both personal and impersonal. So that the Eastern way is more of and than or. Now, sometimes how the two and come together is quite difficult to figure out.

But the point is that comfort with uncertainty is a characteristic of the Eastern tradition. I'm not saying that means it's a free fall for everything and everything. There's a lot of room for reason and this is right, this is wrong.

That kind of discrimination is always there. But comfort with uncertainty is a characteristic of how should I put it? Sometimes, when we talk about faith, we often equate faith with certainty. I have faith in this.

I'm certain about this. But, actually speaking, certainty may not always arise from faith. Certainty may arise from ego.

I want to portray to the world how much faith I have. Or certainty can arise from the opposite of ego also. That is insecurity.

I don't want others to know my faith is insecure. So I will make very bombastic faith proclamations. So certainty doesn't always arise from faith.

And on the other side, uncertainty may not always arise from lack of faith. Uncertainty can also arise from humility. The universe is so big, reality is so big that I don't know how things work.

So that's why when I say comfort with uncertainty, that does not mean lack of faith. It could just mean humility. When you are approaching a reality that is very complex.

That's the first point. The second point is that with respect to the rituals that were performed, over the centuries, there was a significant I don't want to use the word divorce, but at least a differentiation between the ritual aspect and the philosophical aspect of the broad Vedic tradition. Rituals went on fairly well.

But the philosophy behind that, that was not so widely understood or so widely disseminated. So I have talked with this when I was working on the cosmology project. I talked with this with the Dhanvir Maharaj and others.

He also mentioned the point that it is not that this particular cosmology is unknown in today's India also. Because when there are weddings and other ceremonies they talk about this cosmology. It's there very much.

But even if you ask most priests who are talking about this, they don't know much more than that. There is a mantra they chant. So the ritual and the philosophical aspects they have often been quite separated.

Rituals went on well. The philosophy, not so much. So when our devotees were doing the cosmology project, they went to other traditions and experts and then many learned scholars.

Many, many learned. But two things to actually reconcile Bhagavatam cosmology with Jyotisha cosmology so that we can get a picture that makes sense and that can be depicted. That was one challenge and then to make sense of that picture of the universe with respect to the picture of the universe that we get from modern cosmology.

That was another challenge. So it is still a challenge that has to be negotiated and my understanding there is, what happened in India as the Islamic rule came in, the patronage for the Brahmana intellectuals went down. The patronage for the Brahmana who were doing rituals continued on.

Because rituals were still performed. People wanted to do marriages, people wanted to do all those things. So that's why there is a significant intellectual gap within tradition.

So it will require a lot more research to be able to reconcile Bhagavatam. Not even to reconcile but at least understand how it was reconciled in the past. Thank you.

So should we go ahead and you can tell me how much time? Yes. Personally when I went through it, in my heart I didn't feel any problem because I saw it as, even if I call myself not having faith from the transcendence but actually even the science talks so much about the higher dimensions and from higher dimensions you can reconcile everything actually. Because it is possible to have sun nearer to the moon nearer to the earth than the moon by simply seeing from a higher dimensional science.

So when we see things even if we see consciousness as one dimension, we can change so many parameters around that. You change your consciousness, you can see another world in the same place. Like a divine soul sees all of us as souls.

And we are so many of the people on the body will see us as bodies. So on the consciousness platform we can see many things which we may not see on another platform on a higher consciousness I am talking. So when actually science is already giving you an equipment, a tool by which you actually can see things at a different platform if you have so then why we have to actually, I understand the problem that people are in, but when science has given a tool which just makes them accept this reality also.

So science also recognizes that there are multiple dimensions to reality and things are perceived differently from different dimensions. So then is this such a big problem accepting Bhagavatam Cosmology? It depends on how deep you want to go into science but there are quite a few, there are scientists who consider themselves like guardians of science and scientific rationality so they say that this whole idea of higher dimensions, it is used by any and every religious tradition to try to justify their beliefs. So for example there are what I call young earth creationists who say the earth is just 6000 years old and they are scientists, they are scientifically justifying that.

So now what they say is what do higher dimensions in science mean and what do they not mean? Now of course their boundaries that they set, it is not that all the scientific world accepts that, but in general science through its higher dimensions recognizes, what I talked about that science offers a model of reality and it is not exclusive it is not exhaustive, this is something which even most scientists will admit see most people who are into science, they are not into the philosophy of science they may not even think about these things so much, but they will accept these things. But just because there can be multiple models of reality does that mean that they will accept a model of reality, that a model of reality which involves a giant turtle at the bottom of the universe or things like that, they are not necessarily immediately acceptable so I would use this, I will talk about this with Dutta Karmaprabhu so he says science uses the word dimensions in a particular technical sense. He says I prefer the word levels rather than dimensions, there are levels of reality.

Because dimensions are like a length, breadth, there are some more dimensions. So dimension has a very specific meaning in science so he prefers the word levels of reality so all that we can say is that there is abundant basis within science to substantiate that there can be different views of reality but whether a particular view of reality is right or not that will have to be defended on its own strength just because there are many views of reality, so if somebody says that therefore we can say that Satan is God and that's also one view of reality. Does science accept that? No, even theology doesn't accept that.

So yes there can be openness to multiple levels of reality but after that, is what the Bhagavatam is describing also one level of reality? That will have to be defended in its own way explained in its own way. So openness is possible, definitely So openness will be there and then when we talk about why we actually have faith in science, most people, is because it gave us fan and light because it gave something practical. So if the Bhagavatam cosmology, whatever it is explaining, if it is also able to explain the phenomenon of the world, then just like quantum mechanics and relativity they are accepted even if they are not able to reconcile things because they see that it works similarly if Bhagavatam cosmology works, they have no way to actually Prabhupada told in a letter to his scientist disciple that there are four things it can explain.

The phases of the moon, the eclipses the variation of the seasons Do you remember the fourth one? Day night alteration, yeah. So there are four things if you can explain the Bhagavatam cosmology, then that will also be acceptable model of reality. So that's what our devotees are trying to do.

Thank you. Hare Krishna Thank you very much for the class, the systematic presentation as always. My question is when you said even from traditional perspectives there is this Bhagavatam cosmology and there is this Jyotish cosmology and then the scientific world which gives models of the actual reality the fact being everything is so complex, we just cannot understand but we can have different perspectives to the actual reality this is a factual thing, the reality is so complex we cannot comprehend everything about it so depending on the context, contextualizing the presentation there could be so many presentations, but the fact is being in the universe we need some operational knowledge, for that which one do we refer to and continuing from what he said whichever gives us the easiest and the most accessible explanation for operational reasons is the one which is most widely accepted how for understanding all this complexity, which is the text or body of knowledge that we should look for to fulfill our operational requirements of being in this existence Okay, so for operating in the world which body of knowledge do we use? See Prabhupada preferred Ayurveda but he didn't insist on Ayurveda that all his disciples in order to be faithful to Krishna consciousness they all have to take Ayurvedic medicine In fact when he was in America, he also had a procedure, not in America, in London he had a procedure done which was completely allopathic so with respect to the world, we need to be pragmatic, don't make it into a faith issue that faith issue means what? if you are building a house, should it be according to Vastu? Yes but does that mean that a devotee cannot have a house which is not according to Vastu? Not necessarily, so in my understanding the world is complex and whatever tools work, we use those tools language is a tool, so right now we are speaking in English is it that to be faithful to our tradition, all of us have to learn Sanskrit or Bengali and speak in Sanskrit or Bengali? If we can, wonderful, if not, doesn't matter whatever language works is good enough, so in the world for navigating the world we can be pragmatic, so if modern cosmology helps for us in functioning in the world, that's fine we use that as a tool, and Galileo was being persecuted at that time he said that how to reconcile he says that the Bible tells how to go to heaven, science tells how the heavens go how the heavens go means how do the celestial objects move so he says the motions of them are described by science but how we go to the heavens, how we raise our consciousness that's the Bible, in this case a spiritual text so basically there is the outer world and the inner world science can help us improve the outer world and now some devotees may broadly Prabhupada had two strands in his outreach one is you could say cultural warfare and the other was cultural integration or penetration that means sometimes Prabhupada would say modern education is like a spiritual slaughterhouse but other times when Prabhupada is travelling he would be very happy if he would get to talk with scholars now if they are products of modern slaughterhouse, why spend time with them, why respect them at all no but even if we say that modern education is not that good, but still even to succeed in that one requires intellectual ability, one requires talent, one requires dedication and Prabhupada respected that, so there is the model of cultural warfare and in the first generation of ISKCON that was what was prominent everything about modern culture is bad and it has to be rejected and science was also demonized because of that, but we don't have to do that, not every single devotee has to adopt the model of cultural warfare, there are different ways of spreading and sharing and practicing Krishna consciousness, so there is also the model of cultural penetration, we accept that there are good things in the mainstream culture today by culture I am not just talking about movies and music and things like that, I am just talking about the broad way people live, scientific science is also a part of today's culture so we can use that in Krishna's service, we can use that for our functioning in the world so that we can serve Krishna and Prabhupada, so the cultural adoption or cultural penetration model, if you want to talk about that in our traditional terminology that is Yukta Vairagya, so Yukta Vairagya is whatever can be used in Krishna's service we use that, so if modern scientific knowledge can help us in Krishna's service then why not, we can use it so we actually have absolutely no control of the situation in which we are placed, the way the whole society operates materially, and if it operates in a specific way, then a specific perspective also works in that context, so if we pick that up the path of least resistance, being in this situation, using things which work in this context, that is what Yukta Vairagya is, a few things just work Yeah, and the word path of least resistance has a slightly negative connotation, it means as if we don't want to fight, we just are taking the easy way out but it's not the easy way out, it is the way that fulfils our purpose, see it's like we have to fight battles for being Krishna conscious but we don't have to fight more battles than necessary what do I mean that, that yes, we have to raise our consciousness from material to the spiritual level but, say for example with respect to the moon issue now Prabhupada has made 6-7 different kinds of statements on the moon issue, so I have a, on my YouTube channel, there is a whole Prabhupada's positions on the moon issue, all those statements I have analysed so sometimes the devotees take one statement, Prabhupada said man didn't go to the moon and then that becomes a big faith issue, did we go, did we not go now, there is, if somebody wants to make the case man didn't go to the moon, there is credible evidence for that, but not everybody will find it credible and does one have to, is that have to be central thing when somebody is coming to Krishna conscious, if you see the approach that Prabhupada took in the introduction of Krishna book, Prabhupada is very non-committal, he says that we have endeavoured, man has endeavoured a lot to raise himself to the moon but he has not raised his, endeavoured much to raise his consciousness, the Bhagavad Gita will guide you how to raise your consciousness, but the point is you have endeavoured so much here, endeavour here also, now whether that endeavour was productive, whether that endeavour was delusional, whether it was all a straight up, that's a different issue, that doesn't have to be the central point, so is that a battle we even have to fight, so Prabhupada says in the 7th canto, we have to always keep our mind and intelligence healthy and stout to differentiate the purpose of life from a life full of problems to differentiate the purpose of life from a life full of problems, there may be 100 problems around me, but solving the 100 problems is not the purpose of my life, what is the purpose of my life and for that what problems do I need to solve, let me focus on those so there may be many conceptions in the world, some of them may be correct, some of them may not be correct, but correcting all of them is not our purpose, raising our consciousnesses and if some conceptions in the world are obstructing us in that, then that is a problem, so do you Krishna consciousness was presented by Prabhupada at the time of counter culture, counter culture means that those people didn't have faith in anything mainstream, they didn't have faith in modern education they didn't have, the hippies basically, they didn't have faith in modern education religion at their times, the government at their times and they didn't have faith in the accomplishments claimed by the government, so in one sense when Prabhupada said that we did not go to the moon, that resonated with them because you know people always had lot of skepticism towards the establishment, so at that time what oh yeah, that is, oh this swami is so bold as to make such a statement like that, it appealed to people, but today that may not appeal that may alienate people, so we have to differentiate between strategy and purpose, strategy is a tool, purpose is what we primarily want, the moon issue was a strategy that was circumstantially used by Prabhupada, but that is not what we need to use today so whatever works, we use it and move forward in our Krishna consciousness Thank you very much.