From what science explains to what explains science
Hare Krishna.
It's good to be here with Dhanuraspeetakshi Kaurvita and Shila Prabhupada. And today I'll speak on the topic of the relationship between science and sculpture. I'll speak on the topic specifically, from what science explains to what explains science.
From what science explains to what explains science. What that means is that science offers some explanations for the way things work in the world around us. But what is it that makes science work? What explains the fact that nature works according to science? So sometimes people see science and scripture as contradictory.
And this view that if you want to be spiritual, if you want to be religious, then you can't be scientific. You have to give up science. You are becoming unscientific.
You are behaving in irrational myths. People will say like that. However, if you see, the fact is that many of the greatest scientists have always been theists.
Newton, who is considered the pioneer of the modern age of science. In fact, most of physics was called as Newtonian physics. Before Einstein came up with the theory of relativity and Planck and others came up with quantum physics.
So Newtonian physics. Now Newton himself was a theist. Last year I was invited at Cambridge University to give a talk on science and spirituality.
And while going there, we passed by the same tree where Newton is said to have seen the fruit fly. So that tree is still several hundred years old. It's alive in the park that is there.
So now Newton himself believed in God. And when he came up with the theory of gravity and he explained things about how the planets move, how the objects fall. He was, when he saw the fruit falling, most people, if they had seen a fruit falling, they would have simply picked up the fruit, eaten it and gone their way.
So he asked the question, what made the fruit fall? So that's his intelligence. Now when he was looking for the answer, all of us, when we are, when we look for answer, there is a question within us for which we are looking for answer. If I am searching for something, say if I am searching for my phone.
Now even if there is a big computer lying over there, I won't notice that. Because that's not what I am searching for. So if I am searching for a phone and I say there is no computer in this room, well you are not looking for a computer.
So there is a driving search or to give a more specific example, if I am looking for a key which is outside this room and I search for it inside this room, I don't find it anywhere and I say the key doesn't exist. Well, first of all you are not looking for it and you are not looking for it in the right place. So when we look at, when Newton saw the fruit falling, he could have said God made the fruit fall.
And he accepted the existence of God. But at that time he was not looking for God as the explanatory cause. He was looking for a material mechanism that makes the fruit fall.
So God as an explanation for what happens and material mechanisms as explanation for what happens, these are not contradictory. They are complementary. They are different levels of explanations.
So what do we mean by different levels of explanations? Say, if cricket match is going on, India-Pakistan cricket match. And the last ball, a six is needed to win the match. And the bowler bowls and the batsman hooks.
And the ball just goes over the boundary. Six and they win the match. Now you may ask, how did the ball go across the boundary? We say it went by the laws of physics.
Well, it's true. Yes, you can explain the law of physics. And the ball was cast with this much force.
And because it was hit with this much force, if it had been hit with lesser force, it would have been caught by the fielder over there. Because it was hit with this much force, it went beyond the boundary. At the same time, we can also say that the ball went over the boundary because the batsman hit an expert hook shot.
Both are not contradictory. They are complementary. So there is a mechanical cause and there is a personal cause.
And the mechanical and the personal work together. Say, if we go home and there is a delicious food item over there. How is this so delicious? Somebody says, okay, all the ingredients are put together in the exact quantity.
Yes, that's true. If the sugar had been a little less, if the salt had been a little more, if the heat had been heated too much, then it wouldn't have worked out that way. So the fact that all the ingredients were mixed properly, for the right time duration, that is one explanation why this is so delicious.
At the same time, you can say the person who cooked it is an expert cook. So the personal explanation that there is an expert person who is involved and there is a mechanism involved. The mechanism and the person are not two contradictory things.
They go in parallel. So science focusses on looking for the mechanism of how things happen. And it can come up with valid explanations of mechanisms.
But beyond the mechanisms, there is a personal cause. Here it is said that when the Lord desired to see, the eyes, the sun and the whole system for vision manifested. When the Lord desired to hear, then the ears, the power of hearing, the agents, the devatas who oversee hearing, all of them manifested.
So the Bhagavatam is focussing on the personal explanation. Modern science focusses on the mechanical explanations. Mechanical explanations means science looks for mechanical factors or mechanical forces which make things happen.
And they are valid. They are correct, but they are not necessarily complete. So if somebody is observing, say, outside this house, they are sitting on the other side and they observe.
Okay, this car comes out of the parking lot and moves out and starts moving on the road. What made the car move? The wheels started moving. That's why the car moved.
What made the wheels move? There was a mechanism which connects the wheels to the engine. There is a spark in the ignition which made the car move. Okay, that's true.
What made the car move? If you move back, there is the key. The key was pressed and that made the car move. So why did the car move? Because the key button was pressed.
That's a correct explanation. Another explanation could be that the owner wanted to go for a ride. So the mechanical and the personal explanations can go in parallel.
And when we position sometimes either religionists can do that or atheists can do that. When we position science and scripture as contradictory, say, science says this, religion says this, therefore religion is wrong or science is wrong. These are not so simplistic because science and scripture are talking about two different levels of explanations.
This doesn't mean that there are absolutely no contradictions. There are places where they may be contradictory. But our thrust, when Parikshit Maharaj is enquiring about Shukadeva Goswami and Shukadeva Goswami is telling the Bhagavatam, his purpose is to fix the mind of Krishna.
He has only seven days to live. At that time, he has neither the interest nor the time to do a PhD in cosmology. Or a PhD in physics or anything like that.
The Bhagavatam gives material knowledge but the purpose is very clear. The purpose is to help us when we observe the world around us, how can that help us to fix the mind of Krishna. So in all these sections, the Bhagavatam actually talks about matter at three levels.
The Bhagavatam has a systematic evolution in thought. Srila Prabhupada writes in the book On the Way to Krishna that all knowledge comes from Krishna but all knowledge doesn't begin from Krishna. That means whoever gets any insight, even if scientists get some insights, those insights are coming from Krishna.
But knowledge begins. That means when we start thinking, it's not that one day suddenly we think about Krishna. No, we look at the world around us.
We observe where this world comes from. What makes the world work? By observing the world, then our thoughts may go to the source of the world. So all knowledge does not begin from Krishna.
Knowledge begins from the world around us. So when we observe the world and we want to know how the world works so well, or quite often why the world doesn't work well, either way that's when we become philosophical. So the point is that when we look at the world, we may look to see some mechanisms.
Okay, what makes this work in a particular way? That's fine. So science primarily looks for mechanisms. And science in itself is not for God.
It is not against God. It is an operational methodology called methodological naturalism. Naturalism is that we are going to look for material explanations for material phenomena.
So if a fruit is falling, a supernatural or a non-material explanation can be God wanted the fruit to fall. That's true. But science is very intimately related to technology.
Technology means that once we understand the mechanisms by which nature works, then we can tap those mechanisms. And by tapping those mechanisms, we can do things. So for example, by understanding the principles of mechanical engineering, the laws of motion, eventually vehicles are made.
By understanding the principles of aerodynamics, aeroplanes are made. By understanding the principles of telecommunication, mobile and internet are made. So science focusses on getting material explanations for material phenomena.
Now in this process, there are some scientists who become overconfident. Or rather, there are some atheists who for whatever reason are atheists and they try to use science to prop up their atheism. So science is basically a way of looking at the world.
It's a way of looking at the world where we look at whatever is happening in the world and we try to find out material explanations for whatever is happening in the world. And there are some scientists who claim that this is all that there is to nature. That matter is all that exists.
There can be two theories. Matter is all that matters. And matter is all that exists.
So both these people who are primarily matter-centred, they are materialists. Those who say matter is all that matters, they are functional materialists. There is something else existing, but we don't care about it.
Those who say matter is all that exists, they are fanatical materialists. Anything else is, it's according to them, anathema. It can't exist.
But from a scientific perspective, there is no way that science can ever prove that nothing beyond matter exists. Why not? Because, imagine if somebody is in a spacecraft and they have a flashlight which can see only within the spacecraft or we have a space balloon and somebody is inside the space balloon and they have a flashlight which can see only inside the space balloon. Now, inside the space balloon, they can see a lot of things.
But, there is a whole universe outside the space balloon and that flashlight can't show at all. The flashlight is designed in such a way that it shows only what is inside the space balloon. So, the space balloon is like the world of matter and science is like the torch which looks for material explanations for material phenomena.
That means that it is looking for material explanations for material phenomena means that it is a flashlight which looks only within the world of matter. So, science cannot make any statements about whether anything non-material exists or not. So, in that sense, science is functionally non-spiritual.
It is not pro-spiritual, it is not anti-spiritual. Now, by looking at how the world works around us, we can make some inferences. A Nobel laureate scientist, Eugene Wigner, he wrote a paper called On the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Study of Natural Sciences.
So, On the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Study of Natural Sciences. His basic thesis was that if we consider maths, especially concepts like triple integral calculus, square root, imaginary numbers, these are basically constructs of the human mind. Imaginary number is a construct of the human mind.
So, scientists have found that mathematics is one branch of knowledge which contains concepts which we have developed from our human mind and nature is something existing out there. So, why should it be that the nature out there correlate with the way our human mind functions and comes up with concepts? For example, if we go to a palace, if we go to a mansion and it has many doors which are locked. And as we come to a door, just look around and we see a key fallen over there.
Pick up the key and it fits the door. As we go to the next door, we look around, we see another key fallen over there. We pick it up, it fits the door.
As we move forward, so we just keep finding keys that keep opening doors. So, now I may say that okay, I found the key by which I could open the door. And I can take credit for finding the key that opened the door.
But finding the key that opened the door does not explain three things. How did the door come into existence? How did the key come into existence? And how did the key exist right near the door so that I could find it? Similarly, the locked door is like nature. The key is like the concept of mathematics.
So, F is equal to GM1 M2 upon R square. That is the law of gravity. Newton came up with that.
But basically, if you consider this, it's a concept which the human mind has produced. Now, why should mathematics, which is basically a construct of the human mind, why should that correlate with nature out there? If we consider that, if we consider atheism to be true, then that would mean that everything that exists, both our brain and the world around us, is a result of unguided natural processes. And if there are unguided natural processes, why should that, first of all, nature obeys certain laws, why should the human brain be able to, nature itself is a result of unguided natural processes.
The human brain is a result of unguided natural processes. So, why should nature work according to certain laws? Why should the human mind be capable of concepts complicated with mathematics? And why should those concepts correlate with nature? So, the science, basically how it advances is, it finds the keys to open the doors. But, the scientific approach does not explain the existence of the keys, the existence of the doors, and the correlation between the keys and the doors.
Science requires the pre-existence of nature. Science requires the pre-existence of the human brain. And science requires the pre-existing correlation between the way the human brain functions and nature functions.
Einstein said, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Why should it be comprehensible? Why at all? So, God is not an explanatory alternative to science.
Some people say, oh, science can't explain this, science can't explain this, science can't explain this, therefore God exists. That's one way of looking at it. But God is much more, he's the explanatory foundation for science.
Why is science able to explain anything at all? Going back to the point if we had, if we look at the atheistic story of the, or history about the universe, what will be the biography of the universe be like? Nothing existed because of nothing. Nothing exploded because of nothing. And gave rise to everything.
It's a tremendously rational story, isn't it? Nothing existed because of nothing, nothing exploded because of nothing, and gave rise to everything. Some scientists say, actually there's nothing, some atheists they say, there's one atheist who has written a book, How Everything Came From Nothing. That's the subtitle of the book.
And now the essential point in that book is, that actually the nothing from which everything came is not nothing. That is a complex quantum mechanical vacuum which requires pages and pages of the most intricate calculus to describe. Well, well then, everything is not coming from nothing if you are redefining nothing to be something.
So basically, if we look from the atheistic perspective, what happens is, we have no explanation for what science works, for why science works. God is not an explanation for that which is unexplainable by science. God is an explanation for the very explainability of science.
Why is science able to explain it all? That is because of God. So, I started by talking about what science explains, from what science explains, to what explains science. That's our topic.
So, from what science explains is what we learn in our scientific textbooks. Okay, this mechanism is explained, this mechanism is explained. And we see today around us the products of technology.
And they are significant in terms of the way they have reshaped the way people function today. So, we have no confrontation with such explanations. The material world is complex and it can be explained in different ways.
So, science may come up with one model for explaining how things work. That's fine. But why does that explanation work at all? We are not asking, science answers the question how.
Okay, this happens like this, this happens like this, this happens like this. But, why do these explanations work at all? For that, we need to, basically, we need to point to something beyond science. That is, why does this key fit this lock? Okay, you know, I am clever enough to find the key which fit the lock.
But, who made the key? Who made the door? And how did the key and the door happen to be in the same place? So, what is the source of the order in nature which science discovers? What is the source of the orderliness of the human mind by which it can discover the order in nature? So, that is something for which the most reasonable explanation is that there is a guiding intelligence that has shaped the human mind and that has shaped the world around it. Now, exactly how that guiding intelligence shaped the human brain, how that guiding intelligence shaped the world around, that is a matter for discussion and investigation. Science may give one explanation for that.
In science itself, there is not one explanation. There are many different theories. There is a, I will conclude with one point, that there is a, there is a Nobel laureate, there is a physicist, he was asked, astrophysicist, he was asked by one of his students, there are so many theories of the origin of universes.
In astrophysics, there are so many theories which keep coming. So, how do we keep up with all the theories? So, there is a, physicist replied, he said, if you miss a bus, a girl, or a cosmological theory, no need to run after. Another one is soon coming.
So, in science, there can be different theories about how things work. And yes, some theories may be able to explain things better than others. Our point is, our confrontation, our conflict is not with specific theories.
That is the jurisdiction of scientists. Let them debate and find out what is the theory. Our point is, that what, not what the theory explains, but what explains the theory.
Why should any theory be able to explain nature at all? That is the fundamental question. And for that, the most reasonable explanation is, that there is, a guiding intelligence which has shaped nature, which has shaped the human mind, and which, helps the human mind, perceive, the working of nature. And Krishna says, mayadhyakshena prakruti, suryate saccharacharam.
That it is, material nature works under its own order, but that is under my supervision. So, our purpose, is, not to, not to argue with specific mechanisms, by which certain things are explained. Our purpose is, where does it all come from? Who is the source of it all? Anasheela Prabhupada was on a morning walk, and he was talking to Professor Benford, I think it was Canada or America.
So they were going into a garden, and, Prabhupada asked, Swamiji, Prabhupada asked, what is the current scientific knowledge about the soul? And the professor said that, currently we have no scientific knowledge about the soul. And Prabhupada said, then you have no scientific knowledge at all. No, no, Swamiji, scientific knowledge is of a different category.
For example, we have two big volumes, of books, which explain how this grass grows. He pointed to the grass in the garden, Prabhupada said, even without your two books, the grass will still grow. So then, Professor Benford was also clever.
He said, if God did not want us to study the grass, why did he put it there? So Prabhupada said, my point is, you study the grass, and you forget the God who put the grass there. So, yes, we can study material mechanisms, we can study the material objects, but we also need to study the soul. So, Vedaisya Sarvair Ahameva Vidyo, by all knowledge, it is our own to be known.
So, if scientific knowledge, we can look at it in a way, that helps us increase our appreciation of God. Then, that scientific knowledge, also becomes favourable, for our spiritual growth. So, science in itself, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
But science can point towards it. And if we look at, the very explainability of science, that requires an explanation, and the most reasonable explanation, is the existence of a supreme intelligence, who has guided nature, who has guided the human brain, and who is guiding the, any discoveries of the correlations between, the brain, working of the brain, and the working of nature. Thus, our study of science, can, if we need to study, if we need to approach science, rather than seeing science as contradictory to scripture, we see that, scripture is meant to point our consciousness towards God, and we can study science, by going to its fundamentals, and that can also help us to point towards God.
So, in ultimate purpose, if we keep it clear, then we can, sideline any controversies that might be there. There are technical experts who can resolve those controversies, who can address those controversies. But as far as our purpose is, we want to fix the mind on Krishna, we want to absorb ourselves in Krishna.
And science, can become a tool, if our overall life and intelligence is guided by scripture, then science can also be seen in a way, that can inspire us, to deepen, our appreciation of Krishna's intelligence, and our absorption in Him. So, I'll summarise. I spoke about, how, I spoke about the relationship between science and scripture, from what science explains, to what explains science.
Science looks for, material explanations, for material phenomena. So, there is a material explanation, or a mechanical explanation, and there is a personal explanation. And these two can be contradictory, it can be complementary, not contradictory.
I gave three examples, say, if somebody is, if a batsman hits a sixer, a match winning sixer. You can say, how did the ball cross over the boundary? By the laws of physics. It's true.
That is also by, the expertise of the batsman who hit. Now, if an item is cooked very nicely, what made it cook so nicely? Okay, all the ingredients were heated, balanced together, put in the right company. That's true.
The expertise of the cook is also another explanation. What made the car move? You could say, the wheels moving, the ignition sparking, the key being pressed. That's one explanation.
The driver wanted to go out for a drive. That's another explanation. So, science, focusses on material explanations for material phenomena.
If we are in a space balloon, we have a torch, which sees only inside the space balloon. Then, whether anything exists, outside the space balloon or not, that cannot be said. So, science, is operationally non-theistic.
It doesn't talk about God. It is not theistic nor atheistic. Now, from scientific knowledge, what can we infer about God? That, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.
Science finds mechanisms by which nature works. But, why does nature work according to some mechanisms? Why does the human mind, come up with concepts, which actually correlate with the main mechanism, nature works? It's like, I find a key to open a door. That's fine.
But, where does the door come from? Where does the key come from? How do the key and the door, how can I find the key, just when I am near the door? So, like that, the correlation of the mechanisms of nature, the correlation of the workings of the human mind, and the human mind working in a way that nature works, is understood. That correlation cannot be by unguided natural forces. The most reasonable explanation for them is that there is a guiding intelligence, which makes things happen.
So, we accept that science can come up with some models of how things work. And some theories may be correct, some theories may be wrong. Our point of contention is not with specific theories.
What science explains is in the jurisdiction of science. And that's for scientists to discuss. But, what explains science? That is a transcendental intelligence.
And that is our purpose. So, when we study scripture, we focus not on the specific details in the scripture, but on the essential purpose of scripture. That is, to draw our attention towards Krishna and become absorbed in Krishna.
This section of the Bhagavatam is quite technical. But Prabhupada doesn't go into the technicalities. He focusses on the desire.
Because the Lord desired to see, because the Lord desired to hear, so, the mechanisms for it all manifested. And Prabhupada says in the Bhagavatam, that we should focus on the Lord. By thus keeping our focus clear from scripture, fix the mind on Krishna.
Then we can re-envision science in a way that is also favourable for our absorption in Krishna. Thank you very much. Hare Krishna.
So, are there any questions or comments? Thank you for the explanation. Sometimes when we talk, okay, I agree that, you know, how do we explain where did God come from? How do we explain where did God come from? Asking where God came from is like asking what made a circle circular. A circle by definition is circular.
So, if I ask where did God come from, that means I have not understood the very foundational definition of God. God by definition is the cause of all causes. So, if the cause of all causes has a cause, then that cause of the cause of all causes is the actual cause of all causes.
So, from the point of logic also, the cause of all causes can't have a cause. So, people often when they think about God, they think in terms of depiction. Oh, you think Jesus is God.
You think this particular image in the temple is God. Let's not do that. If you want to discuss in a philosophical way, don't begin with depiction, how God is depicted.
Begin with definition. The definition of God is that He is the cause of all causes. Now, somebody may say that when I ask where did God come from, you say, why does this causal chain have to stop? It can just go on and on and on.
Does it have to stop at some place? Even scientists, science has told us that the universe is not eternal. That the universe has a beginning. So, we can't just have an infinite number of causes.
There is a finite causal chain going on. That causal chain has to stop somewhere. You say, why does it have to stop with God in particular? So, when we define God in a particular way, that now when God is the cause of all causes, that means He is the cause of time also.
That means, time begins from Him. Time comes from Him, we could say. So, if a child reads a novel for the first time, and he looks at all the characters, like the characters, say a child reads Harry Potter, and then after reading the whole book, the child comes to know, oh, this is written by J.K. Rowling.
The child starts looking through all the pages, where is J.K. Rowling in this book? Now, J.K. Rowling created the storyline, created the timeline, created the plot, created the characters, created everything in the story, in the novel, but J.K. Rowling exists outside the novel. Similarly, God exists outside the time domain. So, no matter how the child looks within the, say, genealogy or the storyline of Harry Potter, the child is not going to find J.K. Rowling over there.
But that doesn't mean J.K. Rowling doesn't exist. J.K. Rowling exists outside the time domain, outside the domain of the story. Similarly, God exists outside the domain of time.
So, when we come to the question of where did God come from, we have to go backward, backward, backward and stop somewhere. Now, either we can stop with matter or we can stop with consciousness. Now, if you stop with matter, matter itself does not have the kind of self-organising capacities that will lead to the whole universe that exists around us.
So, even scientists, they say that matter works according to the laws of nature. But, when they say that the world works according to the laws of nature, but in science also, where did the laws of nature come from? That's a question that has no answer. They say they just existed in nature.
Well, if whatever existed in the beginning or before the beginning, if you want to say that, how did the laws of nature come into that? Why should it have contained the laws of nature? So, if you look, if there is just a pile of concrete somewhere and if there is a builder over there, from the builder, a building can come. From a pile of concrete, how can anything come? On its own. Now, you are talking about God, it's not just a builder.
God is actually transcendental. So, our understanding, matter and spirit, both are eternal. Both are eternally coexisting.
Matter is sometimes manifested, sometimes not manifested. So, God exists beyond both. So, the question where God came from, it reflects an ignorance about the definition of God.
And once we understand the definition properly, then we will see that God, as a causeless cause of all causes, is the most rational explanation for the origin of everything. Any other questions or comments? Yes. So, has the same quality as Krishna, suppose, in Satchitananda.
The concept has sometimes struggled with this. And we can represent it as an original question. When, before coming down to the true world, we were in the same state, we were in constant companionship of God.
So, how does that element of Dvesh, that is, or sometimes Acharya describes as hatred, is strongly used words. Arise. Yeah, I got your question.
So, this question about where does the soul come from, this is one of the favourite ways for devotees to give themselves intellectual headaches. Humility in the domain of intelligence means admitting that there are some things which we don't know and some things which we can't know. So, I would suggest that this question about origins, we just adopt an attitude of humility and not get into that question.
Any other questions? One question, if it's the same, then I agree. You stated that you wanted to lord. Let's not get into this question.
Any other questions? Just a comment about that. Prabhuji is talking about where the God comes from. The Big Bang theory, the scientist explains the Big Bang theory.
So, the question comes, who did the Big Bang? The quantity of the items has to be in the correct portions to make the Big Bang and create the nature. So, there has to be somebody who has created that Big Bang. So, that must be.
He is outside from that Big Bang. Yes, we say the Big Bang comes from the Big Brain. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Sometimes we see in the pages of Bhagavatam different kinds of cosmologies explained than what scientists normally perceive.
We see it sometimes contradicting. It's totally different. So, how can we understand this? How do we explain the cosmology that is given in the Bhagavatam? The Bhagavatam's purpose is to help us fix the mind on Krishna.
And it explains the whole universe from that perspective. At the same time, the Bhagavatam is not insistent that, the Bhakti tradition is not insistent that this is the only way of looking at the universe. For example, in India there is a well-developed tradition of astronomical study that is associated with astrology.
It's called Jyotisha Shastra. And Jyotisha sees the cosmology in a very different way from what Bhagavatam sees it. And the Jyotisha cosmology can be seen as in many ways similar to the modern scientific way of looking at cosmos.
So, when even our acharyas, our devotional acharyas, if they want to do the horoscope of Lord Chaitanya, horoscope of Lord Krishna, they use Jyotisha cosmology. They don't use Bhagavatam cosmology. So that means, within the tradition itself, there are two distinct visions of the cosmos.
Bhagavatam's vision and Jyotisha vision. And these two, no one has reconciled them. There are big differences between them.
And the understanding is, they are from two different perspectives. So, if you look at science, this very study of science has also actually produced multiple models of the universe. We consider today, there's quantum physics and there's relativity.
And these two theories for explaining matter are violently contradictory in many ways. There's just no way to bring them together. And what do scientists do today? They just use whichever theory works.
So, for certain functions, quantum physics works. For certain functions, relativity works. So basically, our understanding is that the universe is extremely complex.
And there can be different ways in which the universe can be seen. So, it's not that the scientific vision of the universe is necessarily wrong. Nor is it that the scriptural vision is wrong.
Rather, even in the scriptural tradition, there are two different visions. Even in science, there are different visions. So, we see that these visions are basically perceptions from different perspectives.
They are different models of the universe. So, we don't have to position them as contradictory. We see them as different ways of looking at the universe.
And Prabhupada was very practical about these things. And Prabhupada was once told by one of his disciples asked him, Swamiji, they asked Prabhupada that in the Bhagavatam, there are sometimes some very unbelievable kind of figures given. This king had so many bodyguards.
This king had so many children. This kind of things. Or this king had so many wives.
So, Prabhupada, when we tell the scholars, the scholars start making fun of us. In Dwarka, it is said that Maharaja Ugrasen had so many millions of bodyguards. So, where did they all stay? So, Prabhupada said, all the thousands of verses in the Bhagavatam, was that the only thing you found to speak to the scholars? The Bhagavatam has a purpose.
Intelligence means to see things in their proper perspective. Prabhupada defines intelligence in the 10th chapter of the Bhagavatam to see things in their proper perspective. To see what is central and to see what is peripheral.
Central purpose of the Bhagavatam is to not give a lesson in cosmology. The central purpose of the Bhagavatam is to help us fix the mind on Krishna. So, we see the contradictory models between, contradictions between the Bhagavatam's version of cosmology and the scientific version of cosmology as basically different ways of looking based on different perspectives.
And we focus on the purpose. That is to help us remember Krishna and see in today's world how that purpose can be best served. So, thank you very much.
Bhagavatam Ki Jai Prabhupada Ki Jai Gaur Bhakti Vendaki Jai Gaur Prabhupada Ki Jai.