Is there any scriptural reference for the idea that the moon we see and Chandraloka are not the same?

Podcast:

Is there any scriptural basis for the idea that the moon, as we see it, is different from chan Chandraloka as described in the Vedic scriptures? Answer, if by scriptural basis, if we are referring to specific scriptural horses, then it’s unreasonable to expect such verses. Why? Because such specific referencing is not required for the audience to which the scriptures were spoken. The Bhagavad Gita, they were written to for audiences with thousands of years ago who had an implicit ex understanding of a different worldview.

And what was what was a given in that worldview did not require any explanation or substantiation because it was just to consider a straightforward fact of life at that time. So for example, in the Govardhan Lila when the Rajuasi asked Nanda Maharaj, how could Krishna have lifted the Govardhan entire hell for so long? Now that’s a reasonable question, but the answer may not seem reasonable for us. The answer is that, oh, he’s like Narayan. That’s what told me.

Now what that means is, the Raju asked immediately accepted because they understand that while normally their experience is similar to ours, that a person cannot lift a hill, but they understand that there are higher beings existing in the world. And their blessings, their empowerment, or even their manifestation in this world can suspend the normal ways of functioning of the world. So if Krishna is blessed by Narayan, if Krishna is just like Narayan by such blessings, then that is enough explanation. Narayan can do anything and lift a lift a hill also. Someone blessed by Narayan can also do that.

So the questions that arise are similar, but the answers that are, that do not require further elaboration are different. So applying the same principle, the idea that there was more to the universe than what was visible to the eye was implicit in the Vedic tradition. So for example, there was worship of sacred trees, there are worship of forest deities, there is worship of river deities. Now some of it might have been superstitious, but the idea that a tree is not just a tree, a river is not just a river that associated with the with trees or at least certain trees, there could be some sacred beings associated with rivers. There are goddesses associated with the earth.

There is Bhoomi Devi. These are implicit understandings that were present in the Vedic tradition. Now when when people would offer, say, worship to Ganga Devi or Yamuna Devi, now is it that they were actually seeing Ganga or Yamuna? No. They implicitly understood that.

What they saw was a river, but it was more what they were were shipping was not just the flow of water, but a sacred goddess who was in some mystical way, non different from the river. So that there is more to reality than what meets the eye is an implicit and almost omnipresent understanding within the Vedic tradition, and that does not require substantiation. So that the goddess Ganga is that there is that that the goddess Ganga is more than the river Ganga. The River Ganga may get polluted. The River Yamuna may get polluted.

Now there is a lot of environmental concern, and there is some have endeavor to try to clean the Ganga. If you consider Dham, there is more to the Dham than meets the eye. There is a physical manifestation of the Dham, which can be which can be dirty and disorderly and negative in many material ways. But there is more to the dharm than what is manifest to arise. But to speak of all these things, even the Vedic understanding is that there is more to a person in the body.

The material vision sees only the body, but the spiritual vision sees beyond the body to the to the soul. That there is a mind and there is a soul beyond the body. So similarly, when we look at the celestial objects, the idea that we have to that there is more to reality than meets the eye is is self evident. And when that was a part of the world view, there was no substantiation required for that. Now did this mean that that there is more to the more to reality than meets the eye?

Does that mean that what we desire is false? No. What we desire is also true, but not the complete truth. So for example, nobody who worship the Ganga would consider that the Ganga is only a goddess and not a flowing body of water. We cannot expect that because now if you go and worship a deity in the temple, it’s not that we will get wet.

But if we enter into the Ganga, we’ll get wet. So there is a physical aspect to that reality, and that physical aspect is not denied. It is just that it is understood that there’s more to reality than the physical aspect. So similarly, the idea is that we there is a vision for to us. There is something manifest to our eyes that is a celestial object which which we call as the moon.

But if you consider the Mercury or the Venus now or even the sun, it’s, it’s at least from a human perspective, it’s unbearably hot and unlivably hot. Or if you look at the planets far away from the sun, they are considered unlivably cold from the human perspective. Now is that the only defining thing about those planets? Well, no. There is a physical manifestation of those planets.

But beyond those physical manifestations, there are there is more also to it. And it is that more that is to be focused on on certain occasions. So Chandra Loka is considered a heavenly planetary system, and that heaven, those heavenly pleasures and those heavenly comforts and all those things are not perceivable or leave alone access relishable, enjoyable to the gross sensory perception. And that’s why we understand that there’s a reality beyond the physical. So it’s a it’s a almost like a self evident inference for those who are steeped in the broad Dharmic Vedic worldview.

And there’s no explicit reference required to say that Yamuna is not just a river. She’s also a goddess. That the earth is not just a surface. It’s also a deity. So similarly, there is no explicit reference needed or as far as I know given for the idea that celestial objects like the moon are not just the physical manifestations, but are also having higher aspects to their reality.

And those higher aspects are on many occasions more and more defining aspects of that reality. Thank you.