How can we present scripture without compromising its truth?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, by understanding people, how do we make sure that we don’t compromise within ourselves? See, the word compromise has a very negative connotation. Prabhupada said, I never compromised. So, if you think any compromise is something which is which is watering down all these little issues, that’s the ideal situation we have.
the fact is, one of the fundamental truths in the Vedas is that there is one truth which is addressed or understood or spoken about when it is being revealed. So, for example, our Acharyas comment on the fifth kind of possibility, explain it to you in the best possible way. But at the same time, when it comes to doing any kind of astrological predictions, the Acharyas don’t need a fifth kind of cosmology.
Cosmology is described in the Ardhavedic tradition, in the Bhagavatam, it’s Quranic cosmology. And in the Yotishi Shastras, we describe cosmology quite differently. And that cosmology is what is used for all functional purposes.
Even if the Acharyas are going to say, talk about Chaitanya Upanishad, Krishna Upanishad, or anything like that, they don’t use the Mahabharata cosmology to analyze the horoscopes. For all astrological purposes, Quranic cosmology is not used. Yotisha cosmology is used.
So, they themselves don’t make the difference in this cosmology, in these two visions of the cosmos, into a bench. They accept the Bhagavatam as a description of the cosmology, and comment on it. But, for functional purposes, they use the Yotisha cosmology.
So, now, is this that using Yotisha cosmology? It’s not a compromise in respect to Bhagavatam cosmology. It is that the two are completely different. Now, the Yotisha cosmology is actually, in many ways, similar to modern cosmology.
Not exactly similar, but quite similar. And Yotisha cosmology also works. In the sense that, even Yotisha cosmology, people have been for centuries, for millennia, able to predict the eclipses.
Eclipses are important in the astrological calendar, because those are considered to be inauspicious. So, they have calculated precisely, and they could calculate. So, today, using the modern scientific cosmology, also scientists have been able to calculate the eclipses, and they are also able to calculate the results.
So, this is a functional model. And so, for functional purposes, today, even more science takes role. So, for our practical purposes, we use the modern scientific model.
Which is fine. That is just one model of reality. If you go deep into science, science itself doesn’t talk about reality.
Science only gives you models of reality. Science doesn’t actually make any claims what things really are. Science simply tells us how things function in our conception.
It is one model. So, it’s not that when we are making things intelligible for ourselves and for others. It is not that we are compromising.
It is that we are just following the way of prediction, of recognizing the things that we understood in different ways. Just as, at that time, in the past, the Puranic cosmology and the Yudhishthira cosmology, both were coexisting without being brought into unnecessary conflict. Today, the Puranic cosmology and modern cosmology, they can coexist without being brought into unnecessary conflict.
So, where we will end up compromising is if we start saying that the Puranic cosmology is false. Now, this will take quite a long time. If we start, as I said, delegating, criticizing Vedic truths, then that will become a problem.
But we don’t do the same. We have respect, but at the same time we check whether this is believable for us, whether this is a practical relevance for us. If it is not a practical relevance, it means that we are not doing this.
Does it answer your question? Do you have any questions? Yes.