​How can we reconcile the Vedic geocentric and scientific heliocentric models of the universe?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
So, if we have 14 life systems, then, which are vertically one above the other, how do we reconcile life with the idea of either heliocentric or geocentric points of the solar system or the universe at large? Firstly, we need to talk about the 14 planetary systems.
We shouldn’t think of that simply in terms of physical space. Why not? Because the upper planets, Swarga Loka and others, they are highly planetary systems. They are made of subtler elements.
So, being made of subtler elements, they are not situated in space as we conceive it. They are situated in an entirely different level of existence. To give a simpler illustration of this, say India and Australia, or maybe Australia and America are somewhat antipodal.
Or say two countries which are in the opposite parts of the globe. So, okay, Australia and India are also, we can roughly say, for argument’s sake. Say now, people in Australia say that heaven is up.
People in India say heaven is up. When the earth is round, which is up? Isn’t it? Both places, heaven is up. But the up is two opposite directions.
So, when we talk about heaven being up, it is not just up in a literal physical sense. The heaven is up in a karmic sense. That there is various lokas, various manifestations.
They are arranged in a hierarchy in terms of the karmic qualifications of the residents over there. Those who have done greater punya, they are in the higher manifestations. Those who have done lesser punya, they are in the lower manifestations, depending on the kind of pious or impious actions that they have done.
And for the sake of depiction, just like the earth is round, but on an atlas, the earth is depicted in a map. It is depicted in a 2D play, where we see aliens. So, like that, for the sake of depiction, when I talk about the 40 planets in terms of vertical continuity in space, but that vertical dimension is not a physical distance.
Some physical distance may be given for a sense of estimate. But the whole point is that everything in this cosmos, especially in terms of the planetary systems, it’s subtle. It’s not made of gross matter at all.
So we cannot apply gross dimensions to this whole discussion. So, without getting into the technicalities of the 40 planetary systems, in the morning I talked about Ayurveda and allopathy. They are two different ways of looking.
And we can’t just mishmash concepts from here and put them there. We have to see what the concept means within its own conceptual model. So, instead of getting into, the 40 planetary systems are not in terms of physical space as we understand it in modern cosmology.
But, coming to the question of geocentric and biocentric, the point is that especially after Einstein talked about the relativity of motion, and before that also Tycho Brahe and other cosmologists have pointed out that actually the same explanation, more or less, for all the cosmic phenomena can be given based on whether we consider the solar system to be geocentric or heliocentric. See, motion in that sense is relative. Yes, I said in the past also, people who had a geocentric model, they also were able to predict eclipses.
I’m not going to go into technicalities over here. But they were also able to predict eclipses and other cosmic events. So, now the heliocentric model is in some ways simpler.
And there’s a principle in science called Occam’s Razor, where they say the simpler principle method should always be accepted. Simple explanation should be accepted. But that does not mean that the alternative explanation is necessarily wrong.
It’s simply an operational model that simpler explanation should be accepted. So, the point is that within modern cosmology, whatever explanations we can get using the heliocentric, whatever explanation for various cosmic phenomena we can get using the heliocentric, we can also get using the geocentric model. Because what we know for sure is that it is a relative motion.
But for essence, in terms of mathematics, it doesn’t matter whether it is this or it is that. Whatever predictions that come from the model, they can come from either models and they can come with a parallel level of accuracy. So, there’s no need to… When we study the cosmos as is explained in the Bhagavatam, the trap is to get caught in a literal comparison of this with that.
So, in fact, in Bhaktivinoda Thakur, in an essay called the Bhagavatic Theology, he says that in one sense, the 10th Canto cosmology is meant to protect the 10th Canto revelation of Krishna from doubting souls. So, the 5th Canto cosmology and all its complications, if people just get too caught in that, then they won’t move forward towards the essence of the 10th Canto. So, the point is that we recognize that the Bhagavatam is talking about cosmology from a different perspective.
And there are different levels of perception and the Bhagavatam’s cosmic descriptions are all of a different scale from a different type of perception. That’s why there’s no need to mishmash points from this model and impose them on some other model. That only leads to confusion and that leads to a complexity where complexity is not necessary.
They are two different models and they work in their own ways. So, if somebody is more interested in the study of the Bhagavatam’s cosmology, there’s one of the most prominent devotee scientists of Sadākya Purābhu, Dr. X. A. L. Thompson. He’s written a book called Vedic Cosmography.
Which does a very reasonable explanation of the concepts of the Vedic cosmos from the, of the Purāṇa, Bhagavatam’s cosmos basically, from the modern perspective. And then he’s written a later book also, Mysteries of the Sacred Universe, which is a fairly complicated book, where he describes how the Bhagavatam is using a complicated ensemble, you know, conceptual model for explaining things. So, one who is especially interested can study those books, if required.
But the point is, don’t just crisscross things from here and there and try to correlate because they are two different ways of looking at the cosmos. Any other questions?