Is that star “Alpha Centuri” that is 4.3 light years away (according to modern cosmology) in this universe or another universe according to Vedic cosmology?

From Mukesh Bhatt

I am a still confused about what modern cosmology calls stars? Is that star “Alpha Centuri” that is 4.3 light years away (according to modern cosmology) in this universe or another universe according to Vedic cosmology? What about planets outside our solar system – are they in this “vedic cosmology universe” ?

Relevant quote:

In SB 5.21.11 purport, Shrila Prabhupada says, “Each universe is covered by various layers of material elements, and therefore although the universes are clustered together, we cannot see from one universe to another. In other words, whatever we see is within this one universe.”

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
question from Mukesh Bhattam I am still a bit confused about what modern cosmology calls stars is that star alpha century that is 4.3 light years away according to modern cosmology in this universe or another universe according to Vedic cosmology what about planets outside our solar system are they in this Vedic cosmology universe answer the Vedic cosmology offers us one model one way of looking at and understanding the universe and modern cosmology offers us a substantially different way of looking at the universe and within itself both models have their value so I will give two examples of two models which are themselves valid but which may not be able to have a meaningful mutual dialogue between each other for example in physics we have two pillars of modern physics post Newtonian or post classical physics modern physics as they call it that is quantum physics which very expertly helps us predict the behavior of atomic phenomena and there is the relativity theory which helps us predict and understand to some extent mathematically mathematically describe the phenomena the behavior of cosmic phenomena so now these two models both work but they are violently contradictory science is still now not been able to and according to several Nobel laureate physicists like the more science is studied the more bringing these two theories together seems to become more and more difficult so currently scientists are pragmatic they are practical whichever area whichever theory works use it and then if we are actually speaking the fundamental postulates of these two theories are radically different relativity requires solid objects with masses according to quantum physics actually there are no solid objects with masses there are simply wave functions which collapse into what we call as objects whenever there is an observer so then if you try to ask objectively is this a object or is this a wave scientist will tell us that physicist will tell us it depends on theory that you are using so it is nearly impossible to bring about a dialogue between these two models of physics itself similarly if you look at medicine there is allopathy and there is ayurveda so in ayurveda there is a concept of kapha vata and pitta there is heat there is what can be called as mucus and then there is air but these are only simplistic predictions kapha vata pitta in ayurveda are much more complex concepts kapha conveys the idea of solidity and mass to some extent vata conveys the idea of mobility and locomotion and pitta conveys the idea of heat and radiation that is much more subtle than the equalization of them as say mucus gas and whatever fire or whatever I used to fire or whatever you want to call it so the point here is that it is very difficult to bring about a dialogue between these two bodies of knowledge now both have their virtues allopathy is extremely potent in terms of diagnosis not necessarily in terms of specific diagnosis of the disease but at least in terms of understanding the condition of particular cells in the body with the current sensors like MRIs and PT scans and everything you can understand practically the condition of even the small small cells in the body so Ayurveda’s great strength is especially in terms of curing chronic diseases like back pains and digestive disorders for which allopathy doesn’t seem to have any sustainable cures it can just offer some stopgap treatments so now both models have their strengths similarly quantum physics has its strength in the subatomic realm and the relativity has its strength in the cosmic realm so like that based on these two examples let’s now come to the Vedic model so the cosmology models so the modern cosmology model is especially powerful in terms of mathematically basically describing predicting and manipulating natural phenomena to some extent so and that is the driving purpose modern science is basically starting from a Rajasic perspective perspective in the mode of passion which focuses on control whereas the Vedic paradigm is focused on in a more sattvic perspective which focuses more on cultivating devotion and enhancing meditation in the absolute truth so that’s why because the thrust and the paradigms of these two models are different bringing about a dialogue between the two is not very easy that’s why we need to understand very clearly that if we try to mix these two models together we will needlessly confuse ourselves for example if you go into allopathic college and you start talking about now this is the substance causes heat and this substance decreases heat the concept of heat as Ayurveda understands it is not there itself in allopathy so we will not make much headway over there that’s why it’s best for us to not mix these two models now we wonder ok if we don’t mix the models what is the actual reality well that is a that is indicative of the limitation of the human capacity to know what is the actual absolute reality just as in physics are there particles or are there waves now from our common sense experience we may say there are particles over there no it doesn’t boil down to that because modern science especially the postmodern ethos has pointed out that what we perceive is inextricably connected with who is perceiving and how that person is perceiving so therefore the models of reality are what ultimately we have access to in our dialogue in our attempt to access reality what is the reality actually we really don’t know and from a functional perspective even if a devotee is studying cosmology and a devotee is working in cosmology say he is working as an astronomer or something like that from a functional perspective a devotee can use that knowledge for doing his profession and pursuing research and whatever is required because that’s a model that works and from the point of view of contemplating devotion on the supreme lord with an alternative model that also the devotee can use and mixing the models will lead to a lot of confusion now there may be some devotee specialist scientists who may after years and decades of studying in both systems of knowledge can maybe be able to bring about a dialogue between the two but we shouldn’t make that ability to have mutual comprehensibility between the models as a prerequisite for our faith or our commitment because today most people will not be able to become physicist if they make it a prerequisite that there has to be mutual dialogue and comprehensibility between the two models of physics so in particular interest to go deep into the field then there are devotee scientist like Richard L. Thompson who has written books like Vedic Cosmography and Mysteries of the Sacred Universe which one can study and thereby one can understand a few things and go forward deep into it and maybe collaborate with devotees who have further interests in this field but essentially when you get into the technicalities of one model of the universe and another model of the universe we will get ourselves into confusion now broadly speaking regarding the specifics point of your question for example are these particular stars that we are seeing within this universe or other universe well they are definitely in this universe similarly the planets outside the solar system they are within our universe because it is very clearly described that the universe is covered by its shells and because it is covered by the shells of the various elements we cannot perceive beyond what is there in the universe therefore whatever we are able to perceive in the night sky with our eyes or with our sophisticated instruments we cannot perceive beyond the limits of the particular universe that we are in