Fascinating study on Flat Earth by the Krishna Consciousness movement based on Bhagavad Gita

Hi ATS,

This thread could have gone into any number of forums, but I thought I'd place it here seeing as it focuses on the thought of a particular religious sect concerning the situation of our native Earth environment, with the question being thus: Do we live on a globular Earth spinning in dark space, with the Earth globe being some 24,900 miles wide, or do we actually live on a flat section of a much larger flat planar 'Greater Earth' realm which is apparently the width of the entire universe, up to 4,000,000,000 miles wide and 4,000,000,000 miles high, circumscribed by a sphere which represents the extent of the Cosmos...?

SAILING TO JAMBŪDVĪPA - vedic impressions of Flat Earth Truth

The question is posed in the context of whether a particular vedic sciences institute was correct in making excuses/ fudging the science & spiritual dogma to prepare an exhibition which basically follows along with the mainstream science view of the world being a globe spinning in space, denying the original interpretation of the vedic scholars, suggesting that perhaps 'other dimensions' or 'other perspectives' account for why the original vedic interpretation suggested a vast planar Earth realm as broad as the material universe (Bhu-mandala). The author basically castigates this particular vedic institute for following along with the dogma of mainstream science/ government, to the exclusion of the entirety of the original vedic interpretation of what the Cosmos was proclaimed to be in the vedic literature, which includes the Bhagavad Gita, the premier Hindu text from the vedic literature.

In fact the author launches into a fascinating dissembly of the textual propositions in the vedic literature concerning the nature of the Cosmos, describing all manner of interesting factoids & viewpoints on why in particular we should NOT follow along with the mainstream scientific viewpoint, because, as he rightly (in my humble opinion) observes, all of the content put out by NASA & similar space agencies is entirely fake & convoluted to get people to believe in a deception, the reasons for which are eventually posited that a certain class of heavenly beings named 'Asuras' basically control human society, being themselves something akin to the fallen angels of Biblical ontology, who run this world in the manner of a sophisticated gang of prison bullies, with all the rest of us (the humans) being under their collective thumb, (almost*) totally & absolutely, when it comes to the highest power structures in operation in this world.

I have often contemplated that, although I am convinced of my own ontological belief system as being correct in its pure & unadulterated form (even by mine own philosophical viewpoints it can be corrupted, though never intentionally - still, in itself, Christ as Lord of all is absolutely the highest truth there is, in my opinion) - the Bhagavad Gita offers a template for noble spiritual inquiry for those who have not received the revelation of Christ, and I can see that perhaps it was instituted by angelic beings who wanted to ensure that some true spiritual information percolated to the masses, in the absence of the fullest revelation from God. This information was all provided long before the Biblical revelation, so this is why I say perhaps some well-intentioned demigod delivered a revelation to the warrior Arjuna, unaware that God already had a plan to deliver an entirely perfect & uncorruptible revelation as the Biblical canon through Moses & the prophets, and later, after the Holy Spirit baptism took place, through the apostles & early teachers & prophets of the Christian church. As it is said in Biblical scripture, the plan of God was kept secret throughout 'all ages', and so perhaps angels & 'asuras' (demons) frequently visited humans & offered spiritual revelations, whether true or false, noble or corrupt. Until the Old Testament revelation & the institution of Biblical prophecy & teaching, and later the miracles & deliverance of the Holy Spirit following the ministry of Jesus Christ, there was perhaps precious little of spiritual worth truly flowering amongst the masses, hence angels, asuras, demigods stepping in & ministering to the people at different times & in diverse places, whether to bless or curse according to their ability & intention.

There is in the source further a discussion about the mystic powers ('siddhis') that can be gained through asceticism (which are explained in detail), which I found fascinating, not least because several have been demonstrated by ascetic Christian saints & mystics since the beginnings of the church - apparently many were known in ages past by the devotees of the vedic literature. I don't doubt that these magical abilities are real, regardless of their source, and I presume that they were relatively widespread in ancient times, compared to the relative dearth of such natural psychism & similar diabolical powers in modern times, as materialism has progressed.

Several other topics linked to the shape of the Earth are discussed, with treatises on the realms beyond the limits which our world presently imposes upon us, whether by permanent barrier (the firmament dome, 'waters above'), or by our 'karma', or by the supernatural intervention of divine beings ('devas') preventing passage to those other realms at this time. But they are discussed, apparently we can cycle between these realms on the completion of our lives, or we can ascend to the highest heights of Heaven (going 'home' to God as described in the text). I found this to be overall a fascinating insight into the way in which another culture has taken to ideas of the cosmological reality of the Flat Earth, and I was not surprised to learn that this is indeed what the Krishna devotees believe, with their fascinating corpus of vedic information from ages past.

And because all of us are bewildered by the illusory external energy of the Supreme Lord, we can see only this manifested cosmos according to our individual ability. (SB 2.6.37)

Again I'd like to repeat the point: the statement that everyone sees the cosmos according to their individual ability does not imply that whatever anyone perceives to be true is necessarily a true perception based on one's relative angle of vision. We can question if one's perception of a so-called Earth globe is actually based on there being such a thing as a real Earth globe with sufficient evidence to support the idea, or is the whole Earth globe idea itself just a false construction of reality based on quasi-scientific ideas and false images presented by so-called space agencies?

Thanks for reading, enjoy the source!

SAILING TO JAMBŪDVĪPA - vedic impressions of Flat Earth Truth

Thanks for the link. I like how a pilot s flight compute r assumes a flat plane t.

May I respectfully ask if you have ever been to what is called a "hemisphere" by the mainstream, that is opposing to the one you were born in and, looked up? It's very different!

Your are obviously a deep thinker and I enjoy reading you're writings.

From what you wrote above, the thing that stands out to me was the part about the "planar infinite Earth" it came across like an infinite reallity that we all inhabit, all of the time! Maybe back in the day thats exactly how reality was perceived and the "educated" still perceive it that way to this very day.


a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

So, a "plane" that's basically the distance of Neptune's orbit around the sun.

That would not match observable astronomical data of the movement of stars and galaxies.

a reply to: Byrd

I figured you'd say that.

The form of things in other dimensions (planes of particles) is much different that what is seen at the molecular surface.

That said, the surface earth, which has the outermost surface of its particles made of molecules, is a spheroid/ellipsoid.

Years ago scientists discovered stars that had no surface material larger than quarks. The smaller particles never coalesced into atoms and so on. It is something like this, but the surfaces of those things are denser and more refined/smoother if observed in that realm.

I would say they are closer to the truth than not. Earth is interconnected to a lot of the structure.



--Falun Dafa Hao!

a reply to: Byrd

So exactly like our accepted theories which also fly in the face of astronomical observations?

When you realise our equations need to invoke 95% of their calculations from hypothetical matter and energy it leads me to believe they're far from complete.

I'm by no means a flat earther, what i will say is that the LAMDA-CMD model is clearly flawed.

Using mathematics and incomplete physics proves nothing, especially when invoking mysterious hypothetical variables in order to balance flawed equations. Assuming that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity at cosmological scales is just that, assumption.

Forget math....

Ever seen a picture ?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Byrd

So exactly like our accepted theories which also fly in the face of astronomical observations?

When you realise our equations need to invoke 95% of their calculations from hypothetical matter and energy it leads me to believe they're far from complete.

I'm by no means a flat earther, what i will say is that the LAMDA-CMD model is clearly flawed.

Using mathematics and incomplete physics proves nothing, especially when invoking mysterious hypothetical variables in order to balance flawed equations. Assuming that general relativity is the correct theory of gravity at cosmological scales is just that, assumption.

Nah.

I'm talking 15th century science. If this flat Earth stretches from here to the orbit of Neptune, why is it that I can see Neptune with an ordinary pair of binoculars but I can't see the Himalayas with them (or even with a big telescope)? And I *should* be able to see the mountains of New Mexico if I stand on the edge of the Llano Estacado (in Big Spring, Texas) and look west and north, but I can't - even if I used my small telescope, which gives lovely pictures of the Moon's craters.

Why can't I see the street lights of Midland (across this same flat Llano Estacado prairie), 30 miles away, with a good pair of binoculars?

When I'm on the Atlantic Ocean in my friend's sailboat, why can't I see the buildings on shore when we're 4 miles off the coast, even with a good pair of binoculars (or a telescope)?

a reply to: Byrd

Most of that is line of sight.

Remember I never said the Earth was flat, just that our accepted theories are far from complete. There’s likely one or two surprises in the future which render our current understanding of space and time just as archaic as the idea of a flat Earth.

Hell even now you can postulate reasonably accurate calculations for a Geocentric model. Granted more convoluted than a Heliocentric model but accurate enough for navigation at the very least.