Sadaputa's Parallel worlds

Just so we know how Sriman Sadaputa prabhu perceived Bhumandala as
consisting of parallel world's both physical and metaphysical and that many devotees agree with this explanation.

Bhu-mandala as a Map of the Celestial Realm of the Devas

We can also understand Bhu-mandala as a map of the celestial realm of the demigods, or devas. One curious feature of Jambudvipa is that the Bhagavatam describes all of the varshas other than Bharata-varsha as heavenly realms, where the inhabitants live for ten thousand years without suffering. This has led some scholars to suppose that Indians used to imagine foreign lands as celestial paradises. But the Bhagavatam does refer to barbaric peoples outside India, such as Huns, Greeks, Turks, and Mongolians, who were hardly thought to live in paradise. One way around this is to suppose that Bharata-varsha includes the entire Earth globe, while the other eight varshas refer to celestial realms outside the Earth. This is a common understanding in India.

But the simplest explanation for the heavenly features of Jambudvipa is that Bhu-mandala was also intended to represent the realm of the devas. Like the other interpretations we have considered, this one is based on a group of mutually consistent points in the cosmology of the Bhagavatam.

First of all, consider the very large sizes of mountains and land areas in Jambudvipa. For example, India is said to be 72,000 miles (9,000 yojanas) from north to south, or nearly three times the circumference of the Earth. Likewise, the Himalayas are said to be 80,000 miles high.

People in India in ancient times used to go in pilgrimage on foot from one end of India to the other, so they knew how large India is. Why does the Bhagavatam give such unrealistic distances? The answer is that Jambudvipa doubles as a model of the heavenly realm, in which everything is on a superhuman scale. The Bhagavatam portrays the demigods and other divine beings that inhabit this realm to be correspondingly large. Figure 12 shows Lord Siva in comparison with Europe, according to one text of the Bhagavatam.



Why would the Bhagavatam describe Jambudvipa as both part of the earth and part of the celestial realm? Because there’s a connection between the two. To understand, let’s consider the idea of parallel worlds. By siddhis, or mystic perfections, one can take shortcuts across space. This is illustrated by a story from the Bhagavatam in which the mystic yogini Citralekha abducts Aniruddha from his bed in Dvaraka and transports him mystically to a distant city (Figure 13).



Besides moving from one place to another in ordinary space, the mystic siddhis enable one to travel in the all- pervading ether or to enter another continuum. The classical example of a parallel continuum is Krishna’s transcendental realm of Vrindavan, said to be unlimitedly expansive and to exist in parallel to the finite, earthly Vrindavan in India.



The Sanskrit literature abounds with stories of parallel worlds. For example, the Mahabharata tells the story of how the Naga princess Ulupi abducted Arjuna while he was bathing in the Ganges River (Figure 14). Ulupi pulled Arjuna down not to the riverbed, as we would expect, but into the kingdom of the Nagas (celestial snakelike beings), which exists in another dimension.



Mystical travel explains how the worlds of the devas are connected with our world. In particular, it explains how Jambudvipa, as a celestial realm of devas, is connected with Jambudvipa as the Earth or part of the Earth. Thus the double model of Jambudvipa makes sense in terms of the Puranic understanding of the siddhis.

Concluding Observations:
The Vertical Dimension in Bhagavata Cosmology

For centuries the cosmology of the Bhagavatam has seemed incomprehensible to most observers, encouraging many people either to summarily reject it or to accept it literally with unquestioning faith. If we take it literally, the cosmology of the Bhagavatam not only differs from modern astronomy, but, more important, it also suffers from internal contradictions and violations of common sense. These very contradictions, however, point the way to a different understanding of Bhagavata cosmology in which it emerges as a deep and scientifically sophisticated system of thought. The contradictions show that they are caused by overlapping self-consistent interpretations that use the same textual elements to expound different ideas.

Each of the four interpretations I’ve presented deserves to be taken seriously because each is supported by many points in the text that are consistent with one another while agreeing with modern astronomy. I’ve applied the context-sensitive or multiple aspect approach, in which the same subject has different meanings in different contexts. This approach allows for the greatest amount of information to be stored in a picture or text, reducing the work required by the artist or writer. At the same time, it means that the work cannot be taken literally as a one-to-one model of reality, and it requires the viewer or reader to understand the different relevant contexts. This can be difficult when knowledge of context is lost over long periods of time.

In the Bhagavatam, the context-sensitive approach was rendered particularly appropriate by the conviction that reality, in the ultimate issue, is avak-manasam, or beyond the reach of the mundane mind or words. This implies that a literal, one-to-one model of reality is unattainable, and so one may as well pack as much meaning as possible into a necessarily incomplete description of the universe. The cosmology of the Bhagavata Purana is a sophisticated system of thought, with multiple layers of meaning, both physical and metaphysical. It combines practical understanding of astronomy with spiritual conceptions to produce a meaningful picture of the universe and reality.

This is a well thought out explanation.

How do we translate this to a 3 dimensional planetarium model that people can look at?

The metaphysical aspects he talks about would need some texual explanations
all over the presentation of the rings above and around Meru! Some people would
read it, but would they understand it? It would take a video to explain it all.
The bigger question, is Sadaputa's explanation bonafide? The acharyas never
explained it like he does.

A huge screen movie presentation in the Planetarium, very professionally done,
explaining the details that could not be displayed would be the best thing to do.
They should have a feature show where people can sit comfortably, eat prasdam popcorn
and watch an amazing 3D show, like at the Imax we have in the Victoria museum.
..and charge a few rupees for visitors..
That would be making good use of their millions of dollars.  

Sadaputa's explanation has some serious flaws due to an incorrect, or incomplete, understanding of Srimad-bhagavatam's statements. First of all, the heavenly realms in Jambudvipa are not celestial. Srimad-bhagavatam clearly states that there are three types of svargas or heavenly realms, ie: celestial, earthly, and subterranean.

So the heavenly realms in Jambudvipa are earthly in nature - not celestial. They are said to be similar to the way things are manifest during Treta-yuga in Bharata-varsa. So they are heavenly in qualitative terms, but earthly in substance, but the most refined earthly manifestation. That's not another dimension, it's just a more qualitatively refined earthly manifestation.

And like Visnu said, none of the acaryas explain it like he did. They spoke of it more or less literally and that should tell us something very important about how we should conceive of these details. And Sadaputa reveals another weakness in his analysis when he states, "If we take it literally, the cosmology of the Bhagavatam not only differs from modern astronomy..." This means he accepts modern cosmology as correct, when we know it has many flaws.

I believe Sadaputa was intelligent enough to note that difference, but, like Prabhupada, he amended the language for his audience.

Uttamasloka wrote:That's not another dimension, it's just a more qualitatively refined earthly manifestation.

Still, if we can't access that manifestation, nor even see it, that fulfills the definition of 'dimension' as an alternate reality.
Anyway, let's not get stuck on semantics.

What about this perspective?
Sukadeva has given us everything to understand the Bhagavatam in full.
Every word of Sukadeva carries great weight and every thing he says is needed to explain the Vedic cosmos.
Therefore, Sukadeva’s explanations are perfect; to understand them as they are means to come out of the darkness of ignorance.
It's not an easy task to understand Sukadeva’s instructions. Purity is the force.
It means a vast amount of ignorance has to be removed from the heart. So this is our opportunity to serve the Lord by explaining Sukadeva’s instructions and conveying that to the world via the TOVP.

Our presentation of the Vedic cosmos is like saying we're the representatives of the Vedic conception of the cosmos. So, we need to explain every verse and convince the entire world that every verse of Bhagavatam is perfect.

The topmost devotees are like Prabhupada, who can remove the doubts of everyone.
In this regard, Prabhupada used a tactic in Easy Journey...
Instead of "the soul" he used "the anti-materiel particle."

Earlier I suggested using modern lingo to present the same facts. Here are 2 examples:
1. Lord Shiva is the demigod of destruction, which in modern scientific parlance is entropy. So we could say Shiva is in charge of entropy.
2. Priyavrata rode in a chariot drawn by celestial horses. So we can state Priyavrata flew a starship powered by celestial propulsion. Or, Priyavrata piloted an anti-gravity craft powered by quantum energy.

We simply follow in Prabhupada's footsteps.

Other modern explanations of verses will become available when the vernacular and science of the populace allows for it and we agree on it.
When we introduce a new explanation based on scientific terms and Laws of Nature, we are not altering the teachings of the acaryas.
Rather, we place the same concept in a new light according to the time period we live in, like Prabhupada did.

By relating ancient terms in modern parlance, it could lead to further explanations that open up new avenues for understanding the encoded verses of the Bhagavatam.

As Bhagavatam Cantos are specific, everything in the 5th Canto related to Pariksit’s question about the universe is significant. Each word of Sukadeva is weighted and every sloka has great significance.

Although a full explanation of Sukadeva’s teachings may not have been commented upon by the acaryas, that doesn't mean it's not available to us now as Prabhupada has given us all we need to understand the Bhagavatam.

Although a full explanation of Sukadeva’s teachings may not have been commented upon by the acaryas, that doesn't mean it's not available to us now as Prabhupada has given us all we need to understand the Bhagavatam.

Well, we do have Danavir's publication of the relevant chapters of the 5th canto with commentaries from as many as 10 acaryas, so we have lots to work with. And regarding the 5th canto, Srila Prabhupada openly admitted that cosmology was not a subject with which he was very familiar, so we definitely have to go beyond his purports to get a deeper and more complete understanding of this particular subtopic of Srimad-bhagavatam.

Uttamasloka wrote:Srila Prabhupada openly admitted that cosmology was not a subject with which he was very familiar, so we definitely have to go beyond his purports to get a deeper and more complete understanding of this particular subtopic of Srimad-bhagavatam.

Of course, I agree with this point. My point was in reference to our adhikara.
Prabhupada has given us the adhikara to fulfill this mission impossible task, as long as we remember that purity is the force. Perhaps I didn't explain myself properly.

On another note, I sent our list of answers to the person who sent us the questions.
Here's his reply to the day/night problem. What's our rejoinder to him?

Question 4. The passing of 24 hours of day and night on Bharat-varsa, and other planets of the universe, are very different. Please let us know how you are going to explain these time differences?

Your team’s Answer: I don't know how the TOVP is going to explain this. We still have to explain how there is simultaneous day and night on Bharata-varsa. The Srimad-bhagavatam does not explain that. In fact, it contradicts what we directly perceive. This remains an unexplained issue.

My Answer: The passing of day and night on all planets is relative to the lifespan of the populace on each planet. Srila Prabhupada explains that all beings live for one hundred years of ‘their life’. When time is seen from various perspectives, time appears to move faster or slower, thus each being perceives time passing in a different and unique manner. This is also the case within our earth of Bharata, which contains many species all experiencing 24 hours in their own unique manner, according to their bodily perspective.

Twenty-four hours is set by the rising and setting of the sun, and this is perceived by the mercy of Rudra according to whichever circle of reality one experiences the rising and setting from.

In relation to the beings on Puskaradvipa, one rising and setting (24 hours of ‘their time’) is equivalent to 360 rising and settings on Bharata—this is one year on Bharata for one day on Puskara (ref: SB 3.11.12).  In relation to Lord Brahma’s abode atop Mount Meru, one rising and setting (or 24 hours) is experienced as 31,104,000 rising and settings on Bharata—this is 86,400 Bharata years for one day on Brahmaloka (ref: SB. 10.14.43). If you want to calculate 100 years of Lord Brahma on Mount Meru compared to the beings of Bharata, you multiply this day by 360 days of the year and then by 100 years of his life. The answer is 3,110,400,000 years.  You will notice that this is Lord Brahma’s life on Meru (within our universe) when compared to earth years of humans, but this is not the lifespan of the cosmos, wherein Lord Brahma lives in Satyaloka. To get that lifespan we need another reference point of Bharata.

This answer explains the differences of time and space across the beginning, middle and end of the universe, and it can be incorporated into a planetarium. In relation to the 24 hours of the sun on Bharata and Puskara, that information is given in the Bhagavatam in code form. The seasons are also explained, thus we can easily display these things. You will know that, as per Einstein’s findings, space and time are linked, thus the lifespans and distances of the planets and islands given in the Bhagavatam are related and go to form a map of the cosmos.

I would like to mention that the cosmos is not just a physical place. If you want to explain a physical model of the universe, you must stop at Jambudvipa, because higher than this it moves towards akasha or non-physical. You will know that Lord Brahma and his son’s have a physical body and a mental body. These are found in this universe and in the four planets above our universe (viz, maharloka, janaloka, tapaloka and Satyaloka). Just as these beings have a physical and non-physical aspect to their reality within maya, similarly the universe has the same and so does every living entity. All of these things are mentioned in the Bhagavatam and it is our duty to explain them while we are explaining the structure of the Vedic cosmos. It should not be difficult to do. Hope this helps.

Twenty-four hours is set by the rising and setting of the sun, and this is perceived by the mercy of Rudra according to whichever circle of reality one experiences the rising and setting from.

I would like to examine the evidence for this statement.

In relation to the beings on Puskaradvipa, one rising and setting (24 hours of ‘their time’) is equivalent to 360 rising and settings on Bharata—this is one year on Bharata for one day on Puskara (ref: SB 3.11.12).

This is a good point. In Srimad-bhagavatam it is said the sun orbits Meru every 24 hours, but it doesn't specify which hours, ie: 24 hours of Bharata-varsa time or another 24 hour period.

In relation to Lord Brahma’s abode atop Mount Meru, one rising and setting (or 24 hours) is experienced as 31,104,000 rising and settings on Bharata—this is 86,400 Bharata years for one day on Brahmaloka (ref: SB. 10.14.43).

This is incorrect, since it states in Srimad-bhagavatam that all of the residents on top of Meru experience constant sunlight as at noontime. There is no rising and setting of the sun on top of Meru.

For the people on Meru, the sun gives heat at all times, being situated at midday. The sun keeps Meru to the left and to the right. When it rises in one city, it sets at the city diametrically opposite. When it shines with perspiration at noon, it is midnight at the city diametrically opposite. Those who see the sun set and rise do not see where it has gone in the interim. SB, 5.21.8-9

In addition, Brahma's abode on Meru is just one of his residences. It is not Brahma-loka, which is above the antariksa.

If you want to calculate 100 years of Lord Brahma on Mount Meru compared to the beings of Bharata, you multiply this day by 360 days of the year and then by 100 years of his life. The answer is 3,110,400,000 years. You will notice that this is Lord Brahma’s life on Meru (within our universe) when compared to earth years of humans, but this is not the lifespan of the cosmos, wherein Lord Brahma lives in Satyaloka. To get that lifespan we need another reference point of Bharata.

These statements are not supported by Srimad-bhagavatam as far as I know. There are not two different lifespans of Lord Brahma, who lives for 100 of his years, and that is the lifespan of the universe.

This answer explains the differences of time and space across the beginning, middle and end of the universe, and it can be incorporated into a planetarium.

I'd like to hear an explanation of how that can be shown in the planetarium.

In relation to the 24 hours of the sun on Bharata and Puskara, that information is given in the Bhagavatam in code form. The seasons are also explained, thus we can easily display these things.

Evidence please, along with an explanation of how easy that is to display.

You will know that, as per Einstein’s findings, space and time are linked, thus the lifespans and distances of the planets and islands given in the Bhagavatam are related and go to form a map of the cosmos.

I'd like to hear an explanation of how this is can be done.

I would like to mention that the cosmos is not just a physical place. If you want to explain a physical model of the universe, you must stop at Jambudvipa, because higher than this it moves towards akasha or non-physical.

Where is the supporting evidence for this statement? All of Bhu-mandala is the physical earthly realm according to Srimad-bhagavatam. The celestial realms above the antariksa are more subtle, but Bhu-mandala is earthly, as are the subterranean realms within Bhu-mandala.

You will know that Lord Brahma and his son’s have a physical body and a mental body. These are found in this universe and in the four planets above our universe (viz, maharloka, janaloka, tapaloka and Satyaloka).

This may just be semantics, but those four realms are within our universe. They are not above it.

Just as these beings have a physical and non-physical aspect to their reality within maya, similarly the universe has the same and so does every living entity. All of these things are mentioned in the Bhagavatam and it is our duty to explain them while we are explaining the structure of the Vedic cosmos. It should not be difficult to do. Hope this helps.

Non-physical does not mean without form, it just means a form made of more subtle material ingredients. Their explanation helps a little bit but it did not give enough details, as my questions indicate.

Very questionable where this mystery person gets their emphatic statements from,
if not from his own mind.
Vaiyasaki prabhu , can you tell us anything about him? Is he a god-brother?
Is he a studious swami? I she / he working with the Planetarium?
What books is he getting his info from?

This is a devotee who lives in Denmark, has been studying SB for years and is totally immersed in it. He had some dialogue with Antardwipa and was not satisfied with his answers. Like us!
Then he contacted me, and I've been maintaining contact because he has people who follow him.
My idea is to see if we can solidify our various understandings into some solid platform.
I'm sure we can benefit from some of his ideas, and he can benefit from our ideas.

Because he's a younger devotee, I'm acting as a go-between and tempering his dialogue.

I'm hoping that we all finally come together with one grand explanation and that will give us a strong platform backed by many people.

BTW, what's happening with Ramesta?

I think you should interact with him the way I'm interacting with this guy, and get his feedback. Good feedback is invaluable even though it may not be spot on.

OK , I'll do that. I guess it was harsh for me to say "from his own mind"
because Paramatma reveals things through our heart and mind, and that
possibility should be respected.
I feel we would be able to filter out what is not shastric, not probable,
not relevant, etc, easier than adding more and more theories on our
chalk board. It's hard because the final conclusions are in certain cases
illusive right now.
We come to one conclusion only to be stumped by an outcome based on a
premise, just as the globe-earthers do, basing everything they know on
heliocentrism! So our core siddhanta must be absolute.