Harimedia Forum

Hi Hari,
Now it is well known in modern cosmlogy, that 85% of mass of our Universe constitute dark matter. And I am thinking now, may be that dark matter is the Garbhodaka Ocean? If this ocean fills a half of Universe, its weight, related to planetary systems, which are mentioned in Vedic cosmology, may be quite equal to the ratio, discovered by scientists. What do you think about this?
It is also very interesting for me to know your opinion about Vedic cosmology. For example, it is said that all planetary systems are rested in the steam of lotus, sprouted from Visnu’s navel. So, those planetary systems are physically arranged one over another: bhur, bhuvah, svah and so on, until Brahmaloka. The questions arise – if those systems are material and exist in our Universe, then we should be able see them. Then, may be the galaxies and clusters of galaxies, we can see in telescope are namely that other planetary systems mentioned in the Vedas? And our Milky Way Galaxy with its satellites is Bhur system? But then, how to be with some things like, for example, polar star which belongs to our galaxy, but also known as Dhruvaloka and spiritual Vaikuntha? Or Big Dipper, which stars are also belong to our galaxy, but according of the Vedas, each stars of it is abode of one of the Sapta risis. Are these risis still live in this Bhur level?

Oh my! You don't really expect me to defend the vedic version, right? I also do not like to use the term "vedic" since it does not mean anything. Defending the Bhagavatam version is not something I like to do, but it is something I play with now and then in private for fun. The idea that some parts of the modern conception might correlate with the Bhagavatam description does not feel good to me. This approach starts from the premise that the modern version is the "true" version and the Bhagavatam version is validated when it is somehow analogous to or near enough to the modern version. I never got too involved in this approach, but Sadaputa (rest his soul) did this in great detail. If you find this technique useful for yourself, go for it! But I do not wish to be too involved with it. I mean, sure, it is fun to think of black holes as the lotus from Brahma's navel, and it is cool to consider the lost matter as the Garbhodaka ocean, and there are tons of things that make sense in the ancient texts and science comes up with more and more interesting analogous concepts as time goes by.

My personal opinion is that there were space travelers who gave information to the humans on this planet about the universe, but since the information was far over the heads of these people, they incorporated this information into the forms presented in the Bhagavatam. Probably, over time this has also been adjusted or changed.

You know, I also don’t like this term “vedic”, but I have used it just for it is popular to indicate ancient Indian knowledge. Of course, better term will be “Puranic”. And of course I don’t expect you to defend the vedic version.
You answered that there were space travelers, and these words have many common with my vision of importance of knowledge, obtained through direct perception. And in this regard I asked my question.
I have few more questions, tied with direct perception, I want to ask you. First, can we consider that the higher (where, for example, devas live), middle and lower worlds (Bhur, Bhuvah, Svah an so on) exist simultaneously in one point of space and distinguishes each other only by frequency of their vibrations, and may be by quantity of dimensions (something like a kind of parallel worlds), or they are scattered in different places of space and separated physically and spacey?
And another question is if we, in meditation, do something, then do we do it really or only in our mind? I mean, for example, if we in meditation have contact with somebody or some energy, or travel to some place, or do something, is it real contact, travelling and deed (even if in subtle body) or we just concoct it in our mind and imagine that it is real? How to distinguish real deeds and mind concoction or dreams in our meditation? Especially concerns the practice of visualization.

In my experience, or my conception if you will, higher and lower entities exist inter dimensionally and also at the same time in distinct spaces and planets. This is why we see rocks or gasses somewhere and they see a nice place. But I cannot prove it.

The contacts we experience in meditation or dreams are as real as we make them. When others feel their dreams and mediations as real and connect to us, then the experience we share is as real as we make it. The distinction between thought and action is one of quantity. The more power there is in it, the more real it is. I have seen that some physical activities are not as real as my meditations! I also feel visualized energy can be more solid than the physical realm.

This is a complex subject that depends entirely on the person who is experiencing it. The more powerful one is, the more real the experiences.