Adults Only

Śrīdhara Mahārāja has given us a tremendous gift in his short explanation, for he hands us the tools by which many things can be understood and interpreted.

In the 1960s the creed of personal transcendental dedication known as bhakti-yoga was brought to the west by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmi Prabhupāda. I had the good fortune to accompany him on morning walks to the beach at Santa Monica, California in 1976, to hear him lecture on the Vyāsasana at 3764 Watseka Avenue in Culver City. Later I became his disciple, having accepting initiation into the holy name from him. What originally attracted me to his teachings was his commentary on Bhāgavad-gita, called Bhagavad-gita As It Is. His commentary was based on a simple premise: There was no need for an elaborate interpretation of Krishna’s words. They speak for themselves. Krishna’s words should be taken As It Is, or literally. Given that the original Sanskrit verses had been twisted out of shape by commentators his premise made good sense. According to the principal known as Ockham’s razor, after all, the simplest explanation is usually the best. Therefore, when Krishna says “me” He means “me.”

Sarva-dharman parityajya, mam ekam sharanam vraja means “Leave all dharma and surrender to me.” Here, Krishna means “me.” Prabhupāda’s direct approach cut through the word jugglery of those who would put something different into Krishna’s mouth. The beauty of Prabhupāda’s “literal” interpretation was that it brought us directly into contact with the truth as expressed by Śrī Kṛṣṇa 5,000 years ago on the battlefield of Kurukṣetra.

And yet...

And yet, sometimes interpretation becomes necessary, especially when faced with two or more contradictory statements.

This is why Bhagavad-gita has commentaries. And even among commentaries written by Vaiṣṇavas or the followers of Śrī Kṛṣṇa there are distinctions, grades of meaning, varying points of view. In fact, the commentaries of Śrīdhara Swāmī, Baladeva Vidyabhuṣana, and Viśvanātha Carkravarti Ṭhākura are well-represented in Prabhupāda’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is which runs to some 700 pages in English translation. So one might ask, “If the original Sanskrit is all in all, why do we need 700 pages of commentary in translation?”

The answer is interpretation. While it might appear at first glance that Prabhupāda’s translation is absolutely literal and word for word, in fact his commentary follows the line of Gaudiya Vaiṣṇavism, whose interpretation is based on the teachings of Vyāsa, Madhva, Śrī Caitanya, and Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura as exemplified by Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati Ṭhakura

Of course, it is never the business of neophytes and kanishta adhikaris to interpret the meanings of the scriptures. For this reason, Śrīla Prabhupāda did his best to protect the original fundamental meaning of the śāstras whenever possible.

Still, Śrīla Prabhupāda himself left this planet 14 November, 1977, almost 39 years ago as of this writing.

In his great body of writings which must be in the millions of words he left an incredible wealth of instruction. But as in any written record, sometimes words appear to contradict each other. How are we to interpret his teachings?

We may take it that personal instruction trumps written instruction. We might say, for example, that where something is written in a book, a personal letter to a disciple might take precedence. A word in private might be even more important. So that, for example if fasting on ekadashi is mentioned as favorable in the Caitanya Caritamrita, but a letter exists exempting a disciple from this practice, we might give more importance to the instruction in the letter. Someone will point out that Prabhupāda once posted a poster in an ashrama saying, “Health is number one, then chanting, then service. After service is reading. Practice yoga like that.” This will be taken to settle all arguments, since it is a specific application of the rules. And yet others will point out there are thousands of such “Prabhupāda says,” that belong to what is called “Apocrypha” or outside the canon of published works. If this is true for Prabhupāda and his teachings, what does it say for the previous acharyas as for example Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati and Bhaktivinoda Thakura?

While it is valuable and important to follow instructions and to take seriously the letter of the law, it is not also valuable and important to understand the spirit of the law?

A truly great judge is gifted with the power of seeing beyond the letter of the law and understanding its spirit. He has the capacity to interpret the constitution in light of modern language and practice. He may even teach the practice of interpretation to those among his students who have the capacity to understand.

Sadly, many of Śrīla Prabhupāda’s students have fallen into the trap of taken his words as the final authority on everything. As a consequence they are paralyzed by doubt when it comes to interpeting any statement that falls outside the parameter of his teachings; these unfortunate neophytes have even turned obscure and apocryphal statements of that great acharya into articles of faith. For example, soon after Prabhupāda’s disappearance, the newly “appointed” acharyas began preaching that the end of the world would soon come. According to this version, Prabhupāda had predicted World War III. It would come about as the conflict between India and Pakistan mushroomed into a nuclear war by proxy between the USSR and the United States. This was, of course, a cogent political analysis, given the tensions of 1976. In another statement,of course, Prabhupāda tells his students that it would be impossible for nuclear weapons to destroy the world. I remember the atmosphere of fear in the Los Angeles temple when devotees began stockpiling “survival rations,” “radiation suits,” and supplies of this nature, even buying land in remote areas where they would wait out the end of the world. Of course, such millenialist philosophy never formed any core value in the teachings of Śrīla Prabhupāda who put great emphasis on his books as the final word in settling disputes of this sort. But since devotees lacked proper evaluative tools or any hermeneutics, we accepted the literal “instructions” of Prabhupāda as they were filtered to us by his prominent followers. Now we hear such things as “the world is flat,” or “the sun goes round the earth,” promoted as “Prabhupādisms.” The Śrīla Prabhupāda I saw in Los Angeles in 1976 was a close student of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and its conclusions, and the conclusion he stressed again and again was devotion to Kṛṣṇa. If he spoke of war or astronomy it was with the same view in mind, to promote Kṛṣṇa consciousness. He poked fun at the hubris of the scientists who believed that they knew everything when they couldn’t solve such simple problems as the origin of life.

But when it came to representing the Vedic view of the planets, he asked the designers, architects, and GBC leaders to follow the vision of his Godbrother, His Divine Grace Bhakti Rakshaka Shridhar Dev Goswami. And while it is possible to find some “Prabhupad Says” to the contrary, the conversation held by Śrīla Prabhupāda with Śridhara Mahārāja at the Caitanya Saraswat Math in 1977 is revealing.

Here’s the transcription of that conversation, made by Bhakti Caru Swami of Calcutta. (Taped Conversation transcript, Nabadwip 1977)

Srila Prabhupada: I do not know for how long I will be able to carry on. So, I came to see Sridhara Maharaja.

Devotee: If you all go away, then the world will become dark.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: [to Prabhupada] It is so wonderful that the will of the Lord becomes manifest through someone.

Srila Prabhupada: I want very much, Maharaja, that you come and stay at Mayapur. Because Prabhupada [Bhaktisiddhanta] always desired that you preach. He told me quite a few times, "Why don't you pull him out?" [They both laugh.] You know, I also tried to some extent before, but somehow or other it did not work out. Now, why don't you come and stay at Mayapur? Srila Prabhupada told me also, "Sridhara Maharaja is one of the finest preachers." I want to take you everywhere. At least at the place we have in Mayapur, people are coming from all over the world. If you just agree, then whatever kind of building you want, I will arrange it for you. They are trying to build a house for me. So both of us will stay there. And whenever you want, you can come here to your matha.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Yes, as long as I am alive to fulfill [Bhaktisiddhanta] Prabhupada's desire.

Srila Prabhupada: This is my earnest desire. Since you could not go around the world and preach, at least stay there and people will come to you. I shall make that arrangement. If you stay, then it will be helpful to me also. Sometimes I need to consult with someone and there is no one. There is no one that I can consult with. I feel this deficiency very greatly.

Devotee: If he [Srila Sridhara Maharaja] stays in Mayapur, all kinds of people will get to hear from him.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, that's right.

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Yes, people from all kinds of cultural backgrounds will come there.

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, and they are already coming. And in that house I will make arrangements for an elevator so that you won't have to go through the difficulty of walking up and down the stairs. You won't even have to move a step yourself. I'll make arrangements for a car and an elevator. My disciples are telling me that they will build a house for me. So, both of us will stay in that house. Most of the time I am traveling around, so if you are there, they can get some guidance. So, Maharaja, please, give me the order and I will make all the arrangements for you.

That planetarium [The Temple of Understanding] also will be built under your direction. My idea is to combine the Indian culture and the American money-the lame man and the blind man policy. I tell them also that this will be very beneficial for the world.

Temple of Understanding

Srila Prabhupada refers to "that planetarium." Srila Sridhara Maharaja was very fond of Sanatana Goswami's most famous work, the Brhad-bhagavatamrta, in which devotees, devotional service, and Krsna are described very scientifically. On the basis of this transcendental literature, Sridhara Maharaja had contemplated an elaborate preaching exhibition, using dioramas to depict the varieties of spiritual planetary systems and showing that the ultimate spiritual destination is Krsna's own abode, Goloka Vrndavana. Due to insufficient funds, Sridhara Maharaja humbly submitted his idea to Srila Prabhupāda, who concurred, saying, "It will be built under your direction."

The idea of the planetarium was to demonstrate different transcendental levels of spiritual experience from the point of view of Sanātana Goswāmi’s Bṛhad-Bhāgavatamṛta.

Given that in his final days, Śrīla Prabhupāda was directing his disciples to take guidance from Śrīdhara Mahārāja in the matter of the correct interpretation of Vedic cosmology, it is amazing to see that years later the followers of these disciples are trying to apply a fundamentalist approach to such things as the “shadow planet” Rahu.

The Vedic planetarium was never meant to defend the idea of a Ptolemaic universe or a flat earth planet with Mount Meru as the center. But without the proper tools for interpreting the arcane and occult meanings of geographical indications given in the scriptures such naive followers of Hinduism have no other recourse but to try to illustrate mythological ideas as practical cosmology. Such attempts lack all subtlety. But such twisted views of reality are the consequence of a lack of interpretive skills.

On the other hand, the genius of Śrīdhar Mahārāja’s argument was not only appreciated by A.C. Bhaktivedānta Swāmī who accepted him as his sikṣa-guru, or as one capable of giving advice. Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati Ṭhākura himself confirmed that he was happy that, when he left the planet “At least one man remains who can represent my conception.” Saraswati Ṭhākura respected Śrīdhara Mahārāja’s deep ability to rescue spiritual truths from esoteric passages in the Bhāgavatam, indeed his english publications were often reviewed not only by Professor Sannyal of Ravenshaw College but also by Śrīdhara Mahārāja.

In his explanation of the shadow planet Rahu as a personification of “shadow consciousness,” or cidābhāsa, we have an example of this genius.

What of the other planetary systems? What is the appropriate interpretation of Vedic cosmology to describe the planetary systems known as bhur, bhuvah, and svah?

Consciencia y Ser V version en español

Subjective Evolution of Consciousness

Śrīdhara Mahārāja

Un  análisis acerca de la evolución subjetiva de la consciencia se halla en muchos sitios en el Śrīmad Bhāgavatam y en sus comentarios del comentador original Śrīdhara Swāmi y de Jīva Goswāmī.

El más erudito del Bhāgavatam en el S XIX fue Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura.

Sus explicaciones de la ontología Védica se hallan en sus libros, especialmente en el Kṛṣṇa-Saṁhita, (Krishna-Saṁhita, el Caitanya-Sikṣamṛta, (Caitanya Sikshamrita) y el Tattva-Viveka (Tattva-Viveka). Cuando nos aproximamos a Śrīdhara Mahārāja para aclarar algunas de sus observaciones acerca de la Evolución Subjetiva nos refirió una y otra vez a estos tres libros, en especial al Kṛṣṇa-Saṁhita.

En nuestros artículos previos, mencionamos cidābhāsa, una especie de intermediario entre la consciencia pura, o cit y la consciencia degradada cubierta por distintas kośas experimentada en el mundo de la concepción errónea llamado māya. Estamos interesados en entender cómo la consciencia pura gradualmente se deforma y degrada hacia estados cada vez más bajos.

Śrīdhara Mahārāja ha explicado cidābhāsa como una especie de filtro entre el espíritu y la materia, que incluye variedad de kośas, como la mente, la inteligencia y el ego falso.

Śrīdhar Mahārāja

Cidābhāsa es descrita por Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura como una indicación del espíritu en su Kṛṣṇa- Saṁhita:

Inicia su discusión acerca de la naturaleza de la entidad viviente en su conclusión de la obra. Tras citar un verso del Bhagavad-Gīta. Aquí pueden hallar la propia explicación de Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura acerca de la Evolución Subjetiva de la Consciencia.

apareyam itas tv anyam

prakrtim viddhi me param

jiva-bhutam maha-baho

yayedam dharyate jagat

aparā — inferior; iyam — ésta; itaḥ — además de ésta; tu — pero; anyām — otra; prakṛtim — energía; viddhi — trata de entender; me — Mi; parām — superior; jīva-bhūtām — que consiste en las entidades vivientes; mahā-bāho — ¡oh, tú, el de los poderosos brazos!; yayā — por quienes; idam — este; dhāryate — es utilizado o explotado; jagat — el mundo material.

Traducción:

Además de todo ello, ¡oh, Arjuna, el de los poderosos brazos!, hay una energía Mía que es superior, la cual consiste en las entidades vivientes que están explotando los recursos de esa naturaleza material inferior. (Bhagavad-Gita 7.5)

“Al estudiar este verso se entiende claramente que las entidades vivientes son distintas a los elementos materiales antes mencionados como la mente, la inteligencia, el ego falso. Esta es sin duda la conclusión de quien es como un cisne.

“”En este mundo visible de diversidad, hay dos elementos o prākṛtis: el alma individual (jīva) y la materia inerte (jaḍa-jagat), o las entidades espirituales elementales y los elementos materiales.

“Los Vaisnavas aceptan estos dos (jīva) and materia inerte (jaḍa-jagat) como efectos de la inconcebible potencia del Señor Supremo.

“Estandaricemos las definiciones de los elementos materiales y las entidades vivientes. Las entidades vivientes están conscientes y pueden actuar independientemente. La materia es opaca y se halla bajo el control de la consciencia.

“Si consideramos la existencia de un ser humano e su estado condicionado actual. Entonces podremos sin duda considerar su consciencia y los elementos materiales, puesto que a través de la  dulce voluntad del Señor serán almas condicionadas y cabalgarán en una máquina de elementos materiales.

El cuerpo material elaborado de siete fluidos constituyentes, los sentidos, junto con la mente, la inteligencia y el ego falso (los cuales son la fuente del conocimiento material), al igual que otros factores: el lugar, el factor de tiempo, y la consciencia son todos vistos en la existencia de un ser humano.”

Bhaktivinod continúa:

“El cuerpo por otro lado es completamente material, debido a que esta hecho de elementos materiales y sus características.

“Los elementos materiales no son capaces de comprender el espíritu, pero pueden percibir alguna evidencia de la existencia espiritual con maravillosos instrumentos como los ojos, oídos y el sistema nervioso en el cuerpo de un ser humano. Estos instrumentos a través de los cuales el conocimiento material entra en el cuerpo material son llamados sentidos.

“Tras entrar al cuerpo material, el conocimiento material se mezcla con un instrumento interno que interpreta los elementos materiales. Este instrumento es llamado la mente.

“La mente entiende el conocimiento material a través del medio del corazón y acumula el conocimiento a través del medio del recuerdo.

“La forma del conocimiento material cambia a través del medio de la imaginación. Los objetos materiales son considerados con el apoyo de dos medios, la inteligencia desarrollada y la inteligencia sin desarrollar.

“Aparte de esto, en la existencia de un ser humano hay una indicación del espíritu (cidābhāsa) se halla en la forma del ego, el cual impregna la inteligencia, la mente  el cuerpo. De estos síntomas una fuerte sentimiento de “Yo” y “mío” se acepta como parte de la existencia del ser humano.

“Esto se conoce como ego falso. Ha de entenderse que el conocimiento de los sujetos desde el ego falso es llamado conocimiento material. Sin embargo, el ego falso, la inteligencia, la mente y la destreza de los sentidos no son totalmente materiales. En otras palabras, ellos no consisten enteramente en elementos materiales, sino que su existencia está enraizada en elementos materiales. En otras palabras, a menos que estén relacionados con elementos materiales su existencia es incompleta.

“Están bajo el refugio del espíritu hasta cierto grado, porque el acto de revelación es la propia vida y el conocimiento material el resultado. ¿De dónde se origina esta consciencia?

“El alma es pura y las bases de la consciencia. No es fácil para el alma el llegar a subordinarse a la materia. Por deseo del Señor Supremo- ciertamente por alguna razón- un alma espiritual pura contacta la materia. A pesar de que en nuestro estado condicionado es muy difícil investigar la causa, si consideramos la falta de felicidad en nuestro estado condicionado, podemos ciertamente entender que nuestra condición presente es una degradación de nuestra consciencia original. 

(i)

Podemos objetar sin cesar acerca del uso de “mente” vs “espíritu”, el término en inglés para definir asuntos de consciencia es vago. Por ejemplo la distinción entre “mente y espíritu” la “Phänomenologie des Geistes” ha sido traducida tanto como Fenomenología del Espíritu, como Fenomenología de la Mente. Así que entonces las palabras “mente” y “espíritu” son confusas. En Inglés “mente” tiene una variedad de significados. “Mind your manners (Cuida tus Modales).” Mientras que tal vez en los principios del Siglo XX la palabra “Mente” tal vez tenía un contexto más espiritual, “mente” hoy en día es un término tan flexible como desprovisto de cualquier significado filosófico real. La palabra “Espíritu” es también problemática puede referirse al fervor de “espíritu de equipo”, nostalgia académica como “espíritu escolar”, o incluso al “espíritu” equino. “Espíritu” puede referirse hasta al “alcohol”, en español lo hace con el término “bebidas espirituosas”.

Como estudiante de Hegel, Śrīdhara Mahārāj usa “mente” en el sentido de “Geist” como un término intercambiable que cubre todo, que puede acercarse al significado de “espíritu”  en el mismo sentido en que la palabra Geist de Hegel ha sido traducida tanto como “espíritu” o “mente”. Pero su definición cidābhāsa se remite a Bhaktivinod. Quien esté interesado en una aclaración adicional del tema de cidābhāsa está invitado a ir al Kṛṣṇa-Samhita, especialmente al original en Bengalí.

En la “Evolución Subjetiva de la Consciencia”, Śrīdhara Mahārāj elabora el análisis hecho por Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura:

“El alma. Llegando a la consciencia material, ha de pasar a través de una reflexión de consciencia nebulosa, cidābhāsa. Sólo entonces el alma experimenta la consciencia material. Antes de que la consciencia pura evolucione hacia la consciencia material, pasará por un estado confuso de consciencia o cidābhāsa.

Por lo que en el fondo de cada cosa material, hay una concepción espiritual. Esto no puede sino ser verdad. ¿Qué es cidābhāsa?

Algo como la mente: Supongamos que la conciencia llega a sentir la materia. Cuando la consciencia está llegando al mundo material a conocerlo, tiene que pasar primero a través de la consciencia material, entonces puede sentir la materia.

De acuerdo a la teoría de Darwin, la materia gradualmente produce consciencia, pero antes de producir consciencia ha de producir una consciencia confusa, luego la mente, y después el alma.

Pero en realidad es justamente lo opuesto. La evolución subjetiva paralela a la objetiva o evolución material.

Pero en la evolución de consciencia. El Súper-sujeto es primero, luego el alma individual o Jīva-sujeto. Entonces desde la consciencia subjetiva de las Jīvas, la materia se produce. Pero la consciencia ha de penetrar una consciencia nebulosa para percibir la materia

Yo digo que el proceso evolutivo se mueve desde arriba y hacia abajo. La Realidad Absoluta el total en Sí misma. Todas las otras cosas están llegando de Él. La substancia perfecta ya existe.

Lo que aparenta para nosotros ser imperfecto desciende de acuerdo a nuestros propios sentidos defectuosos. Lo imperfecto ha de depender de lo perfecto, la realidad última. Y lo imperfecto puede ser arreglado por Él con el fin de probar Su perfección.

Para probar la perfección del Absoluto. Está lo condicionado y lo incondicionado, la realidad finita y la infinita. El mundo defectuoso por ello tiene una relación indirecta con la verdad.

Sin embargo, la consciencia no puede brincar al instante hacia la concepción de materia; ha de pasar a través de un proceso para llegar a la consciencia material.

Desde la posición marginal, desde el borde de la potencia eterna suprema, la evolución y la disolución de los seres materiales del mundo. Esto se lleva acabo apenas y en las afueras de svarūpa-śakti. La cual es el sistema responsable de la evolución del plano espiritual, y es un todo dinámico que evoluciona eternamente.

No es que la no-diferenciación sea el origen de la diferenciación. Una substancia eternamente diferenciada existe.

Este plano está lleno de  līlā, pasatiempos dinámicos. Si se puede concebir algo estático  como eterno, entonces ¿por qué no puede algo dinámico concebirse como eterno?  El plano de svarūpa-śakti evoluciona totalmente en su interior.

Es eterno. Evolución y disolución tienen que ver únicamente con la degradación del espíritu sutil hacia la plataforma de la materia burda y su evolución hacia la perfección. Aquí hay evolución y disolución, pero esas cosas no existen en la morada eterna de svarūpa-śakti. (ii)

 [i] Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Krishna-Samhita, traducido por Kushakratha p. 99.

[ii] Extracto de: Swami B. R. Sridhar. “Evolución Subjetiva.” Guardian of Devotion Press, 1989..

Consciousness and the Self X

Shadow Consciousness and Rahu

In discussing the passage of consciousness from the undifferentiated plane to the world of misconception to exploitation, Śrīdhara Mahārāja has revealed a deeper understanding of Vedic Cosmology in Subjective Evolution of Consciousness.”

While it may be entirely possible that the ancient seers of the Upanishads and the Vedas concentrated their vision on a Ptolemaic model of the known world, their point of view is generally more subtle. The Greeks and Egyptians employed the paradigm of a Geo-centric universe in their astronomy, as did the Europeans until the time of Copernicus. Galileo and his telescope refuted the idea that Earth was the Center of the universe, as did Columbus, by sailing around the world, as any schoolboy knows today.

Only a fool or an internet troll would defend the idea of a flat earth, or that the sun circles our planet. While some strange religious  fanatics hold that the guru of the Hare Krishna movement stated otherwise, Śrīla Prabhupāda himself sailed from Bombay to New York, proving that the earth was round.

Not only did he sail around the world, following in the footsteps of Columbus, Śrīla Prabhupāda also flew around the world several times, visiting all points of the globe. While defending the Vedic point of view and even the Vedic cosmology, he held that not only was the Earth round but the Universe was also round.

He asserts as much in his commentaries and lectures. For example, here’s a lecture divine in New York, in 1966.

Prabhupada says Planets are Round.

In a lecture on Caitanya Caritamṛta Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 20.146-151
New York, December 3, 1966 commenting on the verse 

vaikuntha, brahmanda-gana-sakti-karya haya

svarupa-sakti sakti-karyera-krsna samasraya

Prabhupada says, “Lord Caitanya says, Vaikuntha. Just like this universe is a jagad-anda, is a big round ball, anda. Anda means egglike, just like egg is round. Therefore it is called brahmanda. It is a round ball. Every planet is round, and the universe is also round, and the Vaikunthas are also round, all round. Vaikuntha, brahmanda-gana-sakti-karya haya. So all these universes, the universe which we experience... There are innumerable universes that we cannot see. We can see only one universe, and in one universe there are innumerable planets. Similarly, there are innumerable universes, and in each universe there are innumerable planets...”

Notwithstanding the outlandish descriptions of geography found in certain places in the Puranas, Śrīla Prabhupāda clearly says here that Every planet is round, and the universe is also round. Anyone who says otherwise is contradicting not only the point of view of Śrīla Prabhupāda but his direct instructions.

The Ptolemaic universe has been clearly refuted since at least 500 years ago. In this age of GPS satellites and the Hubble Space Telescope, we need to take a more spiritual or psychological view of the Vedic cosmology.

It may be that “shadow planets” exist in the same way as “black holes” as some collection of undetectable “dark matter” with an indescribable influence over the space-time continuum.

And yet, it is far more satisfying to see the description of physical planets as a metaphor for the different planes of consciousness. Śrīdhara Mahārāja explains, that the ancients saw reality in a personal sense.

“Since everything is a unit of consciousness, everything has personal existence. Everything is a person. Before we go to the material conception, we must pass through the personal conception or aspect of that thing.”

He gives the example of the shadow planet, Rahu, and explains how the Vedic cosmology is to be seen in a modern context.

“We see that by the movement of the different planets, a solar eclipse is caused by the moon’s shadow falling upon the Earth. And yet in the scriptures it has been described that during an eclipse, the planet Rāhu is devouring the sun or the moon.”

How are we to understand this? The Aryans, the spiritually developed men of former times, used to see everything as consciousness. They saw that the shadow is also conscious. The shadow,or ābhāsa, is also considered to be a stage of consciousness. The description of Rāhu devouring the sun is a metaphor that explains how consciousness passes through a kind of hazy stage before congealing into matter.

Matter cannot be known. We believe that matter is something which exists in space and time and causes various sensations. And yet we cannot see or touch “matter” itself. Only through a shadowy stage of consciousness can we come to feel the material conception of a thing.

The ancient seers of truth are saying that before we reach the conception of a shadow, we must pass through some mental stage, and personification may be attached to that mental stage. The personification of the shadow may be referred to as “Rāhu,” the shadow planet.

Being able to detect the conscious characteristic in everything, the ancient philosophers of the Upanishads saw all of nature as conscious and personal, and addressed everything as conscious, and so this “shadow consciousness” was called “Rahu.”

Consciousness and personality are the universal basis of reality. Whatever we may experience is conscious. We have no experience of unconsciousness, since experience and phenomenon depend on awareness.

We cannot perceive matter directly. Our eyes percieve color, but color is dependant on the optic nerve, the brain, and the mind. What I perceive is only a dim reflection of matter. I know that the reflection of a material object is within me, I have a perception of that, and the plane within me is conscious.

The subject is consciousness, and whatever kind of thing the object may be, it casts its reflection into the plane of consciousness. This is all we may know about matter, since matter comes to us through a filter. That filter may be known as a kind of shadow consciousness or cidābhāsa. We may refer to the filter as Rāhu. As the sun passes through this shadow during an eclipse, our perception passes through a kind of filter before we can perceive material reality.

We can have no objective experience of what we call matter. Our perception of matter is entirely subjective, consciousness filtering through shadow consciousness in perception of māya.

Since the observer of any objective reality is involved only with consciousness from beginning to end, we can have no conception of matter apart from consciousness.

IN the words of the Upanishads and Vedas, the soul approaches matter, the material world, but before that, he must pass through a shadowy stage of consciousness called chidābhāsa. This is represented by the shadow-planet, Rāhu.

So, consciousness passes through the shadow level of consciousness into matter, non-consciousness.

And that shadow stage of consciousness has its personality as the shadow planet, Rāhu, in the terminology of the Pūranas. As everything material must have some conscious origin, or origin in personal consciousness, there must be a personal conception of the sun, the moon, the Earth, and all the planets. Rather than question the veracity of the Pūranic version, we may see this kind of personification as a deeper perception of reality.

The ancients believed that before reaching the perception of a shadow or any other object, the soul has to pass through a conscious stage, a kind of filter brought on by a subjective observation or perception. That stage has some spiritual existence as a person.

In quantum terminology, observation itself affects reality. Developments in quantum theory aiming at a unified field theory have opened the door to a profoundly new vision of the cosmos, where the conscious observer, or the subject, the observed or the object, and the act conscious observation are intertwined.

In the quantum view individual particles of matter cease to be measureable distinct entities, but participate in the dance of reality only as a result of having been observed.

The very existence of subatomic particles is dependent on their observation. Matter ceases to have an existence independent of consciousness, since without consciousness there is no observation, no observable phenomenon and matter ceases to exist. Consciousness is the very foundation of observable material phenomenon, and consciousness implies personality.

The Bhāgavatam underscores personality as an integral part of conscious existence. When the Bhāgavatam refers to the sun, the moon, or the planet Rāhu, there is a twofold meaning: not only is the Bhāgavatam discussing the apparent physical reality of heavenly objects as material things, but the Bhāgavatam is also seeing these as persons: Everything – the Earth, the moon, the stars, the planets – has a personal conception.

So that, in the background of what we can perceive with our dull senses, behind everything that is said to be matter, there must be a personal conception.

Without the influence of a personal conception,after all, consciousness cannot even reach the stage of gross matter.

Therefore, in the ancient scriptures we find that the great sages and ṛṣis are always addressing everything within this world as a person.

Although to us it is dead matter, the great seers of the Upanishads and Vedas have considered “matter” in a personal way, as persons. This is not merely some literary device. Matter itself is really a kind of “shadow” of the personal living entity. And since the personal, conscious entity is more real than the dead, impersonal material thing, everywhere in the Pūranas, personification is used.

And so, Vyāsa, writing the definitive treatise on the Supreme Personal Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, represents personality at the core of every verse of that great work. And so, when he considers the personal representation of shadowy consciousness it is called “Rāhu.” Rāhu, as a kind of demonic anti-god, is the hazy misconception through which consciousness must pass before perceiving matter. But matter itself is a kind of illusion; in the final analysis, everything is conscious: The shadow, its effect – all phenomenon, both subjective and objective.

In this way, when the Pūranas discuss the eclipses of the sun and moon, they tell us that the shadow itself is conscious and represents shadow consciousness. The important point here is that everything is conscious first, then there is matter. From the personal conception things evolve to gross consciousness. In the end, reality is all personal. So the ancient Vedic seers of the truth gave us a vision of reality used to address everything as personal, even trees, mountains, the sun, the moon, and the ocean.”