SAILING TO JAMBŪDVĪPA
The Māyāpur Vedic Planetarium and
the Flat Earth According to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam
By Māyeśvara dāsa -- Part 3 --
(2.4) Arguments for a Flat Earth
In the past few years there has been an incredible rise in the number of videos dedicated to proving the flat Earth. There have been less books and websites produced on the subject as the favoured medium for flat Earth advocates seems to be video presentation. Although many of the people engaged in propagating the flat Earth conception are well-educated and have academic credentials, the mood is more of a people's revolution against the prevailing cosmological ideas than a subject dominated and dictated by those in the established academia. Indeed, there has been very little credible counter-argument from the establishment's defenders' of the heliocentric and globe-shaped Earth. Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett, for example, the authors of the three volume work, Galileo was Wrong, have offered $100,000 for anyone to prove that the Earth rotates around the sun; as yet, the offer still stands uncontested.
Video presentations on the flat Earth are numerous, and the sheer amount of information is difficult to summarise; for convenience I have chosen some of the arguments from one of the leading flat Earth advocates, namely Eric Dubay, which form the bulk of this chapter. For those readers who are interested in a closer study of the arguments and counter-arguments involved in the flat Earth discussion, I refer you to the innumerable video channels and growing number of websites dedicated to the topic.
Surprisingly, science (observation, hypothesis, and demonstration) actually comes to the defence of a flat Earth. Apart from NASA's demonstrably fake photos of Earth from outer space there are otherwise no scientific demonstrations that can prove a globe- shaped or heliocentric Earth.
For one thing, there is no observable or measureable curvature on the Earth. If we consider the Earth as a globe, we have to account for curvature. From where-ever one stands, the Earth would be curving in all directions and things in the distance would fall below one's line of sight. When a car on a motorway, for example, goes around a bend it disappears from one's vision; the same should be true for objects and places that are tens or hundreds of miles away from one's horizon line, that is, they should disappear from one's line of vision as they disappear around the circumference of the Earth. This, however, is not the fact; distant shorelines, landmarks, lighthouses, ships, etc., can all be seen on the horizon when according to the mathematical formulas for calculating the curvature of the Earth, they should have fallen hundreds or thousands of feet below one's line of vision.
To appreciate the many following examples to illustrate this point, let us first look at the method for calculating the Earth's curvature. The Pythagorean Theorem gives approximately 8 inches per mile as the curvature on a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference. This is a generally accepted formula. However, simply giving the curvature in inches per mile can be misleading. If it was just 8 inches for every mile that would make a calculation for a downward sloping straight line rather than a curve. To calculate the Earth's supposed curvature we must also use spherical trigonometry, and figuring a 25,000 mile circumference ball, 8 inches is correct, but varying inversely with the square of the mile. Thus, after 2 miles the curvature drop would be 32 inches; after 3 miles 72 inches; 4 miles 128 inches; 5 miles 200 inches; and so on. The calculation is squared for each successive mile because on a round globe each mile is curving away from the other, not just sloping.
The following table will show at a glance the amount of curvature, in round numbers, in different distances up to 100 miles. The rule, however, requires to be modified after the first thousand miles.
Statute Miles Away |
Math |
= Drop |
| 1 | 1 x 1 x 8 = | 8 Inches |
| 2 | 2 x 2 x 8 = | 32 Inches |
| 3 | 3 x 3 x 8 / 12 = | 6 Feet |
| 4 | 4 x 4 x 8 / 12 = | 10.6 Feet |
| 5 | 5 x 5 x 8 / 12 = | 16.6 Feet |
| 6 | 6 x 6 x 8 / 12 = | 24 Feet |
| 7 | 7 x 7 x 8 / 12 = | 32.6 Feet |
| 8 | 8 x 8 x 8 / 12 = | 42.6 Feet |
| 9 | 9 x 9 x 8 / 12 = | 54 Feet |
| 10 | 10 x 10 x 8 / 12 = | 66.6 Feet |
| 20 | 20 x 20 x 8 / 12 = | 266.6 Feet |
| 30 | 30 x 30 x 8 / 12 = | 600 Feet |
| 40 | 40 x 40 x 8 / 12 = | 1,066.6 Feet |
| 50 | 50 x 50 x 8 / 12 = | 1,666.6 Feet |
| 60 | 60 x 60 x 8 / 12 = | 2,400 Feet |
| 70 | 70 x 70 x 8 / 12 = | 3,266.6 Feet |
| 80 | 80 x 80 x 8 / 12 = | 4,266.6 Feet |
| 90 | 90 x 90 x 8 / 12 = | 5,400 Feet |
| 100 | 100 x 100 x 8 / 12 = | 6,666.6 Feet |
| 120 | 120 x 120 x 8 / 12 = | 9,600 Feet |
From this table we can see that every mile has a curvature drop of a certain amount of feet which would make seeing objects in the distance impossible. For example, if I look at something out at sea with a telescope for say one hundred miles, I should not be able to see something at my eye level. Because of the curvature of the Earth an object in the distance should disappear below my eye-level by thousands of feet. Yet we can perceive objects in the distance at horizon level even hundreds of miles away. Eventually images do disappear from vision, but this is because of perspective, not curvature. Think of railway lines for example that disappear in the horizon, even though they lie on a flat surface. The absence of a curvature drop on the horizon line clearly indicates a flat Earth rather than a curved Earth. Eric Dubay explains the vanishing point on the horizon as follows:
The Law of Perspective dictates that the angle and height at which an object is seen diminishes the farther one recedes from the object, until at a certain point the line of sight and the seemingly uprising surface of the Earth converges to a vanishing point (i.e. the horizon line) beyond which the object is invisible. In the ball-Earth model the horizon is claimed to be the curvature of the Earth, whereas in reality, the horizon is known to be simply the vanishing line of perspective based on the strength of your eyes, instruments, weather, and altitude.
Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships' hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon. Their claim is that ships' hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth. Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth could this phenomenon occur.
The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence. For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks. Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs. Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.
Not only is the disappearance of ship's hulls explained by the Law of Perspective on flat surfaces, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope. If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, not by a wall of curved water! This also proves that the horizon is simply the vanishing line of perspective from your point of view, not the alleged “curvature” of Earth. (Eric Dubay 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball).
The Earth has no Measurable Curvature
The following information is from Eric Dubay's article The Measurable Non-curvature of the Flat Earth posted on February 11, 2015:
NASA and modern astronomers claim we are living on an oblate spheroid 25,000 statute miles in equatorial circumference with a curvature of 7.935 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on. Therefore, if we wish to prove or disprove the validity of their convexity claim, it is a fairly simple, straight- forward matter of measurements and calculations.
For example, the distance across the Irish Sea from the Isle of Man's Douglas Harbor to Great Orm's Head in North Wales is 60 miles. If the Earth was a globe then the surface of the water between them would form a 60 mile arc, the center towering 1944 feet higher than the coastlines at either end! It is well-known and easily verifiable, however, that on a clear day, from a modest altitude of 100 feet, the Great Orm's Head is visible from Douglas Harbor. This would be completely impossible on a globe of 25,000 miles. Assuming the 100 foot altitude causes the horizon to appear approximately 13 miles off, the 47 miles remaining means the Welsh coastline should still fall an impossible 1472 feet below the line of sight!
“Astronomers are in the habit of considering two points on the Earth's surface, without, it seems, any limit as to the distance that lies between them, as being on a level, and the intervening section, even though it be an ocean, as a vast 'hill' - of water! The Atlantic ocean, in taking this view of the matter, would form a 'hill of water' more than a hundred miles high! The idea is simply monstrous, and could only be entertained by scientists whose whole business is made up of materials of the same description: and it certainly requires no argument to deduce, from such 'science' as this, a satisfactory proof that the Earth is not a globe. Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him one in name which is not one in fact! This is the best that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures - deceive them.” (William Carpenter, 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe).
“Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise existing through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals. South of the Baltic the country is so flat that a prevailing north wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles. The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America chiefly on the left of the Orinoco, are termed Ilanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles the surface does not vary a single foot. The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile.” -Rev. T. Milner, “Atlas of Physical Geography”
“These extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth is level, and that therefore the world is not a globe. And when we come to consider the surface of the world under the sea, we shall find the same uniformity of evidence against the popular view. In 'Nature and Man,' by Professor W.B. Carpenter, article 'The Deep Sea and its Contents,' the writer says: 'If the bottom of the mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer standing on any spot of it would find himself surrounded by a plain, only comparable to that of the North American prairies or the South American pampas … The form of the depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a flat waiter or tea tray, surrounded by an elevated and deeply sloping rim, than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared.' This remarkable writer tells of thousands of miles, in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that a flat surface is the general contour of the bed of the great oceans for tens of thousands of square miles.” (Thomas Winship, Zetetic Cosmogeny)
Water Levels Prove a Flat Earth: Whether ones sails from North America to Australia or from South America to Siberia, one sails on the same horizontal plane. There is no measurable curvature anywhere. It is the same water level everywhere one goes. The following extracts are from Eric Dubay's article, The Natural Physics of Water Prove Earth Flat:
It is part of the natural physics of water and other fluids to always find their level and remain flat. If disturbed in any way, motion ensues until the flat level is resumed. If dammed up then released, the nature of all liquids is to quickly flood outwards taking the easiest course towards finding its new level:
“The upper surface of a fluid at rest is a horizontal plane. Because if a part of the surface were higher than the rest, those parts of the fluid which were under it would exert a greater pressure upon the surrounding parts than they receive from them, so that motion would take place amongst the particles and continue until there were none at a higher level than the rest, that is, until the upper surface of the whole mass of fluid became a horizontal plane.” (W.T. Lynn, First Principles of Natural Philosophy).
If the Earth is an extended flat plane, then this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense. If, however, the Earth is a giant sphere tilted on its vertical axis spinning through never-ending space then it follows that truly flat, consistently level surfaces do not exist here! Moreover, if the Earth is spherical then it follows that the surface of all Earth's water, including the massive oceans, must maintain a certain degree of convexity. But this is contrary to the fundamental physical nature of water to always be and remain level!
“The surface of all water, when not agitated by natural causes, such as winds, tides, earthquakes etc. is perfectly level. The sense of sight proves this to every unprejudiced and reasonable mind. Can any so-called scientist, who teaches that the earth is a whirling globe, take a heap of liquid water, whirl it round, and so make rotundity? He cannot. Therefore it is utterly impossible to prove that an ocean is a whirling rotund section of a globular earth, rushing through 'space' at the lying-given-rate of false philosophers.” (William Thomas Wiseman, The Earth An Irregular Plane).
If we were living on a whirling ball-Earth, every pond, lake, marsh, canal and other large body of standing water, each part would have to comprise a slight arc or semi-circle curveting downwards from the central summit. For example, if the ball-Earth were 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomers say, then spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downwards an easily measureable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. To the benefit of true science, and to the detriment of modern astronomy's pseudo-science, such an experiment can and has been tested.
In Cambridge, England there is a 20 mile canal called the Old Bedford which passes in a straight line through the Fenlands known as the Bedford Level. The water has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind and remains stationary making it perfectly suitable for determining whether any amount of convexity/curvature actually exists. In the latter part of the 19th century, Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, a famous Flat-Earther and author of the fine book, Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in the Universe! travelled to the Bedford level and performed a series of experiments to determine whether the surface of standing water is flat or convex.
“A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called 'Welche's Dam' (a well- known ferry passage), to another called 'Welney Bridge.' These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! There could be no mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge. The experiment commenced about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day, and the sun was shining brightly and nearly behind or against the boat during the whole of its passage. Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities. From this experiment it follows that the surface of standing water is not convex, and therefore that the Earth is not a globe! On the contrary, this simple experiment is all-sufficient to prove that the surface of the water is parallel to the line-of-sight, and is therefore horizontal, and that the Earth cannot be other than a plane!” (Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe)
In a second experiment, Dr. Rowbotham placed seven flags along the edge of the water each one mile distant from the next with their tops positioned 5 feet above the surface. Near the last one he also positioned a longer, 8 foot staff bearing a 3 foot flag so that its bottom aligned precisely with the tops of the other flags. He then mounted a telescope at a height of 5 feet behind the first flag and took his observations. If the Earth was a globe of 25,000 miles, each successive flag would have to decline a definite and determined amount below the last. The first and second flags simply established the line of sight, the third flag should then fall 8 inches below the second, the fourth flag 32 inches below, the fifth 6 feet, the sixth 10 feet 8 inches, and the seventh flag should be a clear 16 feet 8 inches below the line of sight! Even if the Earth was a globe of a hundred thousand miles, an amount of easily measurable curvature should and would still be evident in this experiment. But the reality is not a single inch of curvature was detected and the flags all lined up perfectly as consistent with a flat plane.
“The rotundity of the earth would necessitate the above conditions; but as they cannot be found to exist, the doctrine must be pronounced as only a simple theory, having no foundation in fact--a pure invention of misdirected genius; splendid in its comprehensiveness and bearing upon natural phenomena; but, nevertheless, mathematical and logical necessities compel its denunciation as an absolute falsehood.” (Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe.)
Dr. Rowbotham conducted several other experiments using telescopes, spirit levels, and “theodolites,” special precision instruments used for measuring angles in horizontal or vertical planes. By positioning them at equal heights aimed at each other successively he proved over and over the Earth to be perfectly flat for miles without a single inch of curvature. His findings caused quite a stir in the scientific community and thanks to 30 years of his efforts, the shape of the Earth became a hot topic of debate around the turn of the nineteenth century.
“Is water level, or is it not?' was a question once asked of an astronomer. 'Practically, yes; theoretically, no,' was the reply. Now, when theory does not harmonize with practice, the best thing to do is to drop the theory. (It is getting too late, now to say 'So much the worse for the facts!') To drop the theory which supposes a curved surface to standing water is to acknowledge the facts. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, the surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.” William Carpenter, (100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe).
“Since any given body of water must have a level surface, no one part higher than another, and seeing that all our oceans (a few inland seas excepted) are connected together, it follows that they are all virtually of the same level.” (The English Mechanic, 26th, June 1896)
Astronomers say the magical magnetism of gravity is what keeps all the oceans of the world stuck to the ball-Earth. They say that because the Earth is so massive, by virtue of this mass it creates a magic force able to hold people, oceans and atmosphere tightly clung to the underside of the spinning ball. Unfortunately, however, they cannot provide any practical example of this on a scale smaller than the planetary. For example, a spinning wet tennis ball has the exact opposite effect of the supposed ball- Earth! Any water poured over it simply falls off the sides, and giving it a spin results in water flying off 360 degrees like a dog shaking after a bath. Astronomers concede the wet tennis ball example displays the opposite effect of their supposed ball-Earth, but claim that at some unknown mass, the magic adhesive properties of gravity suddenly kick in allowing the spinning wet tennis ball-Earth to keep every drop of “gravitized” water stuck to the surface. Again, their theory flies in the face of all practical evidence, but they have been running with it for 500 years, so why stop now?
“If the Earth were a globe, rolling and dashing through 'space' at the rate of 'a hundred miles in five seconds of time,' the waters of seas and oceans could not, by any known law, be kept on its surface - the assertion that they could be retained under these circumstances being an outrage upon human understanding and credulity! But as the Earth - that is, the habitable world of dry land - is found to be 'standing out of the water and in the water' of the 'mighty deep,' whose circumferential boundary is ice, we may throw the statement back into the teeth of those who make it and flaunt before their faces the flag of reason and common sense, inscribed with a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” (William Carpenter, 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe).
The Nile is the longest river in the world running for 4,258 miles (6,853 km). In one portion of its long route, the great river Nile flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot! This is a feat which, of course, would be a sheer impossibility if the Earth had spherical curvature. Many other rivers including the Congo in West Africa, the Amazon in South America, and the Mississippi in North America all flow for thousands of miles in directions totally incompatible with the supposed globularity of the Earth as well.
“Rivers run down to the sea because of the inclination of their beds. Rising at an altitude above sea-level, in some cases thousands of feet above the sea, they follow the easiest route to their level - the sea. The 'Parana' and 'Paraguay' in South America are navigable for over 2,000 miles, and their waters run the same way until they find their level of stability, where the sea tides begin. But if the world be a globe, the 'Amazon' in South America that flows always in an easterly direction, would sometimes be running uphill and sometimes down, according to the movement of the globe. Then the 'Congo' in West Africa, that always pursues a westerly course to the sea, would in the same manner be running alternately up and down. When that point of the globe exactly between them was up, they would both be running up, although in opposite directions; and when the globe took half a turn, they would both be running down! We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal - whatever term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they would have to do on a globe.” (Thomas Winship, Zetetic Cosmogeny)
“Whoever heard of a river in any part of its course flowing uphill? Yet this it would require to do were the Earth a Globe. Rivers, like the Mississippi, which flow from the North southwards towards the Equator, would need, according to Modem Astronomic theory, to run upwards, as the Earth at the Equator is said to bulge out considerably more, or, in other words, is higher than at any other part. Thus the Mississippi, in its immense course of over 3,000 miles, would have to ascend 11 miles before it reached the Gulf of Mexico!” (David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma)
“There are rivers which flow east, west, north, and south - that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up- hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an 'up' and a 'down' in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.” William Carpenter, 100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe.
Architecture and Engineering does not Consider the Curvature of the Earth.
The following information is from Eric Dubay's article Architects and Engineers for Plane Truth:
Surveyors, engineers, and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects, providing another proof the world is a plane, not a planet. Canals and railways, for example, are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles, without any allowance for curvature.
One surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, wrote into the January, 1896 “Earth Review” magazine stating that, “In levelling, I work from Ordinance marks, or canal levels, to get the height above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that over several miles each level was and is treated throughout its whole length as the same level from end to end; not the least allowance being made for curvature. One of the civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the shape of the earth in this life.”
Another Surveyor and Engineer of thirty years wrote to the Birmingham Weekly Mercury, Feb. 15th, 1890 stating, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are incapable of any practical illustration. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as true levels or flats. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, could not be worked by any engine that was ever yet constructed. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are on the same relative level. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”
Engineer, W. Winckler, wrote into the Earth Review October 1893 regarding the Earth's supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”
The Suez Canal which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth's and water's non-convexity. The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. When it was constructed, the Earth's supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water's surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles. The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the floodtides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line! Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!
“The distance between the Red Sea at Suez and the Mediterranean Sea is 100 statute miles, the datum line of the Canal being 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally the whole way from sea to sea, there not being a single lock on the Canal, the surface of the water being parallel with the datum line. It is thus clear that there is no curvature or globularity for the whole hundred miles between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea; had there been, according to the Astronomic theory, the middle of the Canal would have been 1,666 feet higher than at either end, whereas the Canal is perfectly horizontal for the whole distance. The Great Canal of China, said to be 700 miles in length, was made without regard to any allowance for supposed curvature, as the Chinese believe the Earth to be a Stationary Plane. I may also add that no allowance was made for it in the North Sea Canal, or in the Manchester Ship Canal, both recently constructed, thus clearly proving that there is no globularity in Earth or Sea, so that the world cannot possibly be a Planet.” (David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma).
“If the earth be the globe of popular belief, it is very evident that in cutting a canal, an allowance must be made for the curvature of the globe, which allowance would correspond to the square of the distance multiplied by eight inches. From The Age, of 5th August 1892, I extract the following: 'The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 1891. The canal starts at Holtenau, on the south side of Kiel Bay, and joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth. It is 61 miles long, 200 feet wide at the surface and 85 feet at the bottom, the depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of the two seas is level.' Let those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to make allowance for 'curvature' ponder over the following from the Manchester Ship Canal Company (Earth Review, October, 1893) 'It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth.” (Thomas Winship, Zetetic Cosmogeny)
The London and North-western Railway forms a straight line 180 miles long between London and Liverpool. The railroad's highest point, midway at Birmingham station, is only 240 feet above sea-level. If the world were actually a globe, however, curveting 8 inches per mile squared, the 180 mile stretch of rail would form an arc with the center point at Birmingham raising a full 5,400 feet above London and Liverpool. Adding the station's actual height (240 feet) to its theoretical inclination (5,400 feet) gives 5,640 feet as the rail's necessary height on a globe-Earth, more than a thousand feet taller than Ben Nevis, the tallest mountain in Great Britain!
“In projecting railways on a globe, the datum line would be the arc of a circle corresponding to the latitude of the place. That the datum line for the railway projections is always a horizontal line, proves that the general configuration of the world is horizontal. To support the globe theory, the gentlemen of the observatories should call upon the surveyor to prove that he allows the necessary amount for 'curvature.' But this is what the learned men dare not do, as it is well-known that the allowance for the supposed curvature is never made.” (Thomas Winship, Zetetic Cosmogeny)
“In a long line, like that of the Great Pacific Railway, extending across North America, the supposed curvature would, of course, be proportionately great, extending to many miles in height, but not one inch was allowed by the engineers for curvature during the whole course of the construction of that vast line of Railway. And, if we think of it, how could it be otherwise? All Railway metals must, of necessity, be straight, for how could any engine or carriage run with safety on a convex surface?” (David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma)
J.C. Bourne in his book, “The History of the Great Western Railway” stated that the entire original English railroad, more than 118 miles long, that the whole line with the exception of the inclined planes, may be regarded practically as level. The British Parliament Session in 1862 that approved its construction recorded in Order No. 44 for the proposed railway, “That the section be drawn to the same horizontal scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet, and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a datum horizontal line which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work.”
“One hundred and eighteen miles of level railway, and yet the surface on which it is projected a globe? Impossible. It cannot be. Early in 1898 I met Mr. Hughes, chief officer of the steamer 'City of Lincoln.' This gentleman told me he had projected thousands of miles of level railway in South America, and never heard of any allowance for curvature being made. On one occasion he surveyed over one thousand miles of railway which was a perfect straight line all the way. It is well known that in the Argentine Republic and other parts of South America, there are railways thousands of miles long without curve or gradient. In projecting railways, the world is acknowledged to be a plane, and if it were a globe the rules of projection have yet to be discovered. Level railways prove a level world, to the utter confusion of the globular school of impractical men with high salaries and little brains.” (Thomas Winship, Zetetic Cosmogeny)
“That in all surveys no allowance is made for curvature, which would be a necessity on a globe; that a horizontal line is in every case the datum line, the same line being continuous throughout the whole length of the work; and that the theodolite cuts a line at equal altitudes on either side of it, which altitude is the same as that of the instrument, clearly proves, to those who will accept proof when it is furnished, that the world is a plane and not a globe.” (Thomas Winship, Zetetic Cosmogeny)
The Philadelphia skyline is clearly visible from Apple Pie Hill in the New Jersey Pine Barrens 40 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, factoring in the 205 foot elevation of Apple Pie Hill, the Philly skyline should remain well-hidden beyond 335 feet of curvature.
The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park's Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain's 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth.
From Washington's Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth's curvature.
It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon.
October 16, 1854 the Times newspaper reported the Queen's visit to Great Grimsby from Hull recording they were able to see the 300 foot tall dock tower from 70 miles away. On a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, factoring their 10 foot elevation above the water and the tower's 300 foot height, at 70 miles away the dock tower should have remained an entire 2,600 feet below the horizon.
In 1872 Capt. Gibson and crewmates, sailing the ship “Thomas Wood” from China to London, reported seeing the entirety of St. Helena Island on a clear day from 75 miles away. Factoring in their height during measurement on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, it was found the island should have been 3,650 feet below their line of sight.
From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Gorgona can often be seen 81 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Gorgona should be hidden beyond 3,332 feet of curvature.
From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Corsica can often be seen 99 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Corsica should fall 5,245 feet, almost an entire mile below the horizon.
From Genoa, Italy 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Capraia 102 miles away can often be seen as well. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Capraia should always remain hidden behind 5,605 feet, over a mile of supposed curvature.
Also from Genoa, on bright clear days, the island of Elba can be seen an incredible 125 miles away! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.
From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount Foraker can be seen with the naked eye 120 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount Foraker's 17,400 summit should be leaning back away from the observer covered by 7,719 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.
From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount McKinley can be seen with the naked eye from 130 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount McKinley's 20,320 foot summit should be leaning back away from the observer and almost half covered by 9,220 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.
In Chambers' Journal, February 1895, a sailor near Mauritius in the Indian Ocean reported having seen a vessel which turned out to be an incredible 200 miles away! The incident caused much heated debate in nautical circles at the time, gaining further confirmation in Aden, Yemen where another witness reported seeing a missing Bombay steamer from 200 miles away. He correctly stated the precise appearance, location and direction of the steamer all later corroborated and confirmed correct by those onboard. Such sightings are absolutely inexplicable if the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles around, as ships 200 miles distant would have to fall approximately 5 miles below line of sight!
The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from a boat (10 feet above sea-level) 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon.
The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.
The Egerṭ Light in Norway is 154 feet above high-water and visible from 28 statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon.
The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight.
The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, where it should be 280 feet below the line of sight.
The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the horizon.
The lighthouse steeple of St. Botolph's Parish Church in Boston is 290 feet tall and visible from over 40 miles away, where it should be hidden a full 800 feet below the horizon!
The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.
The Cape L'Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world were a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer's line of sight.
The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon.
The lighthouse at Port Said, Egypt, at an elevation of only 60 feet has been seen an astonishing 58 miles away, where, according to modern astronomy it should be 2,182 feet below the line of sight!
The Notre Dame Antwerp spire stands 403 feet high from the foot of the tower with Strasburg measuring 468 feet above sea level. With the aid of a telescope, ships can be distinguished on the horizon and captains declare they can see the cathedral spire from an amazing 150 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, however, at that distance the spire should be an entire mile, 5,280 feet below the horizon!
The St. George's Channel between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbor near Dublin is 60 miles across. When half-way across a ferry passenger will notice behind them the light on Holyhead pier as well as in front of them the Poolbeg light in Dublin Bay. The Holyhead Pier light is 44 feet high, while the Poolbeg lighthouse 68 feet, therefore a vessel in the middle of the channel, 30 miles from either side standing on a deck 24 feet above the water, can clearly see both lights. On a ball Earth 25,000 miles in circumference, however, both lights should be hidden well below both horizons by over 300 feet!
Some Further Arguments for a Flat Earth From Eric Dubay's 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball:
If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour's time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.
If the Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, helicopters, and hot-air balloons should be able to simply hover over the surface of the Earth and wait for their destinations to come to them!
Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.
If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world's oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction.
If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to curve the massive expanse of oceans around a globular Earth, it would be impossible for fish and other creatures to swim through such forcefully held water.
If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and
unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.
The experiment known as “Airy's Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct.
“Olber's Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber's “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy's experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.
The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth's assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.
Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.
(2.5) Our Limited Understanding of East and West
In the transcription below, Śrīla Prabhupāda had the following fascinating conversation with Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami regarding our limited perception of what we know as the boundaries of travel. I'm not claiming here that Śrīla Prabhupāda is directly making arguments in favour of a flat Earth, but his cryptic words certainly apply to the flat Earth concept when we consider Bhārata-varṣa's position to the greater Jambūdvīpa. Śrīla Prabhupāda mentions that we are restricted by superior power from going further and seeing further. This is interesting when one begins to consider the denial of access or passage to regions such as Antarctica. Rather than being merely a frozen area at the bottom of a supposed round globe, it may actually be some kind of confining barrier to us from gaining access to an expanding flat plane. I only offer this as a speculation based on what we should expect if the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description of Bhārata- varṣa's location to Jambudvipa is correct. In the following discussion Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami is again repeating the same argument to Śrīla Prabhupāda that since one can fly from America to India by taking either a westerly direction or a western direction that this proves the world is a round globe. Accepting the flight patterns as true, Prabhupāda compares the situation to a bull tied to a central stake and made to walk in circles around a grinding stone. There is much more area surrounding the bull but since he is tied to a stake, and since blinkers are put over his eyes to encourage him to keep walking in a circle, he is unable to see or venture into that greater area. In a similar way the living entities are flying around in a restricted circular motion above the Earth and thinking this is the furthest they can go, when really there is much more area to the east and the west. Again, this makes sense when we consider how flying around the Earth is easily explainable from a flat Earth perspective:
In the above diagram we see the restricted motion in which planes fly 'around' the world on the flat Earth model. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other Vedic literatures, however, are now removing our blinkers and giving us information about the greater land surfaces that lie all around us.
Let us consider again Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description of Earth's position as part of Bhārata-varṣa which is situated on the southern coast of Jambūdvīpa. To the east and west of Earth's continents are the other areas of Bhārata-varṣa, and to the north is the next varṣa of Jambūdvīpa known as Kimpuruṣa-varṣa. Śrīla Prabhupāda writes in a purport to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.16.12:
Kimpuruṣa-varṣa: It is stated to be situated north of the great Himalaya Mountain, which is eighty thousand miles in length and height and which covers sixteen thousand miles in width. These parts of the world were also conquered by Arjuna (Sabhā 28.1-2). (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.16.12 purport)
In the illustration below we see Earth in the salt water ocean with the other areas of Bhārata-varṣa to its east and west and the 80,000 mile high Himalaya Mountains separating it from Kimpuruṣa-varṣa. So according to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all around us are vast areas of land inhabited by other human beings. Thus, when Śrīla Prabhupāda argues in the discussion following below, that we can go further east and west, but are presently restricted from doing so by higher forces, this is what I take him to mean.
As I have attempted to argue in this paper, the above depiction of the Earth as globe floating in the salt water ocean makes no sense at all. However, the Earth itself has been correctly situated in relation to Jambūdvīpa. All that is required to make the picture accurate is to depict the continents of Earth as lying flat on the salt water ocean. In fact, this is how we experience the continents in reality; for everywhere one goes in the world, one is surrounded by water, and the water on which one sails has the same horizontal surface whether sailing from North America to Australia, or from South America to Siberia. It does not curve anywhere. Water always finds a level and stays at a level. Our oceans are on the same level horizontal level in every direction.
However, the point I wish to emphasis here is in relation to the directions and particularly the expanded directions of the flat Earth. In the illustration above, we see Earth in the salt water ocean with the other kandas of Bhārata-varṣa to the east and west. In the northern direction we see the 80,000 mile Himalaya Mountain range that separates Bhārata-varṣa from Kimpuruṣa-varṣa, our next door neighbour on Jambūdvīpa. As mentioned in the Mahābhārata and quoted by Śrīla Prabhupāda in his purport, Arjuna not only crossed this mountain range and conquered Kimpuruṣa-varṣa, but all of these varṣas of Jambūdvīpa were conquered and controlled by the Pāṇḍavas. Thus the idea of Earth as a ball rotating in space cannot be reconciled with this history of the Mahābhārata, but the history of Mahābhārata does begin to make sense when we come back to thinking again about the expanded flat Earth concept of Bhū-maṇḍala. So bear this in mind when we listen to the following conversation with Prabhupāda regarding our limited concept of east and west on the globe model:
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: So something's wrong with their instrument. When they fly from Los Angeles and their compass...
Prabhupāda: Nothing is wrong. From their estimate it is all right. But there is superior power.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They go due west and they hit India from Los Angeles, but according to our calculation, that's not possible.
Prabhupāda: You can go further, but you cannot go. That is condition. You are restricted. The same, that you are bound up. If an animal can go further... But he cannot, because he is bound up. Ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyate [Bg. 3.27]. He is thinking, "I am free." He is not free. So what is the value of his education? This is the real point.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They'll want to talk about another point. Prabhupāda: What is that?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They'll want to talk about the point that the point on their compass that points west while they're flying in the airplane, and they keep it going west, and they eventually land in India from Los Angeles.
Prabhupāda: You are flying west or east—you do not know. You are controlled.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They say, "No, our compass shows it. And you accept the compass."
Prabhupāda: That's all right. You are going west, but do you think where you think that the west is end, that is not end. You can go further. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They say it never ends because we're going around the planet.
Prabhupāda: No, that is his dog's mentality, going round. That is dog. He is thinking that "This is the area. Now I..." He's controlled by superior power, that "You cannot go." An example is... There are so many. There are so many stars, moons, and we'll go there. But he cannot go.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They say, "We accept this premise, that we are limited." Prabhupāda: But then limited, you cannot say final.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "But we say within our limited means we can understand that..."
Prabhupāda: And limited means if you understand that "I am bound up. I am going round the law," that is all right. But don't say that "Beyond this limit there is nothing."
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: No, they don't. Prabhupāda: No.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But supposing that within this limit we accept that we are limited.
Prabhupāda: That is all right.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But we say that we're going west and...
Prabhupāda: That's right, west up to this point, rascal, not more than that. Why don't you understand this? West you have gone. That's all right. But up to this point, no more. You cannot go. You don't say that there is no more after this western... They are saying that.
Śatadhanya: Yeah, they say, "Then west becomes east." Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Right, they say.
Śatadhanya: They say. Prabhupāda: No.
Śatadhanya: But why? Just because it is finished for them... Prabhupāda: Yes.
Śatadhanya: ...'cause they are limited. Prabhupāda: Unlimited.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But how do they fly direct to India? Prabhupāda: Unlimited way.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: This question they're still going to put. They're still going to put this question, that they... We say, "Here is Jambūdvīpa, and this is Bhāratavarṣa on the bottom, and you cannot go beyond Bhāratavarṣa because you're conditioned. You're limited. That is our position. And within Bhāratavarṣa there is India. We accept that. Even we accept that. There are oceans. There are continents, seven continents, as described in the Bhāgavatam." So their question is: "Okay, but then how do you explain that you can go this direction and you come out in India, over, back here?"
Prabhupāda: We don't say that, that this direction, what you are saying, it is end. That is not. We say that.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That it doesn't end.
Prabhupāda: That you can go further, but you cannot go. Therefore you are thinking, "This is end of the position." The same dog mentality. He is within that small area. He is thinking, "There is no more, other space." That example is another, that bull. His eyes are closed, and he crushes the oil mill, going. He's thinking he is going three hundred miles.Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They keep the eyes blinded so he won't... Prabhupāda: Yes.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: ...understand what's going on.
Prabhupāda: Because in one place, simply going round, going round, it makes one mad. So those eyes are closed. He is thinking, "This is the end of world." …Kūpa-maṇḍūka, the frog in the well, he is thinking that "This is the whole water area."
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Then what is it? If it is not what I am thinking, then what is it?
Prabhupāda: That I am explaining. Take it.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But we can't explain it. That's the problem. Prabhupāda: No, no, why cannot explain?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That's the problem…They can go from New York, that direction, or they go from Los Angeles, the other way. Either way, they come to India, and they say, "That proves the world is round 'cause we can go like this or we can go this way." But we say, "No, you can only go this way." But the compass shows I am going due east...
Prabhupāda: So we don't say differently. You can go this way.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But we don't say that. Because there's no round, we say... Simply it's a lotus. It's not...Prabhupāda: No, I... It is the same example. Just as animal is bound up, so he's going this round or this round, the same thing. But you cannot go beyond that.
(Discussion about Bhū-maṇḍala, July 3, 1977, Vṛndāvana)
In the above conversation, Śrīla Prabhupāda agrees with Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami that from America one can go to India either in a westerly or easterly direction, but he insists this circumnavigation of the Earth is not the limit of going east or west. One can go further east and west, but like an animal bound to a stake with a rope and with blinkers on his eyes, he is kept moving in a limited circle; and that's all the animal gets to experience of a much greater environment. Taking this example, I would argue that we are like the animal bound within a limited jurisdiction and blinkered to the vision of the greater Jambūdvīpa. We can go further east and west but we are restricted by certain illusions and diversions from doing so.
(2.6) Śrīla Prabhupāda on the Flat Earth
What does Śrīla Prabhupāda have to say on the topic of a flat Earth? As is the case with many subjects that Śrīla Prabhupāda taught, we have to consider that Śrīla Prabhupāda sometimes answered questions with seemingly contrary replies. In this conversation, he was asked directly is the Earth round like a ball, or round like a plate? Here we have a direct answer that the Earth planet should be depicted as an island (dvīpa) indicating the roundness of a plate, not a ball:
Satsvarūpa: Śrīla Prabhupāda, are the planets shaped liked balls or more like plates? Because it's, it's hard to understand, 'cause they're called dvīpas, "islands." Their roundness is the roundness of a plate or like a ball?
Prabhupāda: Which one?
Satsvarūpa: The earth planet?
Prabhupāda: If it is like a tree, then these things can be as dvīpa, island.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Wow. You know...
Prabhupāda: Eh?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: The scientists are getting smashed to bits by your statements, Śrīla Prabhupāda. This destroys their whole theory. Orbs, round spheres. I think that this Māyāpura building, we must build a big planetarium in it.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That, that I am going to do, Vedic planetarium. (Morning Walk, March 18, 1976, Mayapur)
In answer to another question by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami, Śrīla Prabhupāda said that whether the Earth is round or flat should be decided by the version of Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam, not by the changing theories of Western astronomy.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Do we accept the contour of the continents? Do we accept the general continents?
Prabhupāda: We accept nothing of their theory. They are prejudiced and nonsense. Formerly they were speaking that the world is flat. Now they have changed: "It is round." So what is the value of his estimate? And you'll find in that book, "probably."
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That was the most frequent word used. Prabhupāda: Yes. So what is the value of their knowledge? (Discussion about Bhū-maṇḍala, July 3, 1977, Vṛndāvana)
Here as in other places when the question was raised by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa about the shape of the Earth, Śrīla Prabhupāda didn't give a decisive yes or no as to whether Earth is flat or round like a ball. He says, that the materialists sometimes say it is flat, then change their minds and say it is round. He concludes that we should reject their speculations and present the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's version instead:
Yaśodā-nandana: Prabhupāda, what is the shape of this tiny portion of earth or whatever place we are on? What is the shape of this, whatever you call...
Prabhupāda: Ask them. Why don't you ask them? Sometimes they say flat, sometimes they say it is round. Why don't you ask them, the scientists?
Yaśodā-nandana: We don't accept what they say.
Prabhupāda: No, no. Formerly they were under the impression the world is flat. And now they are saying round. So what they'll say after few years?
Yaśodā-nandana: They are not consistent. That's a fact. They're very inconsistent in their theories.
Prabhupāda: Ask them which is correct. "Probably" this is correct.
Bhakti-prema: When someone asks this question, first one would reply.Prabhupāda: I answered it. You people say like that, so which is correct? Flat or round?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They will say "What does the Bhāgavatam say?"
Prabhupāda: Huh?
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: They may reply to us, "All right, we are rascals. So please tell us what is the fact."Prabhupāda: That is, we are...
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That's what he's asking. What should be shown? Actually we're a little stumped by... I mean...
Prabhupāda: Yes, you must have proper answer as far as possible.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: We just read... We got a version from South India, and we've even found that there are different conceptions of what the Bhāgavata is saying. But the Purāṇas, they give some Puranic references. Bhakti-prema: It is written the world... The earth is round and flat.
Prabhupāda: Hm?
Bhakti-prema: Earth is round and flat both, together. Prabhupāda: Yes.
Bhakti-prema: First we should reply it is acintya. This should be the reply. "Inconceivable."
Yaśodā-nandana: If it is inconceivable, then they will say how we can conceive it?
Prabhupāda: Take the version of Bhāgavatam. (Discussions about Bhū-maṇḍala, July 5 1977, Vṛndāvana )
From these last available conversations on the topic, it appears Śrīla Prabhupāda was not necessarily committed to the idea of presenting Earth as a ball-shaped globe. Here Śrīla Prabhupāda states very decisively that we should take the version of Bhāgavatam. This of course puzzled the devotees because they couldn't ascertain whether it was depicted as flat or round. It appears there was some difficulty in the depiction of the Bhū-maṇḍala. Śrīla Prabhupāda had sent some of his disciples to search around India for Vedic astronomers who could help with drawing the maps for the Vedic planetarium. Śrīla Prabhupāda himself acknowledged his own limitations. Speaking of his difficultly in conceiving the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description of the universe:
Prabhupāda: And it was not possible for me to digest. (laughs) Somebody else helped me to... I am a layman. I do not know.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: How did you write it?
Prabhupāda: That somebody, Kṛṣṇa, helped me. That He manufactured.
Yaśodānandana: And these mountains, they extend to the beaches. "It is considered, according to the Bhāga..."Prabhupāda: When I was writing, I was praying Kṛṣṇa that "I do not actually accommodate all this knowledge. Please help me." Yes. That's all right. (Room Conversation, June 18 1977, Vṛndāvana)
Śrīla Prabhupāda again mentioned to one astronomer:
Prabhupāda: I have tried to translate it as far as possible, but I am not satisfied. (Conversation with India Astronomer, April 30 1977, Bombay)
Actually Śrīla Prabhupāda's translation of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam was perfect, but it appears there was some difficultly in taking the written description to a visual presentation. Śrīla Prabhupāda had sent some of his disciples to locate Vedic astronomers around India who could help with drawing a map for the Vedic planetarium but the result was disappointing. He then basically left it to his disciples to figure it out taking guidance from Krishna:
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: And what to do? How to get...? Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa will help.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Hm?
Prabhupāda: Kṛṣṇa will help. He has no idea. (Conversation with India Astronomer, April 30 1977, Bombay)
Śrīla Prabhupāda again suggested advertising in newspapers for Vedic astronomers to help:
Prabhupāda: "Astronomer knowing the planetary system," you can advertise. "Expert astronomer who knows the planetary systems as described..."
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: "...in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam." Prabhupāda: Hm.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yeah, we can advertise. Instead of having somebody going all over India. (Conversation with India Astronomer, April 30 1977, Bombay)
To their credit, the devotees involved done a marvellous job in preparing a map for the Bhū-maṇḍala which was eventually presented to Śrīla Prabhupāda in July 1977.
However, a direct answer to the question of whether Earth was round or flat remained unanswered. Between 2nd and 5th of July 1977 in Vṛndāvana, Śrīla Prabhupāda had a number of meetings with his disciples to discuss the designs for the Vedic planetarium. In the wonderful exchange between guru and disciple that took place on that occasion, we hear Śrīla Prabhupāda and his beloved disciple Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami discuss back and forth about the shape of the Earth. Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami who wanted nothing other than to present an accurate depiction of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description of Earth, felt forced to press Śrīla Prabhupāda again and again for a specific answer regarding the shape of the Earth.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Well it's not Your Divine Grace. (laughter) I mean I'm sorry I have to take this thankless task to ask all these questions.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami describes this exchange in his published Diary (TKG'S Diary, July 3 1977). He writes of feeling that his attitude had been a little offensive for heavily questioning Śrīla Prabhupāda, a claim that Prabhupāda in response dismissed.
Prabhupāda said there was no wrong as they were simply discussing and trying to understand a difficult subject. Actually Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami's love for Śrīla Prabhupāda comes across very clearly in these discussions; his only intention being how to accurately depict the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's cosmography as it should appear in the Vedic planetarium. From TKG's Diary:
When Śrīla Prabhupāda awoke after a night's rest, he opened his eyes and said, "They go from Los Angeles. You all think over it. Then I shall tell you." Śrīla Prabhupāda was referring to the question which we had not yet solved: If the world is not a globe but part of Jambudvīpa, which is the center of the huge, lotus-like Bhūmaṇḍala, how does an airplane fly from Los Angeles to Hawaii to Tokyo and on to India? The scientists explain by saying that the airplane circles the globe. But according to Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam, there is no planet Earth as the scientists say, floating in space. Rather, there is Bhāratavarṣa with its seven continents and oceans and Himalayan Mountains. After challenging us thus, Śrīla Prabhupāda went back to sleep. When he again awoke, Prabhupāda began to reveal the answer. "They are bound up and cannot go beyond a point. They are conditioned and are forced to return. They can only go so far and not farther." I told Prabhupāda that we accepted that point, but it still did not answer the question. Prabhupāda replied, however, that it did. "You are prejudiced. You are conditioned with preconceptions of how everything is." He was saying that my difficulty to understand was due to my acceptance of the scientists' assumptions. "It is just like a bull grinding, going around in a circle. He is tied up and simply going around. So everyone is tied up. They cannot go beyond a point, and they cannot move in any way they like, just like the bull only has certain limits to his movement. How can a frog in the well understand the ocean? They say the Himalayan Mountains are twenty-eight thousand feet high. But Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam says eighty thousand miles high. You have cheated about going to the moon. How can I believe you? You want to explain the whole universe, how can I believe you? Once someone is shown to be a cheater, he will always cheat. A gentleman would say, 'I don't know!' But they are not gentlemen. They are loafer class! How we can believe them? I have personally seen in Switzerland, you cannot see where the mountain goes. Many planes are crashing there. The Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam says that great kings crossed the Himalayas. But they crash. They said the world was flat. Then Galileo said it was round, and for this he was hanged. They didn't know and he didn't know. Our knowledge doesn't change, because it is perfect. As soon as there is change, it is not perfect."
After lunch, Śrīla Prabhupāda spoke again about the planetary system. In trying to understand the fact of flying from Los Angeles to India, I had an energetic discussion with Śrīla Prabhupāda. I left feeling very perplexed with Prabhupāda's admonition, "You are prejudiced." Later in the afternoon, I was still feeling disturbed, mainly because of my argumentative attitude during the earlier discussion. I felt that perhaps I had been offensive in questioning too much; thus, I came in and apologized. Śrīla Prabhupāda said there was nothing wrong; we were merely discussing a difficult subject. After some time, Prabhupāda called me back to the room and said, "Why you are thinking this way, that I am offended?" My mentality seemed to disturb Prabhupāda. He said, "Now the atmosphere is disturbed. I cannot translate." The emotions produced by this situation were very difficult to understand. Perhaps I will realize their implications as I become more Kṛṣṇa conscious.
Instead of translating, Prabhupāda had me call the others: Bhakti Prema Swami and Yaśodānandana Swami. A conversation ensued, similar to the one Śrīla Prabhupāda had with me after lunch. Our question of how the Bhāgavatam's description of Jambudvīpa can accommodate traveling west from Los Angeles to reach India seemed to remain unanswered. Prabhupāda stressed, however, that we were overly concerned with such a minor issue, just "a drop of water" (Prabhupāda's description of the Pacific Ocean). "With your experimental logic you cannot understand. It is inconceivable. Just accept the śāstra. True understanding only comes by the mercy of the spiritual master. You cannot adjust the description of the Bhāgavatam within the limits of your knowledge. Our Nārada Muni went to Vaikuṇṭha. After coming back, he told a cobbler about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle. The cobbler said, 'Oh, Nārāyaṇa is so great!' But a brāhmaṇa said, 'It is simply stories!' Nārada then asked the cobbler, 'How can you believe that Nārāyaṇa was passing an elephant through the head of a needle?' The cobbler explained, 'Why not? We are sitting under a banyan tree. There are so many fruits; and each fruit contains so many seeds, which each will grow into a huge banyan tree.' Everything is inconceivable, and these rascals want to bring it as conceivable. Don't be puffed up by your so-called education. It has no value." Śrīla Prabhupāda gave us the spiritual solution to a mundane question. (TKG' Diary, July 3 1977)
This is an interesting position on Śrīla Prabhupāda's part because in many of Śrīla Prabhupāda's earlier purports and conversations he seems to take it for granted that we are on a globe-shaped Earth, not a flat Earth. For example:
Prabhupāda: So Brahmā means the manager of one brahmāṇḍa, universe. And there are millions of Brahmās, millions, trillions. They are numberless. Ananta-koṭi. Yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭiḥ [Bs. 5.40]. Koṭi. Koṭi means unlimited. Jagad-aṇḍa. Jagad-aṇḍa means universe. Brahmāṇḍa or jagad-aṇḍa. Aṇḍa. Aṇḍa means it is egg-shaped, round, egg-shaped. Therefore it is called aṇḍa, brahmāṇḍa. Bhū-gola. Gola means round. I have heard that before the science, the people were under the impression that this world is square. Is it not?
Devotees: Flat.
Prabhupāda: Flat. Flat, yes. But in the Vedic śāstra, millions of years ago it is mentioned: bhū-gola. Gola means round. Just see. And these rascals say that formerly people were not so intelligent. They are intelligent because they are thinking that this world is flat. And those who have spoken millions of years ago, "It is round," they will have less intelligence. Just see. Bhū, gola. Gola means round. Bhū-gola. Similarly, jagad-aṇḍa. Abda means round, just like egg. Aṇḍa means egg. Jagad-aṇḍa. This universe is egg-shaped. And we can see also, the sky is round. This is the wall of this universe. (Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 1.43, London, July 30 1973)
Śrīla Prabhupāda, however, would often reconsider his understanding of a thing when presented with an alternative explanation or contrary evidence. Perhaps when Śrīla Prabhupāda saw the maps of Bhūmaṇḍala and was presented with Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami's direct questions about the shape of the Earth, it became apparent that a flat Earth was the only reasonable answer to the question. As pointed out to Śrīla Prabhupāda by Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami, the Earth of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is not round as depicted by NASA:
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Look at the earth. Now, this is a real question that we still have to answer. They picture the earth round, and we say, no. Bhū-maṇḍala is like a lotus, like this, and the earth is only one part of one island in Bhū- maṇḍala, and it's not, you know, it's not round(?). It doesn't look like that. And all the pictures they take of the earth when they go up in their satellites show round. And we're going to tell them that it's not. This is a very tricky question. (Bhū-maṇḍala Diagram Discussion, July 2 1977, Vṛndāvana)
I believe it could also be presented to Śrīla Prabhupāda, that the flat Earth is also demonstrably true as there is otherwise no observable or measurable curvature on the Earth (except for the fake photos produced by NASA). I've no doubt that after a thorough inspection of the so-called photos and videos of Earth as a round-globe from outer space that Śrīla Prabhupāda would have equally dismissed them as fraudulent.
As pointed out before, when it came to a final decision about whether the Earth should be depicted as round or flat, Śrīla Prabhupāda decisively instructed those of his disciples who were working on the planetarium to take the version of the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam. I think this statement should be regarded as holding greater authority than some of his earlier statements and purports in which he speaks of the Earth as a round globe. Śrīla Prabhupāda mood in the conversations of 1977 also seemed to indicate a freedom to his disciples to intelligently figure it out. This mood comes across in the various conversations in 1977 regarding the depictions for the Vedic planetarium. Śrīla Prabhupāda had himself requested the help of other Vedic astronomers to help in the conceptualization of the planetarium's depiction of the universe but he was not satisfied with the current understanding among the Vedic astrologers that he spoke to. The problem was that no one took the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description literally:
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: No, he doesn't. He never thought about it. No one reads the Bhāgavatam as a scientific book, Śrīla Prabhupāda. That's the point. Except for Your Divine Grace, they are thinking it's story, "It is stories."
Prabhupāda: Yes, they do not believe.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: No. And therefore no one takes it seriously. Modern people don't take it seriously.
Prabhupāda: There was a Gosāi. He was reading Caitanya-caritāmṛta. So the description of the planetary system there is. He used to say to his audience, "Actually these things are not there. These are imaginary descriptions." He was such a fool. So the whole world has taken like that, "symbolic, imagination."
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: And he was lecturing on Caitanya-caritāmṛta. I think you mentioned that one of your Godbrothers once said to you, "You really believe that there is such a place, Kṛṣṇaloka, Vaikuṇṭhaloka?" He was himself...
Prabhupāda: Bon Mahārāja did not believe. No... Nobody ever thought of it.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: You are the only representative, the lone representative of religion left on this planet, Śrīla Prabhupāda. (Conversation with Astronomer, April 30 1977, Bombay)
But if we are to the take the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam literally, and not simply as some 'story- book,' then the description clearly points to a flat Earth concept with the rest of Jambūdvīpa somewhere to the north of our oceans. This means having to accept that the world as it has been presented to us is false, and that there are actually greater areas of land in the vicinity of Earth's oceans that expand for millions of miles along the horizontal plane of Bhū-maṇḍala. Thus taking the śāstras description of the actual relationship between Earth's position to Jambūdvīpa, as well as the observable science refuting a heliocentric and globe-shaped Earth, and not forgetting the innumerable exposes of NASA's fake Earth images from outer space, I would be confident that Śrīla Prabhupāda would reconsider his statement that the Earth is round not flat. When it was pointed out, for example by Bhakti-prema Dāsa in the conversation of June 28, 1977 (Vṛndāvana) that Varāhadeva lifted the entire Bhū-maṇḍala and not simply what we think of as the Earth globe, Śrīla Prabhupāda accepted his version because it was backed up by the śāstra. I would feel equally confident to present to Śrīla Prabhupāda that the Vedas are right in presenting the earth as a flat land area on the expanded plane of Bhū-maṇḍala.
Humbly submitting questions to the spiritual teacher is a process of legitimate inquiry in order to overcome any doubts and to positively ascertain the truth. Krishna teaches in the Bhagavad-gītā:
Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth. (Bhagavad- gītā As It, Is 4.34)
If I could present three questions to Śrīla Prabhupāda on this topic of Vedic cosmography, it would be the following. I would like to think that my questions are motivated by the deepest love and affection for Śrīla Prabhupāda and in a spirit of wishing to genuinely understand the reality of what is being described in Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam.
First, I would wish to question Śrīla Prabhupāda why he sometimes speaks of the Earth as a round planet in space when all the Vedic history clearly points to Earth being connected with the greater Jambūdvīpa at the time of the Krishna and the Pāṇḍavas. The Vedic history relates the Pāṇḍavas conquest of, and final departure to Jambūdvīpa.
Śrīla Prabhupāda, as mentioned, actually discussed this conquest of Jambūdvīpa by the Pāṇḍavas in his purport to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.16.12. Again in a lecture in 1973 he referred to Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira's passage into Jambūdvīpa via the Arctic region. Bhakti-prema Dāsa again mentioned this history to Śrīla Prabhupāda in 1977 whilst showing the planetary sketches for the Vedic planetarium:
Prabhupāda: They will be puzzled. These material scientists will be puzzled. (laughter)
Bhakti-Prema: But according to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in the beginning of creation we have relation with all this, in India. Even five thousand years ago Parīkṣit Mahārāja went and he conquered this area. I have translated this. This Tattvata-varṣa was conquered by... And this Ramya-varṣa was also conquered. And Vardhanya also... And then this is Bhārata-varṣa, this whole world.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Where? Bhakti-Prema: This.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That is Bhārata-varṣa.
Bhakti-Prema: Yeah, and he was presiding here. He was living here. And then he crossed this mountain.
Prabhupāda: Crossed?Bhakti-Prema: Yes. And he conquered it. Not only he saw, he conquered it. And it is surrounded by five other oceans. (Showing of Planetary Sketches, June 28, Vrindavana, 1977)
So if it is true that the Pāṇḍavas, and later their grandson Parīkṣit Mahārāja, controlled Jambūdvīpa from their capital in India, then a question for avocates of a round-shaped Earth arises; namely, where is the round Earth in relation to Jambūdvīpa? If Earth is a round ball in space, where is Jambūdvīpa to be found? Where is Jambūdvīpa in NASA's pictures?
Such a conception of a globe ball in space does not make any sense in the light of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam describes that Earth is part of Bhārata-varṣa and literally next door to Kimpuruṣa-varṣa. Bhārata-varṣa is surrounded by Jambūdvīpa's salt water ocean; not by space. At the northern point of Earth is an 80,000 mile mountain over which the Pāṇḍavas crossed to control the 800,000 mile land mass of Jambūdvīpa. None of this makes any sense from the understanding of Earth as a globe in space; but it makes perfect sense with the understanding that Earth is lying on the salt water ocean surrounding the central island of Bhū-maṇḍala's central island of Jambūdvīpa.
Would it not, therefore, make more sense to depict Earth as lying flat on the Bhū- maṇḍala as indeed Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam indeed describes it; and that our image of a globe in space should be taken as nothing but false propaganda straight from the special effects department of NASA? This would be my first question.
My second question to Śrīla Prabhupāda would be this: why does Śrīla Prabhupāda use the word bhū-gola to describe the Earth as a round planet? For example in this conversation of 1973:
Prabhupāda Yes, world is round. That is fact. Goloka. In Vedic literature it is bhū-gola, jagad-aṇḍa. These words are there. We can see also it is round, jagad-aṇḍa. The universe is round. And Goloka. Or Bhū-gola. Bhū- gola, the earth is round. So in the Vedic literatures... Therefore their knowledge is also imperfect because they do not refer to the Vedic literatures. It is already there. Bhū-gola. Bhū means the earth; gola means round. It is already there. And the geography's called, according to Sanskrit, it is called Bhū-gola. Long, long ago, before Galileo. So if the state is blind, he does not see whether he's talking right or wrong, then havi candra raja gobi candra mantri (?). What can be done? That is going on. (Morning Walk, Dec 9, 1973, Los Angeles)
However, all references in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam to the round Earth such as bhū-gola, bhū-maṇḍala, dharā-maṇḍala, etc., all appear to be references to the great circular sphere of the Bhū-maṇḍala. In the story of Karadama Muni, for example, a description of his journey on the aerial mansion (vimāna) contains the word bhū-gola:
After showing his wife the globe of the universe (prekṣayitvā bhuvo golaṁ) and its different arrangements, full of many wonders, the great yogī Kardama Muni returned to his own hermitage.
In his purport to this verse Śrīla Prabhupāda writes:
All the planets are here described as gola, round. Every planet is round, and each planet is a different shelter, just like islands in the great ocean. Planets are sometimes called dvīpa or varṣa. (SB 3.23.43)
The word bhū-golasya is also used in (SB 5.20.38) to describe the Bhū-maṇḍala. Here Śrīla Prabhupāda takes the word bhū-gola to describe the Earth as a round planet when the context seems to only indicate the greater Bhū-maṇḍala. Neither Bhārata-varṣa, nor any of its nine divisions are described as round ball-like globes. Bhārata-varṣa is otherwise described as being bow-shaped (from its position on the curved coastal area of Jambūdvīpa) and divided into nine areas of which our continents are one. Our Earth is described as being surrounded by Jambūdvīpa's salt water ocean, not outer space. Does it not seem, therefore, that the concept of a flat Earth lying on the salt water ocean is actually more consistent with the Purāṇic description of Bhārata-varṣa's location to Jambūdvīpa, than to NASA's depiction of a ball in space?
My third question to Śrīla Prabhupāda would be this: Śrīla Prabhupāda says in the above conversation of July 5th 1977 that we should settle the question of the Earth's shape by taking the version of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. This is a very important statement in deciding the matter. Are we to understand from this that if it is clearly ascertained that the Purāṇas do indeed describe a flat Earth, and if the empirical science is found to support a flat Earth concept , will such a resolution stand above Śrīla Prabhupāda's other statements that Earth is a round planet?
In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it states that Bhārata-varṣa is one of the regions of Jambudvipa which is an island surrounded by a salt ocean resting on the expanded flat plane of Bhū-maṇḍala. Whatever it is, it is not a description of a round globe rotating in space as depicted by NASA.
(2.7) Difficulties in Accepting a Flat Earth
The problem as I see for any devotee of Krishna who wishes to understand the subject of the flat Earth is:
(1) Getting or taking the time to study the subject in detail. On both sides of the many arguments that we humans contend in this world of duality, we generally argue from the platform of ignorance rather than the platform of knowledge of any given subject. Among conditioned souls, the motivating factor in argument is generally to exercise one's false ego over the other, and not to genuinely search for the truth of the subject matter in question. Considering these points, it is entirely predictable that the average programmed response to the idea of flat-Earth is a guffaw and a mocking look of incredulity. However, it takes a lot of time and interest to research any subject thoroughly and that includes a study of the flat Earth; so before dismissing the concept of the flat Earth out of hand, one should at least make some research into the arguments presented for an expanded flat Earth model. One may find to one's great surprise that the joke is on oneself; and that the greatest lie ever told is the one that convinced us all that we our standing on a ball-shaped Earth spinning in space.
For certain followers of Śrīla Prabhupāda, it may seem easier to dismiss the topic of the flat Earth as irrelevant, conspiratorial, or indeed a dangerous idea. However, taking Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description that the Earth rests on the flat plane of Bhu-mandala, and taking Śrīla Prabhupāda's assertion that the 1969 Apollo moon landing (from which the first photographic images of Earth where supposedly sent) was a hoax, we have every reason to suspect the present depiction of the Earth as a globe. This is worthy of a serious investigation and discussion. As one can read from the various transcriptions of July 1977, the final depiction of Earth in the planetarium was left unsettled, and Śrīla Prabhupāda basically instructed his disciples to come to the proper understanding based on the version of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam.
(2) Having the inclination to do so. In the small amount of spare time that we have, we may prefer to do something less brain-taxing and controversial. Māyā has often tastier distractions which further eclipse our vision of the reality.
(3) Having the courage to do so. Who wants to argue the Earth is flat? Who wants to even hear that the Earth is part of the expanded flat plane of Bhū-maṇḍala? It flies in the face of images and reports from NASA and other government agencies over the last fifty years. Who wants to look like a fool? Knowledge of the subject is the key to presenting a reasonable and rational counter-argument to NASA's propaganda. But that requires an interest in the subject, which in turn takes time, and inevitably involves arguing with people with views opposed to your own.
(4) Having the sanction to do so. How many temples will encourage a program for Krishna conscious devotees to research the moon hoax or a flat Earth? Indeed, does the International Society for Krishna Consciousness want to take on NASA at all? Certainly, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, Founder-Ācārya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness wanted the cheating exposed, and the truth of Krishna's creation to be presented.
(5) Having the purification to see reality as it is.
I certainly can't claim to have the purification to see reality as it, but taking the Śrīmad- Bhāgavatam's straight forward description of Jambūdvīpa, and considering NASA's obvious false images of a globe shaped Earth floating in space, I have no reason at this point to discount the idea that the Earth is indeed flat. It is the idea most consistent with observation, and the one that makes most intellectual sense when weighing up the various arguments for a geo-centric or a heliocentric understanding of the world.
(2.8) Why Fake a Globe-shaped Earth?
Due to the appearance of Kali-yuga on Earth some 5,000 years ago, the Earth became quarantined and cut off from the rest of Bhū-maṇḍala. This is because the yugas only affect Bhārata-varṣa and not the other parts of Jambūdvīpa. In Kali-yuga, the tamo-guṇa or mode of ignorance becomes prominent and the Vedic knowledge of the universe is gradually withdrawn. Connection with larger land masses is gradually forgotten or regarded as mythological. The general ignorance and materialism prevailing in Kali- yuga is part of māyā's arrangement to further facilitate the soul's illusion of a life devoid of God. In Kali-yuga the crude and base desires of the human beings are allowed free reign. Knowledge of the soul, God, and the creation is gradually covered over so that the more perverse aspects of material existence can be experienced, and their severe karmic reactions ignored by the materialistic people destined to take birth at this time. Knowledge and experience of God's wide creation along the Bhū-maṇḍala and throughout the universe is withdrawn and the expanded flat Earth is gradually replaced by such illusions as the globe model. The globe model is a spell-like speculation that literally traps one in a bubble—a prison planet floating alone in lifeless Godless empty space. Since there is no God, whoever controls the prison planet controls your being. Such are the fearful illusions that follow as a result of turning from God and the truth. The materialist is given over to the deceptions, untruths, and illusions created by atheistic agencies such as NASA. Such agencies are empowered by the Lord's own māyā potency to bewilder souls adverse to God consciousness. The deceivers, however, are themselves subject to the greater deception of māyā:
asuryā nāma te lokā / andhena tamasāvṛtāḥ
tāṁs te pretyābhigacchanti / ye ke cātma-hano janāḥ
The killer of the soul, whoever he may be, must enter into the planets known as the worlds of the faithless, full of darkness and ignorance. (Śrī Īśopaniṣad, mantra 3)
The saṅkīrtana movement of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu is a brief chance in the onward march of Kali-yuga for the soul to take advantage of the Vedic knowledge and to re- establish his eternal relationship with God. The Vedic planetarium is a very important project of the saṅkīrtana movement to enlighten the people in Earth's region of Bhārata- varṣa about their real position in the cosmos, and ultimately about their real home in the Kingdom of God.
(2.9) A Proposal for the Vedic Planetarium
The following is a conversation in which Śrīla Prabhupāda was asked about whether the Krishna consciousness movement should engage in exposing the cheating and deception of NASA's space missions:
Prabhupāda: Rascals, how they are cheating people.
Rūpānuga: Such a big hoax. They have spent billions of dollars for such a hoax.
Prabhupāda: Now you consider whether I am right or wrong. The moon planet is also Arizona. (laughs) All their business asset is there.
Rūpānuga: So one of the things we want to do is expose this cheating. Should we expose this kind of thing directly like this, or should we indirectly deal with it?
Prabhupāda: No, you do scientifically. I give you the hint. (laughter) (Room Conversation, July 6, 1976, Washington D.C.)
When Tamāla Kṛṣṇa Goswami proposed to Śrīla Prabhupāda about writing a book to expose the moon hoax Śrīla Prabhupāda answered in the affirmative:
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: I think that we should write a, we should publish a little book on this, Prabhupāda.
Prabhupāda: If you can.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Maybe one of the scientists.
Candanācārya: There are many scientists who agree.Prabhupāda: Now our scientists are challenging, Svarūpa Dāmodara and others.
Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Yes. They could scientifically publish a book. Candanācārya: There are scientists in England who agree that they didn't go to the planet.
Prabhupāda: Huh?
Candanācārya: There are some scientists in England who agree with you that they did not go to the moon.
Prabhupāda: Yes, they did not. Simply propaganda. (Morning Walk, June 4, 1976, Los Angeles)
In adherence to Śrīla Prabhupāda's wish, may I humbly suggest a proposal that part of the research department for the Vedic Planetarium is dedicated to:
'Scientifically' exposing the moon landing and subsequent images of Earth from outer space as inauthentic and fraudulent. This should lead to a permanent display within the planetarium itself that vindicates Śrīla Prabhupāda's claim that the moon landing was a hoax. All the groundwork of this expose has already been done by numerous parties and the information has only to be gathered and edited.
Researching and presenting arguments in favour of the flat Earth conception. This should also become part of a permanent display wherein phenomena such as eclipses, sunrise and sunset, seasons, etc., are explained from a flat Earth perspective. Again the science for such a presentation is now forthcoming and only has to be gathered and edited.
As part of the research for such an undertaking, and to add a little fun to life, the leading exponents of the Moon Landing conspiracy, the Flat Earth Society, as well as representatives of NASA, could be invited to Māyāpur to present their various arguments. This would create a huge sensation and media attraction for the Planetarium itself. It would create the biggest revolution in thinking since Copernicus himself.
(3.0) Conclusion
The concept of a flat Earth is a huge paradigm shift and raises many questions which I can't hope to answer here. For those interested, I refer the reader to the various websites, books, and documentaries available on-line which present evidence and arguments for the flat Earth concept. Perhaps a good introduction is Eric Dubay's 200 Proofs that Earth is not a Spinning Ball which can be read on-line. A word of caution is necessary though in searching through the thousands of available videos debating the subject. Amidst the many compelling arguments presented for the flat Earth from various sources, there are also certain limitations and inevitable speculations (at least from the perspective of anyone who accepts the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam as the ultimate authority). It is difficult for advocates of the flat Earth, for example, to understand the exact shape and location of the flat Earth in relation to the rest of the universe. Where is its edge? What does it rest on? What lies beyond the boundaries of the flat Earth? The sun and moon are also placed much closer to the Earth than in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description. One therefore, has to exercise caution in reading through these arguments, appreciating that sincere as one may be in arguing for a flat Earth, one of the four defects of conditioned nature is the inevitability of making mistakes. Apart from that, there are many hundreds of sound arguments presented in favour of a flat Earth. Indeed, where the flat Earth advocates excel, is in demonstrating the impossibility of Earth being a round ball floating in space. Thus the strength of the arguments in these books and videos lies not in presenting what Earth looks like (which is highly speculative in the absence of an overall Vedic perspective) but in pointing out incongruities of the rotating globe-shaped Earth idea. Inspiring also is the courageous and revolutionary spirit present in those persons challenging the politics and spirit behind the round globe Earth concept presented first in the modern era by Copernicus and solidified recently by NASA.
The flat Earth concept is a huge and highly relevant internet debate happening at the moment (2015) and I believe Krishna has inspired and empowered it to coincide with the opening of the Māyāpur Vedic Planetarium. Many of the arguments presented by supporters of the flat Earth lend support to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description that Earth is flat land on a flat plane; it is not spinning in space like a ball. I feel we have much to learn from this debate that will aid in our own understanding of how to properly depict Earth according to the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's description.
Your servant Māyeśvara Dāsa
End of article
sailing-to-jambudwipa.pdf
- 