According to a Gallup poll, about 6% of Americans believe that man never went to the moon; they endorse conspiracy theories in which these landings were supposedly staged in a studio. This post is not about such conspiracy theories. I will discuss why we cannot go to the moon, although we can have the experience of going to the moon, based on a fractal space in which there is a ‘moon’ within earth (because the whole is represented in the part), but it is not the real moon. I will discuss how fractal space is evidenced in Sāńkhya when space is described as a tree rather than a box. Since modern science treats space as a box rather than a tree, we can interpret the arrival on the earthly moon to be the arrival on the real moon—assuming such a journey is undertaken. Thus, regardless of whether the moon landings were staged or not, we cannot go to the real moon, but we could go to the moon within the earth space. To understand the real moon, we will have to revise the model of space from a box into a tree.
One of the most enduring images in the Vedic scriptures is that of Lord Brahma sitting on a lotus the stem of which goes down to the navel of Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, who is also praised as Hiranyagarbha. The fourteen planetary systems in Vedic cosmology are described to reside inside the “stem” of this lotus, which is kind of perplexing because the universe is three dimensional—and described as a sphere—but the lotus stem is one dimensional. How can we squeeze three dimensions into one dimension? This post discusses this question, and shows how the three dimensions are reduced to one dimension by “twisting” the single dimension using a process like the “curved” flow of kundalini. The post discusses parallels between the body and the universe, the process of primary and secondary creations, and how these are connected to Sāńkhya as well as the forms of Lord Viṣṇu who are “controllers” in the material universe.
The previous post discussed the meaning of sat, chit, and ananda—i.e. consciousness, the search for meaning, and the search for happiness. The search for meaning creates a personality—i.e. how others know you. The search or happiness creates an individuality—i.e. what kinds of pleasures one enjoys. The individuality and personality create many conflicts, because what you enjoy may not be meaningful, and what is meaningful may not be enjoyable. We all know that we need both meaning and happiness, and doing one or the other would not suffice. The conflict between meaning and happiness is resolved by a third category—consciousness—which, as we have seen before, exists as choice. The resolution is that sometimes we prefer meaning over happiness, and at other times we prioritize happiness over meaning. This post discusses the implications of these categories and how a three-fold distinction within transcendence not only creates different tiers within a spiritual reality, but is also the basis of the three modes of material nature.