Where is Mount Sumeru?

[Native]

Milky Way reference about “Churning the Ocean of Milk”

In Hindu cosmology, the Ocean of milk (kṣīroda, kṣīrābdhi or Kṣīra Sāgara) (Tamil: பாற்கடல்) mythologically denotes Milky Way as the fifth from the center of the seven oceans that surround loka or directional space and separate it from aloka or non-directional space. It surrounds the continent known as Krauncha. From - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshir_Sagar

Illustration here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kshir_Sagar#/media/File:Kurma,_the_tortoise_incarnation_of_Vishnu.jpg

The churning of the Ocean of Milk was an elaborate process. Mount Mandara or Mandar Parvat was used as the churning rod, and Vasuki, the king of serpents, who abides on Shiva's neck, became the churning rope. The demons demanded to hold the head of the snake, while the gods, taking advice from Vishnu, agreed to hold its tail. From - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samudra_manthan#Legend

My comment: The Milky Way (sic!) is mythically imagined as “a river of Milk” in the Sky. The mythical churning describes the swirling motion of creation in the Milky Way, drawn by “forceful deities of both genders” (the “cosmic war in the Sky”) i.e. the basic forces of creation works though two opposite but complementary qualities.

 

[Native]

Even the scholarly experts are confused . . .

Quote from - http://global.britannica.com/topic/Mount-Meru-mythology

“Mount Meru, in Hindu mythology, a golden mountain that stands in the center of the universe and is the axis of the world. It is the abode of gods, and its foothills are the Himalayas, to the south of which extends Bhāratavarṣa (“Land of the Sons of Bharata”), the ancient name for India. The roof tower crowning the shrine in a Hindu temple represents Meru. As the world axis, Mount Meru reaches down below the ground, into the nether regions, as far as it extends into the heavens. All of the principal deities have their own celestial kingdoms on or near it”.

There is no consistency in this description. The read thread of logics is completely missing.

It is a Golden Mountain - It stands in the center of the Universe – It’s the abode of gods - The roof tower of the Hindu temple represents Meru - Its foothills are the Himalayas - It is the world axis.

Are the Himalayas the center of the Universe and World Axis? No. Does “world axis” refers to the Earth celestial axis? No, the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

The Mount Meru myth speaks specifically about the Sun and all planets orbiting Mount Meru as one unit. One cannot understand the Mount Meru myth unless one knows of the myths of Creation and its cosmic extends - https://www.google.dk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=primeval+mound+myth

The cosmic mound is the first firm soil to be formed in a place of fire/light. The Egyptian god Atum-Ra and goddess Hathor are evidently connected to and associated to the creation in/of the Milky Way. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hathor

This speaks of the ancient knowledge of the Milky Way creation in which center, the first firm soil is made, building the “cosmic mountain” or mount. From here, everything in the ancient known part of the Universe is created. NOT the entire Universe, but the local part of it, the Milky Way. It is the rotating axis of the Milky Way center which is mythically described as Mount Meru.

 

[Riverwolf]

The point of comparing myths with factual knowledge

It's nothing more than seeing faces on Mars.

And after ignoring the mythical term and description, you´re throwing a link on me on "confirming bias"?

No, not "confirming bias." "Confirmation bias." Focusing only on facts that appear to confirm our preconceptions, whether they actually do or not, and ignoring/denying any facts that don't confirm these biases.

We all have bias. Everyone. No exceptions.

Never mind the other cosmological issues - And "Udgaard" in Norse Mythology represents Jotunheim where the Giants resides.

Giants, you say, "reside" in "Udgaard"? (What does this "Ud" prefix mean, anyway?) Such as Earth (Jord) herself? As well as Thunder Earthson (Thor)?

Wait, are you coming to this term "Udgaard" from útangarðr/Outeryard? 'Cause that term just refers to anything outside human habitation; a more modern term would be "the Wilds."

Let´s stick to the topic from here, OK?

You brought up this Norse Mythology stuff out of nowhere instead of answering some questions.

 

[gnostic]

Sure. basically it's believed to exist in Buddhism, Jainism and many religions of Hinduism. It's the center of the physical, metaphysical and spiritual universe.
In Hindu legends, it's 672,000 miles high.

That would put the peak beyond the Earth's atmospheres.

That would actually put the mountain further than the Moon's orbit around the Earth. The average distance is about 239,000 miles or 384,000 kms.

If this silly myth is true, then the Moon would have definitely collided into Mount Sumeru.

It is obvious that no such mountain exist with that sort of height. It is purely mythological.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

That would put the peak beyond the Earth's atmospheres.

That would actually put the mountain further than the Moon's orbit around the Earth. The average distance is about 239,000 miles or 384,000 kms.

If this silly myth is true, then the Moon would have definitely collided into Mount Sumeru.

It is obvious that no such mountain exist with that sort of height. It is purely mythological.

The location that's why is disputed.
Some say at the center of the earth, meaning Himalayas.
Others on a different planet,
Others in Vaikuntha where Devas n Brahma live on its peak.
Others at the center of the universe.

Might or might not be a myth.

 

[gnostic]

The location that's why is disputed.
Some say at the center of the earth, meaning Himalayas.
Others on a different planet,
Others in Vaikuntha where Devas n Brahma live on its peak.
Others at the center of the universe.

Might or might not be a myth.

It is a myth, because it is based on make-belief fantasy.

Right now you giving all sorts of suppositions of where it might be, and you are rationalising - without evidences to support these supposition.

The Himalayas is not the centre of earth. What is at the centre of the earth is the core. But there are no centre of earth on its surface, unless you think the centre are two poles, in which case you would have two centres, not one. But the Himalayas is definitely not the centre of anything.

The Himalayas exist because some 70 million years ago, the Indian subcontinent or the tectonic plate collided with the Asian tectonic plate, causing massive uplift of earth, causing mountains to appear, and still continuing to grow, because the two plates are still pushing into each other. So before the meeting of two plates, Everest and company of mountains didn't exist.

And if you understand astronomy at all, there is no centre of the universe. We have planets orbiting around a star, which make this star the centre of this system. And we have stars orbiting around galaxy's centre (if the galaxy is spiral in shape). But there is no centre for the entire universe.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

It is a myth, because it is based on make-belief fantasy.

Right now you giving all sorts of suppositions of where it might be, and you are rationalising - without evidences to support these supposition.

The Himalayas is not the centre of earth. What is at the centre of the earth is the core. But there are no centre of earth on its surface, unless you think the centre are two poles, in which case you would have two centres, not one. But the Himalayas is definitely not the centre of anything.

The Himalayas exist because some 70 million years ago, the Indian subcontinent or the tectonic plate collided with the Asian tectonic plate, causing massive uplift of earth, causing mountains to appear, and still continuing to grow, because the two plates are still pushing into each other. So before the meeting of two plates, Everest and company of mountains didn't exist.

And if you understand astronomy at all, there is no centre of the universe. We have planets orbiting around a star, which make this star the centre of this system. And we have stars orbiting around galaxy's centre (if the galaxy is spiral in shape). But there is no centre for the entire universe.

I don't buy it as a myth. Possible myth or possible fact.

The suppositions of the peak appear in a few long lost Upanishads and Mahabharata. Various sites could exist for its presence.

Himalaya is not the center. I meant that the Pandavas with their wife went to Himalayas where they climbed the peak.

The geological activity has nothing to do with the mountain. Mahabharata occured around 3102 BCE.

Everything has a central point. The universe began from a single point and expanded in all directions.
So why shouldn't it have its center?

Possibly other dimensions, planets or even Vaikuntha could have this mountain as well.

 

[Native]

It's nothing more than seeing faces on Mars.

You really don´t get much out of your mythical studies, do you?

Yes Udgaard = Outeryard.

 

[Riverwolf]

You really don´t get much out of your mythical studies, do you?

With respect, you're in no position to be judging such things.

Especially if you think the only things worth "getting out of" mythical studies are things that would agree with your conclusions.

Yes Udgaard = Outeryard.

Well, like I said: that just refers to the Wilds. Areas outside of human habitation and development.

How much do you know about the cultures whose mythologies you're projecting on?

 

[Native]

If this silly myth is true, then the Moon would have definitely collided into Mount Sumeru.

It is obvious that no such mountain exist with that sort of height. It is purely mythological.

The myth states the Sun and all planets to orbit around the Mount Meru center, so the Moon (or anything else in the Solar System) wouldn´t collide with this mountain.

Yes and no to "it´s purely mythological". It is mytho-cosmological and it´s not just at myth. This myth confirms the modern observation that our Solar System orbits the Milky Way center which in ancient myths is described as "the primeval mount or mound" - Read more here - https://www.google.dk/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=primeval+mound.

 

[Native]

And if you understand astronomy at all, there is no centre of the universe. We have planets orbiting around a star, which make this star the centre of this system. And we have stars orbiting around galaxy's centre (if the galaxy is spiral in shape). But there is no centre for the entire universe.

You are rigth on different centers. The Earth poles resembles two axis of centers. The Earth orbit around the Sun gives the Sun as another center and the entire Solar System orbit around the Milky Way center gives yet another center.

The ancient world perception and description concerned the creation of the Milky Way at the most. The Milky Way center is not THE UNIVERSAL center but the center of the ancient known local part of the Universe, called Mount Meru in the Hindu mytho-cosmology.

 

[Riverwolf]

Everything has a central point. The universe began from a single point and expanded in all directions.
So why shouldn't it have its center?

Well... it's kinda more complicated than that. But the short version is this: that single point was the whole Universe, all of Spacetime, at that time. It's not expanding "in" anything.

So the "Center of the Universe" is, basically, everywhere.

 

[Native]

With respect, you're in no position to be judging such things.

This was just my conclusion since you plainly ignored the obvious fact of the Solar System orbiting the Milky Way center.

Well, like I said: that just refers to the Wilds. Areas outside of human habitation and development.

It is not "the Wilds" as in the outback. The Outeryard deals specifically with the Giants in Norse Mythology - Read more here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jötunheimr.

 

[Riverwolf]

This was just my conclusion since you plainly ignored the obvious fact of the Solar System orbiting the Milky Way center.

I never denied that we do. What I'm denying is that the yearday storytellers knew this.

It is not "the Wilds" as in the outback. The Outeryard deals specifically with the Giants in Norse Mythology - Read more here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jötunheimr.

Seriously? You presume to think you can educate me on my own religion?

http://norse-mythology.org/concepts/innangard-and-utangard/

You refer to "Norse Mythology", and yet seem to forget that there was a myriad of cultures and Tribes from which these stories sprung. Tell me, do you know to whom we are wina?

And it's not as "in the outback", because Northern Europe has no such deserts to my knowledge.

 

[gnostic]

I don't buy it as a myth. Possible myth or possible fact.

Fact would have verifiable evidences.

You don't have verifiable evidences for Mount Sumeru.

I don't know much about Hinduism and Hindu texts, so I am only basing everything on your description. And as it stand, you don't have any evidences to support this mountain's existence.

One possibility is that it referred to a real mountain, but over-exaggerated its height. People in ancient time, no matter which ancient civilisation or cultures have the tendencies to exaggerate what they describe be that of person, object or place.

For instance, I do find to see some of Hindu imagery or iconography, but at the same time, I would find it difficult to accept people would have 4, 6 or 8 arms, like Siva, Vishnu or Kali.

But going back to Mount Sumeru here.

Since, there are no evidences to support such a mountain existing on Earth, you have no facts. You also have no evidences to support it any other planets or satellites (moons) having such a mountain, you again have no fact. The tallest known mountain in our solar system, is Olympus mons, which is 21 kms (or 14 miles), while Everest is a mere 4.6 km (2.9 miles). Neither Everest or Olympus mons come near anything that you are describing.

And what you were saying in your earlier post (the one I had quoted), is merely not your suppositions (and rationality), and that's not fact.

Everything has a central point. The universe began from a single point and expanded in all directions.
So why shouldn't it have its center?

Ah...no.

You clearly don't understand the concept of the expanding universe, or the Big Bang cosmology, Zac.

Riverwolf got it right.

The universe as a whole was a single point, so when the universe expanded, that mean everything expanded. The centre of the universe is the entire universe. But there is no central point in the universe.

 

[gnostic]

This was just my conclusion since you plainly ignored the obvious fact of the Solar System orbiting the Milky Way center.

Solar system has a centre. And a galaxy might have a centre...but - and I must stress BUT - the universe don't have a centre.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Fact would have verifiable evidences.

You don't have verifiable evidences for Mount Sumeru.

I don't know much about Hinduism and Hindu texts, so I am only basing everything on your description. And as it stand, you don't have any evidences to support this mountain's existence.

One possibility is that it referred to a real mountain, but over-exaggerated its height. People in ancient time, no matter which ancient civilisation or cultures have the tendencies to exaggerate what they describe be that of person, object or place.

For instance, I do find to see some of Hindu imagery or iconography, but at the same time, I would find it difficult to accept people would have 4, 6 or 8 arms, like Siva, Vishnu or Kali.

But going back to Mount Sumeru here.

Since, there are no evidences to support such a mountain existing on Earth, you have no facts. You also have no evidences to support it any other planets or satellites (moons) having such a mountain, you again have no fact. The tallest known mountain in our solar system, is Olympus mons, which is 21 kms (or 14 miles), while Everest is a mere 4.6 km (2.9 miles). Neither Everest or Olympus mons come near anything that you are describing.

And what you were saying in your earlier post (the one I had quoted), is merely not your suppositions (and rationality), and that's not fact.

It is possible that Everest is the mountain of Sumeru with severe Overexaggerating numbers, but the description appears as a way to reach the heavens.
It has 5 peaks on it so that doesn't seem like any earthly mountain.
And also a mountain on other planets or dimensions that connects the spiritual with the metaphysical n physical universes.
The Hindu idea mentions infinite number of universes in a vast ocean of constantly producing universes.
As I said possible myth or possible fact. As for now, it's a theory

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Solar system has a centre. And a galaxy might have a centre...but - and I must stress BUT - the universe don't have a centre.

Could you elaborate of the universe not having a center?
I couldn't get much from the UCR math websites.

 

[Native]

I never denied that we do. What I'm denying is that the yearday storytellers knew this.

By the very text of the Mount Meru myth, you can only come to the conclusion that they did. But of course, this demands you to believe in the mytho-cosmological symbol of a cosmic mond/mountain.

Seriously? You presume to think you can educate me on my own religion?

http://norse-mythology.org/concepts/innangard-and-utangard/

I have no specific wish of educating you in anything. I just have a different approach to understanding the myths.

The provided link speaks largely of psychological and geographical realms and borders. With this approach, different deities become "psychological entities" instead of celestial matters, and the borders becomes the outskirts of a village, whereas the myth of creation speaks of "spherical dimensions of cosmos" and descriptions of the Earth, the looks of day- and nigth Sky and of the Milky Way contours.

And it's not as "in the outback", because Northern Europe has no such deserts to my knowledge.

You see? You interpret the Outeryard horizontally as a geographic myth - but IMO it is a spherical term which describes a dimension outside the Earth, as also described here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Worlds_of_Sumeru #Spatial Cosmology.

Spatial Cosmology:
"Spatial cosmology can also be divided into two branches. The vertical (or cakravāla) cosmology describes the arrangement of worlds in a vertical pattern, some being higher and some lower. By contrast, the horizontal (sahasra) cosmology describes the grouping of these vertical worlds into sets of thousands, millions or billions".

 

[Native]

Riverwolf got it right.

The universe as a whole was a single point, so when the universe expanded, that mean everything expanded. The centre of the universe is the entire universe. But there is no central point in the universe.

This is pure speculations which derives from the Big Bang theory. "The expansion of the Universe from a single point where the entire Universe is the center/point"? It says nothing more than the entire Universe exist everywhere.

- Most of the numerous cultural Stories of Creation states the Universe to be infinite and eternal with ongoing motions of formation, dissolution and re-formation in eternity. And these stories don´t speak of "a beginning or an end" and where the term "beginning" is used, this means the start of the creation of our local galaxy, the Milky Way.