The play of creation - Page 2

primate · 06-29-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theist

Krsna says in the Gita:

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal.

The literal Sanskrit verse states: "I am the 'rest' of Brahman". I think that Prabhupada’s translation "Krishna is the 'basis' of Brahman", actually means that Krishna is the 'essence' of Brahman. So, Krishna and Brahman are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. In fact, this is confirmed by Prabhupada himself in his purport of BG 4.24, in which he explains the method and the result of Krishna Consciousness:

Quote:

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 4.24

brahmarpanam brahma havir
brahmagnau brahmana hutam
brahmaiva tena gantavyam
brahma-karma-samadhina

SYNONYMS

brahma -- spiritual in nature; arpanam -- contribution; brahma -- the Supreme; havih -- butter; brahma -- spiritual; agnau -- in the fire of consummation; brahmana -- by the spirit soul; hutam -- offered; brahma -- spiritual kingdom; eva -- certainly; tena -- by him; gantavyam -- to be reached; brahma -- spiritual; karma -- in activities; samadhina -- by complete absorption.

TRANSLATION

A person who is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities, in which the consummation is absolute and that which is offered is of the same spiritual nature.

PURPORT

How activities in Krishna consciousness can lead one ultimately to the spiritual goal is described here. There are various activities in Krishna consciousness, and all of them will be described in the following verses. But, for the present, just the principle of Krishna consciousness is described. A conditioned soul, entangled in material contamination, is sure to act in the material atmosphere, and yet he has to get out of such an environment. The process by which the conditioned soul can get out of the material atmosphere is Krishna consciousness. For example, a patient who is suffering from a disorder of the bowels due to overindulgence in milk products is cured by another milk product, namely curds. The materially absorbed conditioned soul can be cured by Krishna consciousness as set forth here in the Gita. This process is generally known as yajna, or activities (sacrifices) simply meant for the satisfaction of Vishnu, or Krishna. The more the activities of the material world are performed in Krishna consciousness, or for Vishnu only, the more the atmosphere becomes spiritualized by complete absorption. The word brahma (Brahman) means "spiritual." The Lord is spiritual, and the rays of His transcendental body are called brahmajyoti, His spiritual effulgence. Everything that exists is situated in that brahmajyoti, but when the jyoti is covered by illusion (maya) or sense gratification, it is called material. This material veil can be removed at once by Krishna consciousness; thus the offering for the sake of Krishna consciousness, the consuming agent of such an offering or contribution, the process of consumption, the contributor, and the result are -- all combined together -- Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth covered by maya is called matter. Matter dovetailed for the cause of the Absolute Truth regains its spiritual quality. Krishna consciousness is the process of converting the illusory consciousness into Brahman, or the Supreme. When the mind is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness, it is said to be in samadhi, or trance. Anything done in such transcendental consciousness is called yajna, or sacrifice for the Absolute. In that condition of spiritual consciousness, the contributor, the contribution, the consumption, the performer or leader of the performance, and the result or ultimate gain -- everything -- becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman. That is the method of Krishna consciousness.

So, if according to Prabhupada, everything ultimately becomes one in the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Brahman, then how can Vishnu/Krishna be the basis of Brahman, other than being Brahman?

Also, Isopanishad clearly speaks of a perfectly complete unit Om, from which everything originates:

Quote:

Sri Isopanishad Invocation

om purnam adah purnam idam
purnat purnam udacyate
purnasya purnam adaya
purnam evavasishyate

SYNONYMS

om -- the Complete Whole; purnam -- perfectly complete; adah -- that; purnam -- perfectly complete; idam -- this phenomenal world; purnat -- from the all-perfect; purnam -- complete unit; udacyate -- is produced; purnasya -- of the Complete Whole; purnam -- completely, all; adaya -- having been taken away; purnam -- the complete balance; eva -- even; avasishyate -- is remaining.

TRANSLATION

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

The above translation of Prabhupada mystifies me. The original verse simply states: Even if all is taken away from the perfectly complete unit Om, from which the perfectly complete phenomenal world is produced, the complete unit [Om] is remaining..

primate · 06-29-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theist

Sequential thinking is of time. You are correct. But it is you who are attempting to impose that conception onto the absolute.

I don’t think so! I’m attempting to remove the concept of time from the definition of the Absolute. Consequently, statements like "Krishna is the basis of Brahman" become problematic.

Quote:

Krishna is called the Cause of all causes. Krishna caused the Brahman effulgence. This has to be accepted even though both Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His effulgent the Brahman.

Now you are imposing the concept of time onto the Absolute. Causality implies time. If time isn’t of the Absolute, Krishna cannot be the cause of the Brahman effulgence.

Quote:

You call this sequential thinking but it is not. It appears contradictory to our minds because we are conditioned by sequential thinking as in past and future. Krishna perfectly houses all such apparent contradictions.

Agreed. Cause and effect only have meaning in our temporal material world.

Quote:

The material (therefore not perfect but in this case nearly) example is the sun and the sunshine. Even though they both exist simultaneously still no one would argue the fact that the sun is the cause of the sunshine.

Indeed, the Sun and its rays are not a good example, because the Sun’s nuclear reactions are clearly the cause of its rays. They don’t exist simultaneously.

theist · 06-29-2009, 10:40 AM

primate, I see now you think you know better what Prabhupada meant more than Prabhupada himself. Due to this no more can be gained by this conversation at this point.

Good luck
Hare Krishna

primate · 06-29-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theist

primate, I see now you think you know better what Prabhupada meant more than Prabhupada himself. Due to this no more can be gained by this conversation at this point.

Good luck
Hare Krishna

No Theist, actually I completely agree with Prabhupada! But I think you didn't quote his translation of BG 14.27 in the correct context. That's what I try to say. And I think his purport of BG 4.24 proves this.

Apart from this, I just don't understand why Prabhupada didn't stick to the literal Sanskrit verse in his translation of Sri Isopanishad Invocation, which would have illustrated my point much better..

sant · 06-29-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Indeed, the Sun and its rays are not a good example, because the Sun’s nuclear reactions are clearly the cause of its rays. They don’t exist simultaneously.

So it means that sun causes sunshine since nuclear reactions are of the sun and not the sunshine.And how can yoy say that the sunshine is not there when the sun is there.

theist · 06-29-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Quote:
The material (therefore not perfect but in this case nearly) example is the sun and the sunshine. Even though they both exist simultaneously still no one would argue the fact that the sun is the cause of the sunshine.

Indeed, the Sun and its rays are not a good example, because the Sun’s nuclear reactions are clearly the cause of its rays. They don’t exist simultaneously.

Clearly from my quote above I anticipated your response would be to quibble with the example, which you did anyway despite my attempt to it by acknowledging the fault in the example. Every material analogy is imperfect when attempting to illustrate a spiritual reality. Indeed all human language and thought fails.

Ever hear Lao Tzu's famous saying, "Don't mistake my finger for the moon"?

When someone is pointing you to the Moon don't stare at the finger, look at the moon.

But seriously I have nothing beyond the few points I have given already to say. If I see something I will add it.

Please do not think there is any bad feelings in this. I enjoy our exchanges and look forward to more.

Hare Krishna

primate · 06-29-2009, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sant

So it means that sun causes sunshine since nuclear reactions are of the sun and not the sunshine.And how can yoy say that the sunshine is not there when the sun is there.

I mean that the nuclear reactions within the Sun’s core and the resultant radiation do not exist simultaneously in time. Although the Sun and its sunshine (or a star and its starlight) appear to exist simultaneously, they are always separated in time.

Whenever there exists such a causal relationship between two events, this cannot be used as an example of the relation between Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, because these are three simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth, as per Prabhupada..

sant · 06-29-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Although the Sun and its sunshine (or a star and its starlight) appear to exist simultaneously, they are always separated in time.

IS this just a theory or can you provide some source from where you said it.
And i thought the sunshine was emitted by lord surya.

primate · 06-29-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theist

Clearly from my quote above I anticipated your response would be to quibble with the example, which you did anyway despite my attempt to it by acknowledging the fault in the example. Every material analogy is imperfect when attempting to illustrate a spiritual reality. Indeed all human language and thought fails.

Ever hear Lao Tzu's famous saying, "Don't mistake my finger for the moon"?

When someone is pointing you to the Moon don't stare at the finger, look at the moon.

But seriously I have nothing beyond the few points I have given already to say. If I see something I will add it.

Please do not think there is any bad feelings in this. I enjoy our exchanges and look forward to more.

Hare Krishna

That's okay Theist. No bad feelings here either. Sorry for the unnecessary remark on the sunshine metaphor.

primate · 06-29-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sant

IS this just a theory or can you provide some source from where you said it.
And i thought the sunshine was emitted by lord surya.

Didn't you know that when you look at the stars, you are actually looking at the stars as they existed millions of (light)years in the past. Some of the stars we can still see today, may not even exist anymore..

sant · 06-29-2009, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Didn't you know that when you look at the stars, you are actually looking at the stars as they existed millions of (light)years in the past. Some of the stars we can still see today, may not even exist anymore..

Take an example.Go to a room and light a matchstick.You can see even when the flame has just lighted from the time it it is small and till it becomes big(all which hapens fast) it emits light.So you can think about the sun.

theist · 06-29-2009, 01:13 PM

But either way primate you are missing the point which is the timeless, seemless existence of Krishna and His aura the Brahman effulgence with Krishna as the basis of that Brahman.

Focus on the Moon bro. and forget the finger!

kaisersose · 06-29-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sant

Take an example.Go to a room and light a matchstick.You can see even when the flame has just lighted from the time it it is small and till it becomes big(all which hapens fast) it emits light.So you can think about the sun.

Elementary science refresher,

Light requires time to travel. The distance between the sun and the earth is long enough for light to take a significant time to reach earth. 8.3 minutes, actually. Your matchstick/room example is a bad one.

The distance between the sun and the earth was speculated for a long time, until it was accurately determined during the 14th century AD.

Cheers

sant · 06-29-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Elementary science refresher,

Light requires time to travel. The distance between the sun and the earth is long enough for light to take a significant time to reach earth. 8.3 minutes, actually.

Your matchstick/room example is a bad one.

Cheers

Wait dr kaiserose.IT doesnt mean taht the light is not there when the sun is there.It only takes time to reach us but it doent mean that the sun exists without emitting light.

primate · 06-29-2009, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sant

Wait dr kaiserose.IT doesnt mean taht the light is not there when the sun is there.It only takes time to reach us but it doent mean that the sun exists without emitting light.

The point is, that there is an action-reaction-like relation between a light source and the light it emits. In your example of a mach, first the sulphur and phosphor in the tip of the match must ignite, and only after that the match starts to emit light. So the match is the cause of the light.

Now, in the case of Krishna and Brahman, neither is the cause of the other. They simply exist simultaneously. They are different aspects of the same causeless Absolute Truth..

sant · 06-29-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

The point is, that there is an action-reaction-like relation between a light source and the light it emits. In your example of a mach, first the sulphur and phosphor in the tip of the match must ignite, and only after that the match starts to emit light. So the match is the cause of the light.

Yes but my point was that the flame is cause of light.Wherever the sun is it will emit light simultaneously.