Yes, I think that is a much better statement than "Krishna is the basis (or source) of Brahman"..

Here Prabhupada says: "Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are three aspects of the same Absolute Truth". So, there is only One Absolute Truth, although it has different aspects, which can be known separately, in different stages of Krishna Consciousness.

"Krishna is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth: mattah parataram nanyat". In my understanding, this means that Krishna is the complete concept of the Absolute Truth. So far so good. But Prabhupada also states: "Krishna is 'the source' of the brahmajyoti as well as the all-pervading Paramatma", and "Krishna is 'the basis' of Brahman". Both these 'finger pointings' can be misunderstood as: Krishna is 'the cause' of Brahman, as a result of their temporal connotation..

Yes, some real confusion there.
My take on this

Krishna is a manifestation as told by him in GITA.
BG 7.24: Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.


So krishna is the Manifestation of god on earth..Krishna is not the source.

Nope, Sri Krishna is not the Source. He is merely an extension of the Source - a Personal Brahman which Humans can relate to.

Remember when Sri Krishna revealed His Vishnuroopa, everyone bowed down and pray for Him to STOP because of the incredible form which He have shown. Which means that God cannot reveal Himself to Man in His true form or we all have heart attacks instead of pray.

This is the essence of the error.

Krsna is.

He has no source. He just Is.

One of His attributes is the Brahman.

This is how it is.

Krsna can be seen. But not with these material eyes.

This is how it is.

Okay Sant, the statement is not entirely correct or unambiguous. I think I already explained it, but here goes one more time, because I think it’s quite relevant.

The sun and the sunlight, are often used to illustrate the relation between Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His effulgence the Brahman. The idea is that even though the sun and the sunlight exist simultaneously, the sun is the source of the sunlight. So, even though Krishna and the Brahman effulgence exist simultaneously, Krishna is the supreme principle of reality.

There is, however, a problem with this sun-metaphor. The sunlight is spatially separate from the sun. Nuclear fusion reactions in the sun’s core produce heat and ultimately photons (and other types of radiation), which are emitted by the sun and travel away from the sun at the speed of light. When these photons reach Earth (after 8.3 minutes), we see this as the sun and its sunlight. However, what we actually see are just these photons, from which we conclude that there must exist a sun in the sky.

Now, as you know, God is all pervasive, and Krishna and His Brahman effulgence are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. This means that, contrary to the sun and the sunlight, they are not spatially separate entities. Furthermore, they are also not separated in time, because they exist simultaneously. Importantly, this means that one cannot be 'the cause' of the other.

For example, a nuclear fusion reaction in the sun’s core between two atoms of hydrogen - that combine to create helium and energy, which is ultimately emitted as photons - can be said to be 'the cause' of the emitted photons. Cause and effect are not simultaneous. A cause precedes its effect. So, cause and effect (or action and reaction, if you like) are always separated events in time. Simultaneous events or phenomena, on the other hand, are events that occur at exactly the same point in time. There cannot exist a causal relation between any two simultaneous events or phenomena. one event cannot be 'the cause' of another simultaneous event.

In fact, we know of only one type of correlated events in our material reality that occur simultaneously. These are so called 'entangled' quantum events. When, for example, the 'spin' (or another property) of one of two entangled quantum particles is changed, the spin of the other particle changes accordingly and instantaneously, no matter how large the distance between them. Einstein called this 'spooky action at a distance'. Any other physical or material events or phenomena that we know of (including sunlight), always seem to occur as the result of a causal (action-reaction-like, non-simultaneous) relation with other material events..

Since he was mentioned in the opening post to this thread let me quote Eckhart Tolle who said "Analyzing the pointer is pointless."

The nun Wu Jincang asked the Sixth Patriach Huineng, "I have studied the Mahaparinirvana sutra for many years, yet there are many areas i do not quite understand. Please enlighten me."
The patriach responded, "I am illiterate. Please read out the characters to me and perhaps I will be able to explain the meaning."
Said the nun, "You cannot even recognize the characters. How are you able then to understand the meaning?"
"Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?"

I agree. But the more exact a pointer points to what it is intended to point to, the better. If a pointer is exactly on target, we only need to follow its direction to find the target. If, on the other hand, a pointer is not exactly on target, we may have to search a whole region that is approximately pointed to, in order to find the intended target. Especially when the medium of words and language is used inexactly as a pointer, there is the risk that you will find something completely different from what was originally intended, simply because it seems closest to the meaning of the words.

1) "Krishna is the source of Brahman"
Due to the causal or temporal connotation of the word 'source', this can’t be correct, although it just might have been intended to indicate the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman.

2) "Krishna is the basis of Brahman"
This is better. It could mean that Krishna is a more basic aspect or principle of the Absolute Truth than Brahman. However, it also appears to mean that Brahman is derived from Krishna, or that Brahman is based on Krishna. Therefore, again, due to the causal/temporal undertone, this can’t be exactly correct; although, again, it might just have been the intention to indicate the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman.

3) "Brahman is an attribute of Krishna"
This seems to be much better. There is no causality involved. No temporal assumption at all. Brahman simply is an attribute of Krishna, and both are aspects of the same Absolute Truth. It also complies with 1) and 2), by indicating the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman.

4) "Krishna is an attribute of Brahman"
This states the opposite of 3), and it is very far removed from 1) and 2), because it doesn’t indicate the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman. Therefore, it's unlikely to be correct.

You know how you sound like? Like a Christian who says the same thing about Jesus.

Don't be absurd, OK? Think logically. Hindus are much more clever than Christians to be believing that God exists as a human being (as His ultimate form).

God is formless and shapeless - He is either Man or Woman nor Beast. He is without beginning and an End. All this is His essence as stated by the Gita. So how is it that God could be Sri Krishna who came to be by being born as a human and meet His physical end as a Human?

You are making the same mistake as Christians does with their Jesus. They cannot see past Jesus to the Higher Being (which is God) and kept their mind closed toward the form of Jesus. You are doing the same thing with Sri Krishna.

You say you agree but you don't really. You still want to analysis the pointer. You still don't get it.

Notice the Hotei in the picture. He is not pointing exactly to the moon yet we know what he is pointing to. Perhaps he had a crooked cane in his hand and the end of the cane pointed downward and he used the cane to indicate what what was meant? Only a silly person would think he was pointing to the ground.

You don't like the example because it is effective in showing Krishna as the basis of the Brahman as the Sun globe is the basis of the sunshine.

Your nit-picking of if there is a split nano second separating the sun's emitting light and the appearance of light is the best example of this silliness I have ever seen.

There will always be some defincientcy in human language and thought in describing the absolute. That is the idea behind the term transcendental.

No. I’m not just analysing the pointer. I’m also reformulating the pointer in more exact terms, possibly directing it more precisely to its target. My 'causality argument' is a very important consideration in this reformulation, even though we are talking about "nano-seconds". Events are simultaneous or not. And that’s absolute.

What I would like you to comment on, is the result of the effort. Does one state something completely wrong when one says: "Brahman is an attribute of Krishna"..?

Krishna never says that he is fromless.God is formless as well as with form.Both.Why cant be god with form ,youre are again limiting him by your views.

Sigh..... Forget about it.

You mean there is no sun?

Theist, I hope you can understand that I don’t think I’m opposing Prabhupada’s conclusions. Possibly I’m opposing the English transliteration of one of his ideas. If, however, I am opposing his conclusions, then can you please explain this to me?

No. We just can't be sure that there is a sun. But don't worry, it's very likely that the sun exists..

That is what I have been trying to do and the explanation is right there in the form of the Sun and the sunshine. That is not my example by the way. I heard it first from Prabhupada but it goes back as far as the vedas.

Drop the idea of time altogether. Speaking of time means you are still analysizing the finger.Look at the moon only. Or in this case the eternal sun, Krishna.

Krishna does not come from the brahman any more than the sun globe comes from the sunshine. The brahman comes from Krishna just like the sunshine comes from Krishna.

The same for each one of us individually. We come from Krishna. Krishna does not come from us. Our existence is based on Krishna. If Krishna suddenly disappeared so would we and everything else but if we disappeared Krishna would still remain complete unto Himself.

There is no perfect example we can use when describing krishna because there is nothing else equal to Him or like Him.

I don't expect you to just believe what I am saying I am only asking you to understand that the Vaisnava perepective is different from the mayavada interpretation which you are speaking rather you know it or not. They are very different and it is not what Prabhupada is saying.

Remain objective and neutral and decide which way you want to go from that position.

Actually, it is you who are "limiting" God by putting Him in form of Sri Krishna.

I'm not saying Sri Krishna is not (the Avatar of) God, I merely saying, don't think that Sri Krishna's form is the only form. This is the same attitude Christians has about their Jesus (that he is the only way) and this is why Christianity IS DYING. You want to kill Hindusm with your close-minded approach?

To me, Sri krishna is not the only form. I also see Sri Rama in the same way as I see Sri Krishna. The same way I see Narashima, and the Kurma Avatar and all other Avatars of Maha Vishnu. There is no difference to me on which form He comes.

You are talking about the lila incarnation, Prince of Dvaraka, Lord Krishna. We are speaking about Bhagavan Svayam Sri Krsna who is described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam as the source of all incarnations - http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en.

From this verse we can see that as you say, Lord Krishna and Lord Rama are both the same Sri Krsna, God. Sri Krsna appears in His original form as Lord Krishna or as His primary expansion form of Balarama or as Lord Nrsimha or Vamana, Varaha, Kurma, Matsya, ad infinitum - depending on His desire and purpose and His own sweet will.