I don't think you can disturb me.. I’m just curious about your scholarly opinion..

How are you, Primate? I would like you to interpret this for me which I will quote verbatim from this book, The Teachings of Lord Caitanya, I`m now reading:

After hearing the direct interpretation of the Vedanta-sutra, one of the sanyasis immediately declared, O Sripada Caitanya, whatever You have explained in Your condemnation of the indirect interpretation of omkara is most useful. Only a fortunate person can accept Your interpretation as the right one. Actually, everyone of us now knows that the interpretation given by Sankara are all artificial and imaginary, but because we belong to Sankacaraya`s sect we take it for granted that his interpretation is the right one. We shall be very glad to hear from You further explain the Vedanta-sutra by direct interpretation."

Being so requested, Lord Caitanya explained each and every verse of Vedanta -sutra according to the direct interpretation. He also explained Brahman, indicating that Brahman means the greatest, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Brahman indicates that the greatest is full with six opulences: the reservoir of all wealth, all fame, all strength, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation.

When Lord Krsna was personally present on earth, He exhibited these six opulences in full. No one was richer than Lord Krsna, no one was more learned than Him, no one more beautiful, no one stronger, no one more famous and no one more renounced. Therefore, the Supreme Personality of Krsna is the Supreme Brahman. This is confirmed by Arjuna in Bhagavad-gita(10.12). Param brahma param dhama: " You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode." He is the shelter of the Absolute Truth(para-tattva) because He is param brahma. There is nothing material in His opulences and exhibitions of wealth, fame, strength, beauty, knowledge and renunciation. All the Vedic verses and hymns indicate that everything about Him is spiritual and transcendental. Whenever the word Brahman appears in the Vedas, it should be understood, the Supreme Personality, is indicated. An intelligent person at once replaces the word Brahman with the name Krsna.

To accept the Supreme as impersonal is to deny the manifestation of His spiritual energies.When someone simply accepts the impersonal exhibition of spiritual energy to the exclusion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he does not accept the Absolute Truth in full. To accept the Supreme Personality in full is to accept SPIRITUAL VARIEGATEDNESS which is transcendental to the material modes of nature. By failing to indicate the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the impersonalists are left with an incomplete conception.


Primate, spiritual variegatedness doesn`t mean spiritual oneness, right?

I am not a scholar so I don't approach God as if I were. I look for the most simple and direct why to understand something.

You are also not a scholar so this method may be helpful for you.

In your previous post you accepted that the sun was the basis of the sunlight. Well the sun represents Krishna and the sunlight represents the brahman effulgence.

Perhaps now you can see why I refuse to go away from this example. It is the simplest and most direct.

Yes. But it is not the Truth..

Last week you called yourself an agnostic and now you are declaring what is the nature of the absolute truth. What happened? Struck by lightening maybe?

Anyway you are welcome to your opinion.

Spiritual variegatedness means that everything is animate.. (SB 3.15.18, Purport)

I’m not declaring anything.. I’m trying to understand the truth (as an agnostic). And I simply asked for your opinion about some ideas that I have..

This is a declaration of fact. You yourself have no basis to make this statement by your own honest admission. better to remain open to the possibility that Prabhupada is right and you are wrong. Not blindly accept what Prabhupada said but remain open.

Problem is since you are also brahman your position is that you existence as brahman is also independent and not based on anything or anyone.

But the truth is there is a God who is the source of everything and everyone. All rest upon Him as pearls are strung on a thread. God is called the Cause of all causes. This means He has no cause.

May be he was visited by Aliens.

Well, I have a logical basis or argument, which is stated in my post #65 and some other posts in this thread. But I agree that one cannot be absolutely sure whether something is absolutely true or not. Hereby I correct my earlier statement to: Any sun-metaphor of reality is unlikely to be absolutely true. And, of course, anything that has a cause, cannot be God..

OK this is good. And please remember that the sun metaphor was not presented as perfect rather I admited no material metaphor can ever describe transcendance perfectly.

At best it can be an indicator. Some indicators will be better then others of course but all fall short.

Here is a question for you.
Don't you think that if there is a God then everything else material or spiritual must be based and sustained on His person and will?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ain't you people Offtopic here? We supposed to be discussing Creation and not whether Theist or Primate wrong or right.

How about this sun-moon metaphor, Primate, of mine. The light we see on the moon on earth is but a reflection of the light coming from the sun. We might have this idea that moonlight is the brahmajyoti and the moon Brahman. This is why Srila Prabhupad stated that Krsna (the Sun ) is the basis ( moonlight) of impersonal Brahman (the moon). Sri Caitanya`s acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva confirms this analogy.

Better than creating hatred among hindus against mlechas.

mlechas? What are mlechas?

Yes. Moreover, Brahman/Bhagavan is everything. Everything is a manifestation of God. I'm not sure if the terms 'based on' or 'sustained by' are ultimately applicable. These seem to imply duality and causality, which are, again, material concepts. However, I agree that this is the way in which the relation between God and the material manifestation is sometimes 'indicated' in Vedic literature.

Please, Melvin, no more material analogies!

In order to understand creation, it first has to be established who or what is the creator and what is the created. The creator is the cause of all causes, which is itself causeless. Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Therefore, neither can be said to be the cause or the creation of any of the others. Moreover, everything material and spiritual is Brahman/Bhagavan. Then what's left to be created? It must be concluded that the Absolute Truth (or God) is both creator and creation simultaneously: acintya bheda-abheda. Thus, the creation is causeless.

Then what is causality? Causality is a characteristic of the material illusion in which everything appears to have a material cause. In reality, however, God is the cause of all causes. Logically this means that causality doesn't exist (we now know from quantum physics that this is true). There is only one cause, which means that nothing is the cause of anything else, which ultimately means that everything is one.

The creation or the cosmic manifestation, is our conscious illusion of independent material existence and difference. In reality, however, nothing exists independently and everything is one in Brahman/Bhagavan..

Sounds like you already decided how Creation had occurred.

However, no matter how well a person's explaination is, you need to understand that your theory IS a theory. There is no way you could proof that this is true. Unless you witness the Birth of the Universe yourself.

If you ask me, I will follow Gautama Buddha's advice on this one. He stated that it doesn't matter how the Universe formed or how it will end. All that matters is achieving Enlightnment.

Non hindu is what i referred to as mlechas.