jeffster

Hypotheses come and hypotheses go because the knowledge of the scientists is based on the imperfect senses and the instruments that extend their imperfect senses, but we need not be influenced here by the specious arguments of the "mythbusters," who erroneously claim that their demonstration that cameras have high contrast ratios is somehow proof that the pictures were taken on the moon. I am not a scientist and, as such, I don't like to comment on the topic, but my point is simply that the logic of the mythbusters, in this particular instance, is fallacious. We do know conclusively, however, from shastra that there ARE innumerable universes with innumerable Brahmas as their chief. Amazing, the scientists are just now getting around to a hypothesis that there are multiverses !! Does this not echo the Vedic knowledge which has already been long established ? It is difficult to synthesize shastra with science, but in some cases, not all, it may be possible; actually, the scientists should attempt to synthesize science with shastra because, truly, shastra is infallible and beyond the defects of the imperfect senses. Old skool shastra rules !! Regards, Jeffster/AM das P.S. If it matters, I have been out of Iskcon since 1980, living and working independently.

I generally agree with Kulapavana's post # 7, but, conversely, my point was only that Mythbuster's proving a technical feature of the photos does not prove that the photos were actually shot on the moon. jeffster/AM das

I watched the Mythbusters videos and frankly, if you think about it, all they proved in photo # 1 was how incredibly easy it is to fake a photo like that. In foto # 2, all they proved is that cameras have a great range of (I forgot the technical term) ability to show images under low light conditions. Neither experiment proved that Americans landed on the moon, but it does serve to demonstrate how incredibly arrogant and lacking in logic these mythbuster guys are to claim somehow that these photos proved that Americans landed on the moon. If this is any indication of the intelligence of scientists, then it is plain to see that they are lacking even rudimentary intelligence by making such a claim. jeffster/AM das

I concur with Theist. Another way to look at it, by way of analogy, is that the brain is the seat or chair of the mind. No question about it, however, the mind is subtle matter, brain is physical. Mind is independent of brain and superior to it and it is the culmination of all the mind's thoughts that carries us to our next body. So we had better be careful with our thoughts, and control and purify our mind, by immersing it in the transcendental sound vibration of the Hare Krishna maha-mantra. jeffster/AM das

Personally, I would prefer a guru who would teach me to eradicate my bad habit of desiring and accepting a sequential series of physical bodies. jeffster/AMdas

Isn't it good to know that a guru is available who can act as our order supplier and "once steps into your house all problems are solved." ? After all, isn't that what a guru is for, to solve all our mundane problems re: family, money, education, etc ? And so inexpensively as well, that nearly anyone can afford this service. jeffster/AM das

Prabhupad's translation of Bhagavatam 4:22:38 is a little different: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as one with the cause and effect within this body, but one who has transcended the illusory energy by deliberate consideration, which clears the misconception of a snake for a rope, can understand that the Paramatma is eternally transcendental to the material creation and situated in pure internal energy. Thus the Lord is transcendental to all material contamination. Unto Him only must one surrender." jeffster/AMdas

O.K. then, chant a variety of bhajans. "Variety is the spice of life." jeffster/AMdas

Please let me clarify the meaning of my post # 363. It was not that Sri Adi Sankara had regretted anything in his life and then turned to Govinda on his deathbed as some kind of change of heart. in fact, I believe that he factually knew that the Krishna conception was the most complete conception of divinity. But he could not preach that to his disciples because they could not or would not accept it. Preaching must be according to time, place, circumstance and the mentality of those being preached to. It was this charade that he tired of, that he couldn't preach all that he was capable of teaching, the full measure of theism, so he finally told his disciples that they were fools and rascals and should simply "Bhaja Govindam." Srikanth, the fact that Sankaracharya composed the poem "Bhaja Govindam" upon meeting the grammaratician (grammarian ?) is proof of the depth of his realization. Kaiserose, unfortunately I have misplaced the book; as I have already mentioned, it is NOT a Vaishnava publication, including Iskcon. Actually I believe that it is the poem "Bhaja Govindam," but I will attempt to find it to confirm. And in your post # 365, Srikanth, you state that if we repeatedly chant bhajans, "the tendency of the mind to enjoy will not grow more and more. In fact it becomes less and less." Actually, when chanting bhajans or in kirtan we can, and often do, go on for hours without wearying of it. The kirtan or bhajan IS the meditation. No difference between God and His Holy Names. It becomes a form of divine communion. This would not be possible if these Names were mundane. We would tire of the sound and become bored and quit. Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

Hello again Srikanth, Since this thread is continuing, I felt obligated to refute some of your statements. In your post # 345, you state, "Let me also tell you that without speculation, truth cannot be perceived." Do you actually believe that truth cannot reveal itself to us if it so chooses ? Is truth puny and impotent, as you suggest, or is truth able to reveal itself either directly, if it so chooses, or through acharyas who have direct perception of truth, or through scriptures such as Gita ? You also state in several posts that only experience can reveal the truth. Again, in post # 345, you state, "I believe in experience and then tally it with the scriptures." This is quite reasonable. We don't accept blind faith; faith should be reasoned and proven. If that is the case, then why not also go to your local Krishna mandir and get some experience there ? Then tally it with the scriptures. Why reject that experience ? Finally, regarding Sankaracarya's statement, "Bhaja Govindam," which Ramana dasi has also quoted, you ask "Which idiot told you this story ?" I have been looking everywhere here for my book by Sankaracharya, to attempt to verify his statement, but unfortunately I have been unable to find the book as yet. But I believe that his statement is in this book. He must have told me himself through the book, which incidentally is not a Vaishnava publication. So then, are you indirectly calling Sankaracarya a fool ? He must have had many disciples like you - brilliant men of keen mind, excellent speculative ability and tremendously eloquent and convincing in debate. The only lack they had was lack of inclination to devotion to the Personality of Godhead. He couldn't directly preach Vaishnavism to them, as they would never accept it, just as you cannot accept it now. So he preached monism, until on his deathbed he grew tired of the charade, then said "Bhaja Govindam." All the best. Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Srikanth, Re: your post # 282 and your continued insistence that Krishna has a physical body, did I not mention previously the Ishopanishad sloka describing Him as the "veinless philosopher." A philosopher needs at least a mouth to speak philosophy, so it is proof that he has a body, and "veinless" suggests something other than a body made of the material elements. Also, in post #324 you are requoting Ramana dasi's quote of Sankaracharya on his deathbed, "bhaja Govindam..." Sankaracharya must certainly be the most famous exponent of monism, although Vaishnavas consider him to be a veiled monist. So then why did he say "chant the names of Govinda" on his deathbed ? It can only mean that he realized that the Govinda conception of Transcendence is the more complete, or he wouldn't have said that. Also, I use the term Vaishnava as the more or less generic term for my practice because Krishnite is not a term commonly used, and Hare Krishna in this country still more or less denotes a cult. Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Bija, Thanks for your posts # 294 & 298 for carrying on the personalist banner. I am on the road with no or poor internet connections, and without my library, but I will rejoin the fray next weekend !! Keep up the bombardment. I, at least, hope to eventually drown in the ocean of love of Godhead. Die to live !! Hari Bol !! Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

Hello again, all. This is an amazing thread and difficult to absorb it all !! Srikanth, in your post #264, you state: ""The question remains "Was Krishna referring to his gross body when he says I? Krishna doesn't have a gross body. As stated previously, His body is described as sac cid ananda vigraha, an eternal body of bliss and knowledge. He doesn't have veins as an ordinary earthly body does. So here is this amazing person, appearing as 1) universal form, 2) all pervasive as Brahman, 3) localized in the heart of every jiva as Paramatma, and 4) appearing in person as Bhagavan. Then He even enters His own creation and plays a role ! In the Bhagavatam, 10th canto (Krishna Book), in the wrestling match, it is described that everyone saw Krishna according to the depth of their vision, but very few realized that He was actually God. Sa mahatma sudurlabah, such a great soul is very rare. Thanks, Kimfelix, for your reference to Gita 10:15 and clarification of Gita 10:8. Regards and pranams, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Srikanth, I also went through most of the posts over the weekend, but didn't get a chance to review every single one. One thing I have learned from this thread is that there is no need for me to be confrontational, offensive or divisive. We are looking for the unifying principle even if we disagree. We are looking for truth, and ultimately truth is unifying in its very nature. I initially missed your post # 78, but reviewed it. You ask "Is there not something beyond these Lokas which are sustaining the existence of all these lokas." I found Gita 10:8 which is quite a famous verse: aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate iti matva bhajante mam budha bhava-samanvitah My translation says : "I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts." I was also looking for a reference that refers to Krishna as God of the gods, as this relates to your post # 78, also, but I haven't been able to find it yet. Bija is much more adept at finding the appropriate references. Bija ? Regards and pranams, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Bart, In response to your statement, "In my view Krishna simply is Brahman, and Bhagavan is His perceivable (personal) form.", in a sense you can see it like that, although it isn't entirely accurate, but I hope you get a chance to study Krishna lila, and better yet, enter into it. Krishna lila transcends brahmananda realization, although of course, you and the other monists would likely disagree with that statement. As I said in prior post the debate between monists and personalists has been going on for aeons (eons) (sp?). I don't think that we'll be able to resolve it today. I can only encourage you in your spiritual pursuit, you are sincere, as are the other monists here. I feel badly because in two instances I was overly critical. That isn't the way to prove the points, it has to be done dispassionately. I feel really badly and I apologize to all of you, although the words have already left my mouth and the damage is done. Pranams to all. Regards, jeffster (AMdas)

How is it possible that a naughty little boy, who steals butter and yoghurt, could be God and the source of brahman ? To the monist mind, this is improbable, implausable, and doesn't even appear philosophically viable. It usually appears to be mere sentimentality. But frankly, it is inconceivable. Krishna is independent and does not readily reveal himself. Only through love, through bhakti, can He be known. I also was something of a monist before I became a Vaishnava. I studied Meher Baba and Kirpal Singh and sensed something lacking in their understanding. At first I thought that the tales of Krishna lila were fairy tales, hyperbole, as Srikanth has pointed out, but upon reading Krishna Book (the summary study of the 10th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam) I became convinced of the viability of the philosophy. This was due to the mercy of an uttama-adhikari devotee, HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, who very cleverly interspersed Bhagavat philosophy throughout the story line. Krishna dispenses causeless mercy, but only to those who surrender, not to those who either wish to usurp His position or become His equal. Shastra states that there is no one equal to or superior to Him, so then how does He allow Mother Yasoda to act in a superior parental capacity, to bind Him with ropes ? This is singularly due to her great love for Him; it is lila ! Again, it is inconceivable, although I am attempting with words to convey it. Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Bart, I am not a scientist, so it is difficult for me to understand some of what you are saying and comment on it. From my perspective, it sounds like speculation, although there are Vaishnava scientists who could likely comment on it. You may want to check out BI, Bhaktivedanta Institute, which is a group of Vaishnava scientists. The model I use of brahman, paramatma, Bhagavan is spiritual science, based on shastra, sadhu and guru. Vaishnavas use the descending process and get our knowledge from sages who have already traversed the path and are then qualified to make an authoritative report. Your process, the ascending process, is done on the strength of the practitioner's own intelligence, and is essentially a process of elimination to arrive at truth. This is a valid process, no doubt, but difficult, and cannot carry you beyond the brahman conception. Bhagavan can only be known through bhakti, which includes surrender. You state that "Bhagavan is not equal to Brahman. Bhagavan is a manifestation (phase-projection) of Brahman." The Vaishnava understanding is that brahman (or brahmajyoti) are the rays emanating from the transcendental body of the person Bhagavan, who is, therefore, the source of brahman, just as sun rays emanate from the sun globe. Therefore, according to Vaishnava understanding brahman is a manifestation of Bhagavan. Brahman is not independent of Bhagavan. Bhagavan certainly does have an impersonal aspect, known as brahman, but Bhagavan is the original source of brahman and He is further known as Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. When you see pictures of Krishna, you will often see a bright effulgence surrounding His face. That effulgence is brahman. Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Bart, Quite nice, but is it the complete conception ? Vaishnavas accept brahman, paramatma and Bhagavan. Monists accept brahman, yogis accept paramatma; but Bhagavan completes the conception and expresses it in its fullest sense. Also, you state "the final stage of mukti may be a complete merge of the soul with the singular consciousness (God)." Saying "may be" means that you are speculating. "May be" suggests also "maybe not." As I have mentioned in prior posts Vaishnavas take help from guru, shastra & sadhu and they spell it out with no need for us to strain our brains to understand the ontology. Kind regards, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Bart, Some monists DO accept the fact of form before liberation, but think that after liberation form is no longer necessary and that in the liberated state they are formless. They may even accept Krishna to some extent, thinking that worship of Krishna is beneficial before liberation, but that after liberation the Krishna conception can be cast off and that ultimately God is formless. The Vaishnava path is both the means and the end, that is to say that we worship Krishna before liberation and we worship Krishna after liberation, and we accept His form as eternal. For a Vaishnava, the difference before and after liberation is only that we have perfected our consciousness and that our bhakti, our love for Krishna becomes the overwhelming aspect, superceding both jnana or yoga. In other words, the ananda, the sweetness of bhakti experienced by the bhakta in his siddha-svarup far exceeds the aspects of either sat, being, or cid, knowledge. It is ultimately a loving exchange beyond sat or cid, but of course, it encompasses them as well. This is per my own understanding, I will have to dig to get a verse from shastra that corroborates this. Bija ? Regards, jeffster/AMdas

One of the characteristics commonly attributed to God is that He is all-powerful, correct ? "Allahu akbar" in Arabic. Therefore, it follows that if God wishes to assert Himself by taking on a form, or a multitude of forms, and He does, that it must be quite readily possible for Him. This is simple logic, is it not ? What is the difficulty in understanding and accepting this simple logic ? Frankly, it is irrefutable, but it again demonstrates that some here must be either dull or envious or both. I say that not as a personal insult - Namaste - I respect the spirit within all of you, but in terms of philosophical understanding, you are sorely lacking and stubborn, as well. Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Bart, Srikant, Ravindran, Radhika & other monists on this thread, There have been valid arguments from the Vaishnava side, also, particularly Bija's and my quotes from shastra. However, it appears that you monists do not accept shastra, or certainly not Vaishnava shastra. This points out the fundamental difference between the approaches of the two systems. Monism is an ascending system, relying on the power of the practitioner to eliminate maya using the method of "neti, neti" - not this, not this. The Vaishnavas use the descending method and instead of attempting to discern ultimate reality by their own limited power, they humbly admit that they are limited and conditioned and take help from guru, shastra and sadhu. This, as has already been pointed out, is the easier of the two methods and gives the quicker results. Krishna corroborates this in Gita, as has already been quoted here by Bija. But since you don't accept Krishna or His philosophy, I have composed a little poem for you: From the Mona-gita of Mona, goddess of monism I am changeless and supreme, I even transcend "serene." From me all benedictions flow. I guide you through your earthly woes. If you're afraid of personality, Then you should certainly worship me. For I would grant your every wish, If you could but offer me a dish. But I cannot speak philosophy, For I've no hands, nor mouth, you see. You cannot offer me a treat, For I'm an Im-personality. Fortunately Krishna is not limited as is Mona. Regards, jeffster/AMdas

I think we are all tiring of this thread, as there have been no new posts for some time. The debate between monists and Vaishnavas has been going on for eons. Generally in a real debate, there is a resolution, with a real winner. In traditional India, the losing side would generally surrender and follow the teachings of the acharyas of the winning side. Now, in the modern age when no one wants to surrender to anyone else, there is no resolution, just endless word jugglery. As I said repeatedly, dear Srikanth, Krishna has no material form. That does not mean that He doesn't have a form, a spiritual form. He has a sac-cid-ananda vigraha body, an eternal form of bliss and knowledge, but it is inconceivable. All your experience with forms leads you to believe that if something has a form, then it must be material. But that is not the case, even though you repeatedly insist that Krishna must be formless. Our dear Bija, in his posts #164 and # 168, gave the highest Vaishnava siddhanta. Yet even after we quote verse after verse, you keep insisting that Krishna is formless. This means only one of two things, and I want to say this as respectfully as I can to your good self, but I must say it nonetheless: you are either dull, insisting on Krishna's formlessness even when being presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or you may be envious. Krishna does have an impersonal feature; it is the brahmajyoti, and it is likened to the rays of the sun. You are being blinded by the brahmajyoti and you think that this conception of Divinity is supreme, but the brahmajyoti is only the rays emanating from the body of that transcendental Person. But you cannot see His personal features unless you surrender through bhakti; otherwise He will not manifest Himself in His entirety to you. I am tired of this thread myself, so I will leave after this post; but following are several Gita verses for your consideration. But first I must say that I consider your statement that the glorifying of Krishna is so much hyperbole to be purely offensive. If you actually (subtly) think that you must be a superior philosopher to Him, with your concocted word jugglery, it really only demonstrates how puffed up you are. And the fact that He has been worshipped in your country for millions of years, with countless great Indian sages and demigods testifying as to His divinity and further testifying that He is superior to all other personalities demonstrates that you are in fact spiritually immature. If you insist on being equal to Him, you will be able to go no farther than the brahmajyoti; you will only perceive the eternality or the brahmananda conception, but not the ultra sweetness of personal reciprocation with Him in one of the eternal rasas. Gita 7:25 - "I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency (yoga-maya); and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible." In the index to my Gita, MacMillan version, there is a list of references under impersonalists, but I do not have time to type in all these references. O.K. here is another verse: Gita 7:24 - "Unintelligent men, who know Me not, think that I have assumed this form and personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is changeless and supreme." Gita 3:32 - But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not practice them regularly, are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and doomed to ignorance and bondage." One last verse: Gita 18:67 - "This confidential knowledge may not be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me." In conclusion, monism is certainly a step on the transcendental path, but I would urge all the monist readers here to attempt to understand, without interpretation, the real essence of Krishna consciousness. Regards and Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

Haribol, Bija ! Actually, your post # 168 is like a slam dunk for me ! I have to study it to imbibe the terrific siddhanta of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas ! Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

Hello Ravindran and Srikant, In speaking of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, He has no material form. He is infinite and inconceivable. He is simultaneously smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest. If we attempt to conceptualize that His form must take up a certain amount of space, then we will miss the point. Because in His transcendental body, there exists no earth, water, fire, air or ether (space). It transcends space and our ordinary conception of form as existing within space, and being limited or circumscribed by space or distance. His form IS special, it is transcendental and it cannot be seen with our ordinary vision, with our sense perception. It can only be seen in our heart of hearts. He is, is it called acintya ? Inconceivable !!!! Likewise, in the spiritual kingdom, there is no space or distance as we ordinarily conceive of it. We cannot contain the Personality of Godhead within our grasp. He is ever beyond it, ever-expanding, unlimited, but He kindly makes Himself available to those who surrender to Him in love. Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Yes, Bija, nicely put. All I would add is that bhakti often appears sentimental to the untrained eye, because, after all, the bhakta externally only appears to be "speaking, sleeping, cooking, washing, etc..." But the bhakta is attempting to do all these seemingly ordinary things with full dedication to Krishna. Gita 18:56 states: "Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by my grace." There are other similar verses, perhaps I will search for them. Pranams, jeffster/AMdas