Bart Happel

Dear Bhaktajan, I’ve just finished eating a meal, consisting of mashed potatoes and vegetables, topped with a deliciously prepared piece of pork-meat. When I was eating, my thoughts were with the content of this topic. In fact, I noticed that my attention (appetite) was constantly drawn towards the meat; even though I clearly realized what might have been the ultimate fate of the animal that I was eating. And I really enjoyed eating the meat! Perhaps this particular piggy died (relatively) peacefully. I don’t know.. I think I do know, however, that where I live, it is common practice in slaughterhouses, to first kill animals by electrocution, before they are boiled or butchered. Killing the animals first, is much more efficient, less noisy, and better for the worker’s peace of mind. Actually I don’t see why animals would be killed and processed for consumption (large scale) any other way, anywhere.. Kind regards, Bart

I see you didn't (re)read - or you didn't understand my posts (and related posts).

I guess that seeing the essential ‘emptiness’ of material objects, may be a good ‘realization’. It may 'show' a person his own spiritual position, in relation to material nature and relative to God. However, I’m not so sure about seeing the essential emptiness of ‘the self’.. Kind regards, Bart

Perhaps this is a Key : 8.9 One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is smaller than the smallest, who is the maintainer of everything, who is beyond all material conception, who is inconceivable, and who is always a person. He is luminous like the sun and, being transcendental, is beyond this material nature. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

That's Ok with me. Kind regards, Bart

Your style of debating is really interesting, but it will not provide real answers in my opinion. My advice is: Don’t continuously revert other people's arguments. Answer questions as they are stated, and pose questions when you genuinely do not understand something. Maybe then you will learn something.. Kind regards, Bart

Yet another analogy: In physics, systems containing 2 particles (that interact by means of some force) can usually be solved analytically. 3-particle systems, however, can't be solved analytically. The behavior of such systems is called 'complex' and is beyond mathematical analysis. Kind regards, Bart

When, in this phrase, ‘you’ is part of ‘I’ (i.e., you are part of Krishna), then there is no conflict with advaita (monism). There may be a conflict with dvaita (dualism), however. I understood elsewhere, that the meaning of the Sanskrit terms may be different from the meaning of the English terms: The advaita/dvaita controversy denotes the question whether or not we can ‘become one’ with God. This seems to imply an initial difference. The monism/dualism controversy (in the same context), denotes the question whether or not we (and everything in our individually perceived reality, including ‘other’ perceiving, conscious living beings), are integral parts of a universal whole (God). Personally I adhere to the latter view. That is (apart from terminology): monism is the idea that everything is always part of God and as such everything is always ‘one’; and dualism is the idea that everything may be different from God and as such there may be at least 2 different forces in the universe. Herein, as a scientist, I opt for monism, because it is a much simpler solution, with equal (and possibly even better) explanatory potential of perceptual phenomena (Occam’s razor: the simpler model is always better). I also think this agrees much better with the ideas in the ‘Bhagavad Gita’. So, in my view, ‘you’ do not exist as an autonomous entity that is somehow not a part of the whole (God). There never was and there will never be, a time when ‘you’ exist without God. Perhaps a small, intricate thing that I like to call ‘free will’ also exists, but that’s probably largely irrelevant.. Kind regards, Bart

Chapter 11 of the ‘Bhagavad Gita as it is’ deals with the ‘Universal Form’. The 4 verses below, describe what Arjuna saw when Krishna displayed His universal form to Arjuna. Did Arjuna see a large-scale ‘fractal geometry’ (like the Mandelbrot set in posts #79-80)? 11.10-11 Arjuna saw in that universal form unlimited mouths and unlimited eyes. It was all wondrous. The form was decorated with divine, dazzling ornaments and arrayed in many garbs. He was garlanded gloriously, and there were many scents smeared over His body. All was magnificent, all-expanding, unlimited. This was seen by Arjuna.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Purport: These two verses indicate that there is no limit to the hands, mouths, legs, etc., of the Lord. These manifestations are distributed throughout the universe and are unlimited. By the grace of the Lord, Arjuna could see them while sitting in one place. That is due to the inconceivable potency of Krsna.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 11.12 If hundreds of thousands of suns rose up at once into the sky, they might resemble the effulgence of the Supreme Person in that universal form.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Purport: What Arjuna saw was indescribable, yet Sanjaya is trying to give a mental picture of that great revelation to Dhrtarastra. Neither Sanjaya nor Dhrtarastra was present, but Sanjaya, by the grace of Vyasa, could see whatever happened. Thus he now compares the situation, as far as it can be understood, to an imaginable phenomenon (i.e. thousands of suns).<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 11.13 At that time Arjuna could see in the universal form of the Lord the unlimited expansions of the universe situated in one place although divided into many, many thousands.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Purport: The word tatra (there) is very significant. It indicates that both Arjuna and Krsna were sitting on the chariot when Arjuna saw the universal form. Others on the battlefield could not see this form because Krsna gave the vision only to Arjuna. Arjuna could see in the body of Krsna many thousands of universes. As we learn from Vedic scriptures, there are many universes and many planets. Some of them are made of earth, some are made of gold, some are made of jewels, some are very great, some are not so great, etc. Sitting on his chariot, Arjuna could see all these universes. But no one could understand what was going on between Arjuna and Krsna.<o:p></o:p>

In those terms: quantum physical data = perception; seeing dynamical similarities between quantum physical data and chaos = inference (also via the working theory of quantum mechanics). Read my posts! Kind regards, Bart

Your only requirement was 'reasonable assumption'; not 'hard proof'. (You said: "there is no inference or reason to assume all is one.")

I guess, ‘nothingness’ still is something, or else you should have used the term ‘nothing’. The latter, of course, would be absurd. And Buddhism simply doesn’t deny that we perceive ‘something’ with our senses. That would be equally absurd. Consequently, Buddhists accept a reality, whether they like it or not. Kind regards, Bart

I suggest you (re)read this thread: http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/448303-does-free-will-exist.html Kind regards, Bart

Buddhism doesn’t deny our ‘perception’ of what we commonly refer to as matter or ‘the material world’. It just sees this as illusory. Statements like: "this cosmic manifestation is false", imply that there is a perceptual cosmic manifestation, although it is false. So, in my understanding, Buddhism only denies the reality of what we perceive, but not the reality of the percept itself. Since there is a percept, there must at least exist some real ‘underlying mechanism’ that produces it. In this ontological sense, a ‘representation’ of everything in our perceived cosmic manifestation must somehow exist in reality. Ultimately, reality may even be ‘void’ in perceptual terms, but reality must exist. Kind regards, Bart

The 'existence' of flowers is probably acknowledged in buddhism. Just our 'perception' of flowers may be false.. Kind regards, Bart

Dear Bhaktajan, Thank you for your explicit answer. I guess, one must remember Krishna when one dies.. Kind regards, Bart

@ Bhaktajan Thanks for the compliment! A question: Do you consider yourself 'realized' or not? I'm serious Kind regards, Bart

Isn't there a semantical difference between the terms 'awareness' and 'consciousness'? Isn't 'awareness' more perceptual than 'consiousness'? Kind regards, Bart

I have found 3 verses in the ‘Bhagavad Gita as it is’, that may be particularly relevant to the content of this thread. Most notably: the 3rd<SUP> </SUP>verse strikingly corresponds to the basic idea of the discussed model of quantum reality (in which a single point 'describes' the entire universe), when Krishna refers to himself as: “The Supreme Person, who is smaller than the smallest”. Also note the commentary here by Sri Srimad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada! <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> 3.3 The Blessed Lord said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who realize the Self. Some are inclined to understand Him by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others are inclined to know Him by devotional work. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 4.35 And when you have thus learned the truth, you will know that all living beings are but part of Me--and that they are in Me, and are Mine.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> 8.9 One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is smaller than the smallest, who is the maintainer of everything, who is beyond all material conception, who is inconceivable, and who is always a person. He is luminous like the sun and, being transcendental, is beyond this material nature. <o:p></o:p> Commentary by Sri Srimad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada: <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The process of thinking of the Supreme is mentioned in this verse. The foremost point is that He is not impersonal or void. One cannot meditate on something impersonal or void. That is very difficult. The process of thinking of Krsna, however, is very easy and is factually stated herein. First of all, He is purusa, spiritual, Rama and Krsna, and is described herein as kavim; that is, He knows past, present and future and therefore knows everything. He is the oldest personality because He is the origin of everything; everything is born out of Him. He is also the supreme controller of the universe, maintainer and instructor of humanity. He is smaller than the smallest. The living entity is one ten-thousandth part of the tip of a hair, but the Lord is so inconceivably small that He enters into the heart of this particle. Therefore He is called smaller than the smallest. As the Supreme, He can enter into the atom and into the heart of the smallest and control him as the Supersoul. Although so small, He is still all-pervading and is maintaining everything. By Him all these planetary systems are sustained. We often wonder how these big planets are floating in the air. It is stated here that the Supreme Lord, by His inconceivable energy, is sustaining all these big planets and systems of galaxies. The word acintya (inconceivable) is very significant in this connection. God's energy is beyond our conception, beyond our thinking jurisdiction, and is therefore called inconceivable (acintya). Who can argue this point? He pervades this material world and yet is beyond it. We cannot even comprehend this material world, which is insignificant compared to the spiritual world--so how can we comprehend what is beyond? Acintya means that which is beyond this material world, that which our argument, logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch, that which is inconceivable. Therefore intelligent persons, avoiding useless argument and speculation, should accept what is stated in scriptures like the Vedas, Gita, and Srimad-Bhagavatam and follow the principles they set down. This will lead one to understanding. <o:p></o:p>

Dear supercow, Don't worry. 'Advanced action theory' does not exist. Kind regards, Bart

So, Buddha was playing 'games' ?

Interesting question..

So, glory to the Internet.

OK, my previous reply was apparently removed by the moderators.. So, let me state it differently: What do you mean with the term ‘Satan’ and how does it relate to something like ‘numerical probability’? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p> </o:p> Kind regards, Bart

This may also be related to our fear of our own death. The way we treat other people may be the way we will be treated by other people some day. Pets can’t kill us. Other people can. Kind regards, Bart