primate

Agreed..

http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm (Nice.. )

How about: We are essential or necessary, integral components of God..?

Then I guess we agree. By the way, science cannot prove that any physical theory is absolutely true. It can only infer from empirical data, the statistical likelihood of any particular theory or model to be absolutely true.

Ultimately all knowledge is material. Knowledge exists as independent knowledge, only when it is memorized or written down or published on the internet, so that it can be communicated and be known through our (imperfect) material senses. All knowledge concerns the self, because we are the subject of knowledge or the knower. And all knowledge concerns God, because (philosophically) everything is God. So this is material Vedic knowledge, which can be verified. Spiritual Vedic knowledge can’t be verified directly and must simply be accepted. Yes, the manifest world is only a shadow reflection of reality, but it is all we have. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that we cannot find scientific evidence for God’s existence by studying this material world. In fact, quantum physics indicates that there must be an underlying non-causal reality that produces our consciously perceived causal world. I agree that we will never be able to scientifically prove the existence of God. However, we may find compelling verifiable evidence that backs up Vedic spiritual knowledge as well as the claims of God realized individuals. No. The scientific method assures that scientific knowledge is true, irrespective of human subjectivity or fallaciousness and imperfect human senses, simply because it can be verified by anyone through experiments or tests or logic. If knowledge can’t be verified, then it is not scientific. Such knowledge is ultimately just speculation and you cannot know for sure if it is true or just a hallucination.

Nope. This news item is dated: 27th February 2009.

This aversion to science, which seems to be common among Gaudiya Vashnavas, is based on the idea that studying observable phenomena in the material world (the primary object of science) is a form of ignorance and/or material involvement, that will keep practitioners of science from God realisation. And, of course, some statements of Prabhupada are not particularly helpful when it comes to understanding science as it is and to appreciate the value of the scientific method. After all, scientific knowledge of the material world is the only knowledge we have that is verifiably true. All other knowledge is, with all respect, just speculation. The ultimate goal of science is to understand reality including human consciousness. And I believe that our manifest world is a real conscious phenomenon, albeit illusory, which somehow must reflect reality. We do not imagine or make up this world. So, what if this 'relative' scientific method some day delivers verifiable or testable evidence for God’s existence? Wouldn’t that contribute to general God consciousness..?

Hello Jeffster, Knowledge is all we have! Even religious convictions are based on knowledge, derived from religious scriptures or personal experience. I don’t see how material scientific knowledge is any different from religious knowledge. And any attempt to combine these two types of knowledge, may advance our understanding of reality as it is. And then there is philosophy, the precursor of both scientific - and religious knowledge. How can there be answers if we don’t ask (philosophical) questions? Science is all about asking questions and methods of producing verifiable or reproducible answers. Asking about God is also science. And Prabhupada himself coined the term "science of self-realisation", in order to advance Krishna consciousness within the scientific community..

I would say, this depends on the element (or factor) of 'time'. We might not all die together and then reincarnate together. There may be a specific per soul reincarnation order or sequence or rhythm, which will separate us in time in our next material births..

Yes, I try to understand the relation between Brahman and God or Krishna. You say that our human consciousness or mind or brain is this relation, because we want to see forms and patterns in everything. I’m not so sure. Is it possible to see form in something formless? Can all material forms be just the product of our mind? I think that there must be a reality behind everything we consciously perceive. Even if our (material) world is an illusory projection or transformation of reality, all form must have a real origin or representation in reality. And if form exists, then I guess God may also have a (trancendental) form..

Isn't that almost equivalent? The difference is that 'existence as God's consciousness', could imply that we are God. And 'existence in God's consciouss' implies that we are a part of God..

Well, then possibly the nature of God or Krishna is (the) void. I have no problem with that at all. Anyway, I think there may be some truth in Sonic Yogi’s suggestion that Brahman is the nature of God. So your notion of (the) void still seems to have room for a Nirguna - and a Saguna aspect of Brahman. Maybe it’s not completely void after all, just without qualities (unknowable?). Personally I think Brahman is a conscious singularity, which is spatially void. Agreed.. Well, I didn’t want to anger anybody. I apologize. I responded to Sonic Yogi saying in one post: "Krishna is the God of God", which I think is an interesting idea. Yet, in subsequent posts, he explained this statement by describing Krishna as God of al demigods, which I think is irrelevant to the discussion.. And if the knowledge in the Vedas is all that clear, then why do different religious points of view or, for that matter, different religions exist?

But you said: "Krishna is the God of God". You didn’t say: Krishna is the God of all demigods, which may be true, but isn’t the issue. What we are trying to understand here is Brahman in relation to God/Krishna and/or vice versa. You also said "Brahman is the nature of God". Do you perhaps mean that God/Krishna is Saguna Brahman, which is understandable, and Nirguna Brahman is the (unknowable) nature of God/Krishna? If this whole system is God, then Krishna may be termed "the (personal) God of God". And within God, Balarama and the whole subsequent Vaisnavist pantheon as well as humans exist..

So, brahman is the all pervading conscious - and spiritual nature or substrate of God, but brahman is not God. Krishna is the supreme personality of God (beyond God); equal to our general religious concept of a personal God (the God of God). Humans are not Krishna or God, but part of Krishna (and God)..

No. You exist in God's consciousness.

Agreed.. I called our material world (everything) a conscious projection or sub-set of total consciousness (God). And because this total consciousness ultimately is a singularity or point (brahman), our perception of a material world separate from ourselves is an illusion (maya)..

Isn't Krishna God? Everything is Brahman..

God is Brahman.. Agreed.

I didn't say that "we do not have any control or choice in our life". I said: if we don't have free will, then karma would be a meaningless concept. Actually I think we do have free will, although our free will is not so much the freedom to act, as the freedom to become conscious of God. This is confirmed in your post. From the idea that everything is ultimately our consciousness and that all consciousness is ultimately God's consciousness and God is perfect, it can be derived that there must be a perfect reason or purpose for our conscious material existence. So what is this reason or purpose? Who are we exactly? And why are we here? I just don't understand..

Exactly, in a way we must be God experiencing individual material life. So why does he want us to give that up?

But He already is controlling me. And I don't have any individual free will to surrender. Free will is an illusion, just like material causality. The only thing I have left to surrender is my personal consciousness. I guess that's the whole idea. But then again, what would be the purpose of the existence of individual consciousness to begin with?

If reality is strictly deterministic, then we cannot have free will. Everything would be eternally predetermined. Karma would be a meaningless concept, because we do not have any control or choice in our life. We would be just this conscious experience. Now what can be the purpose of that? If, on the other hand, reality is more subtle than chaos and not strictly deterministic, then we may have free will. But this must ultimately be God’s free will, because we are a part of God and we are one with God. We are God’s conscious experience of us and our Karma is God’s Karma. Now what can be the purpose of that? If God is the ultimate controller of everything we consciously experience, this must be some form of education or training, and individual free will is part of the illusion of material life. So what can be the purpose of that? Is God educating Himself? You see, if God has any purpose for us, why doesn’t He just cut the crap and get on with it?

The only question I think about is: why? Why are we here? For what purpose..?

<center><br /> <embed src=" " type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /></center><br /><br /><br />

Yes, this is also the conclusion of a (deterministic) chaos theory of reality. Ultimately the oscillation of a singular formless conscious point (or entity) is all that exists; the sum total of all consciousness. In the model, this is God. Although that may sound like impersonalism, form and structure exist in phase-projections of the oscillation, as sub-sets of this original consciousness. The outermost form (like the Mandelbrot Set) is the supreme form of God, which must be a person. A chaos theory explains why this supreme form of God must be a person. This is simply because we ourselves are persons. Structure in chaotic phase-projections has a 'fractal geometry', which means that it is 'hierarchical and self-similar', which means that similar structures exist within similar structures, within similar structures, infinitely. So, if humans are parts of the absolute whole, then the absolute whole must be similar to us: a conscious person. Thus, God is a person. Finally, it’s obvious that in this model everything is simultaneously one with God and different from God. We are projections, or different conscious sub-sets, of this singular original (and personal) total consciousness: God..