primate

As to the existence of sastric proof, my personal answer would be 'no'. However, I can provide some compelling computational evidence that might interest you..

It is not explicitely in Srimad Bhagavatam or Vamana purana. It only seems to be part of a legend related to the Onam - or Vaman Jayanti festival of Kerala: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onam http://www.swaminarayan.org/festivals/vamanjayanti

Brahman = Bhagavan = Krishna !?

Perhaps you confuse some general notion of chaos with the notion of mathematical - or deterministic chaos. The idea that the weather is a chaotic system, is an example of the first type of chaos. The fact that a simple mathematical formula or physical principle can produce infinite structure is an example of the latter type of chaos. Such different notions of chaos are also being confused in Sonic Yogi’s post. The first type of chaos can perhaps be termed 'causal chaos'. Chaotic weather is supposed to emerge from the actions and reactions of uncountable molecules trapped within the earth’s atmosphere, and the whole system is driven by the heat of the sun. This may be called chaos, but I don’t see much order or structure in short term weather patterns and, apart from regularly changing seasons, long term weather patterns look very erratic. They look not unlike stock market charts, and the behaviour of global markets is another example of causal chaos, driven by financial transactions. But, again, I don’t see infinite order and structure in global economic processes. In contrast to such causal chaos (the messy kind), mathematical chaos is non-causal in principle. Infinite fractal order can emerge from the simple iteration of a single mathematical formula (e.g., the Mandelbrot set). And the particular chaotic system that I have in mind, would be like the physical system of a continuously oscillating particle in space. Such chaotic oscillations are known from computer simulations in particle physics. For example, the trajectory of a particle in a theoretical three-particle system, is chaotic. Now, when such a particle is conscious, it could be conscious of its chaotic trajectory, as well as of all the infinite fractal structure present within all possible discontinuous phase-projections of its chaotic trajectory. At any moment, the particle or entity resides at exactly one location in space. However, in computer simulations, we can plot a (discontinuous) sub-set of all its locations at regular intervals, to produce a phase-projection in which the complex fractal order of the oscillation becomes apparent. You can see that there’s really no causation involved. Infinitely ordered structure is simply present within the singular chaotic oscillation. And if human consciousness is a phase-projection of a conscious chaotic oscillation, then nothing in our world can be causal. Also note that we already know from quantum physics that, at the most fundamental quantum level of material reality, causality doesn’t exist..

I agree that deterministic chaos at best suggests a possible scenario in which a conscious singularity or god produces all individual consciousness. In this sense, god would be the cause of all causes and the basis of everything. The theory of chaos indicates how a relatively simple deterministic system might be sufficient to explain all complexity in reality as we know it, and as it is portrayed in quantum physics and general relativity, as well as in Vedic literature. Of course, chaos theory doesn’t say anything about god or consciousness. So, ultimately, something even more subtle than deterministic chaos must underlie all of reality. Hence, the term 'conscious chaos'. And if conscious chaos is not completely deterministic (as you suggest), then god could indeed be the controller of everything. Moreover, if conscious chaos is 'like' deterministic chaos (as I suggest), then god might take advantage of the characteristic properties of chaos, such as self-organization and critical dependence on initial conditions, allowing him to control the largely autonomous macroscopic evolution of reality by means of infinitesimal microscopic interventions. He would be the ultimate magician..

I don’t see how this would prove that "Sri Krsna is the basis of Nirguna Brahm". It’s not explicitely stated. It says: in your Brahman aspect you are devoid of qualities, but in your Bhagavan aspect you may accept me..

Well, in chaos theory this singular 'oscillating atomic entity' would be the chaotic system itself. I simply added a 'conscious quality' to it, to explain all of our conscious reality..

I discussed a quantum chaos theory of reality, in which the 'whole' of reality is viewed as a chaotic (complex nonlinear) conscious oscillation. In such a model, Brahman would be the one oscillating atomic conscious entity. So you see, that Brahman cannot be "cut separated or created". He is original and atomic; smaller than the smallest. Nevertheless, his conscious oscillation forms/creates the whole of (conscious) reality; larger than the largest. In the model, Brahman is continuously conscious of his oscillation, and his complete or perfect consciousness is a person (Krishna). Individual (human) consciousness is also personal, but we are just an incomplete, discontinues sub-set or projection of Brahman’s original consciousness. Therefore, we are qualitatively the same as Brahman/Krishna, but quantitatively different..

So, in conclusion: Brahman is the basis of all consciousness. No conscious entity can be the basis of Brahman. All individual consciousness, is a part or a specific conscious sub-set or projection or function or quality of Brahman. Nevertheless, the whole Brahman, is a conscious entity himself, called Vishnu, Krishna or God..

হরে কৃষ্ণ হরে কৃষ্ণ কৃষ্ণ কৃষ্ণ হরে হরে হরে রাম হরে রাম রাম রাম হরে হরে

No, Verdana is just a bad font. Use Tahoma when you want to display text with Diacritics.

I didn’t overlook this last part of BG 9.4: "but I am not in them". I deliberately omitted it, because I wanted to make the point that everything is God: "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me…". This cannot be misunderstood. The literal Sanskrit text says: "I am not situated in them". And in his purport, Prabhupada is also a bit vague about it, when he restates the whole verse as: "I am everywhere, and everything is in Me, but still I am aloof". Anyway, the verse says: "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded". The verse doesn’t say: "By My energy the entire universe is pervaded". I don’t see a way around the interpretation that God himself physically pervades the entire universe. And I think that the last part, "I am not (situated) in them", simply means that we are a part of God and not the other way round. Krishna seems to state here that He is our universe or our consciousness, but simultaneously He is more than our universe and we are only a (small) conscious part of Him. It also means that Krishna is more than our ego or our body. He is our entire universe!

Here it is, Krsna with the dot beneath the 'r': Kṛṣṇa The font is Tahoma. When you change the font to Verdana (the default font), the dot moves to the 'a'. And back to the 'r', when you change the font to Tahoma again. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

Melvin, In Bhagavad-gita 9.4 Krishna himself says: "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me...". This can only mean that ultimately everything is God. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> (In terms of chaos, we are just an ignorant discontinuous phase-projection of this singular all pervading consciousness or God.. ) <o:p></o:p>

No. Critical dependence on initial conditions is not the same as dynamic instability. A chaotic system cannot collapse or explode, for example. In terms of dynamics, chaos is a nonlinear - or complex equilibrium. Self organization is a function of the fixed state-space attractor of a chaotic system, or vice versa. Murphy’s law? You mean: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong? I don’t see the relevance for chaos. Again, (mathematical) chaos is completely deterministic..

Correct! That will never happen. Chaos is often called 'deterministic chaos', which refers to the fact that although a chaotic system evolves completely deterministically according to some algorithm or physical principle, the future of the system cannot be known with certainty by any other means than running the system itself . And if all of reality is the product of a singular chaotic oscillation, a man made machine would have to be a part of the system and therefore it would be different from the system and therefore it can never predict the future of reality with infinite accuracy. Chaotic systems are characterized by a so called 'critical dependence on initial conditions', which means that even an infinitesimal difference in initial conditions would be amplified and result in a completely different evolution of the system. This is what makes chaos unpredictable. But chaos is not randomness. There is infinite order in chaos. A chaotic system resides in specific regions of its state-space more often than in other regions. In chaos theory this is known as the 'state-space attractor'. This attractor is an unchanging, fixed property of a chaotic system, which is manifest in the infinite fractal structure of a phase-projection of the system. Nevertheless, although some states are more probable than others, at any moment it is uncertain where the system will reside the next moment. This is like the fundamental uncertainty we see in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical systems evolve completely deterministically according to quantum wave functions. But when a measurement is made, the wave function collapses, and it is uncertain which of multiple probable quantum states will actualize in reality. In fact, I proposed that this quantum reality is nothing but a phase-projection of the universal singular chaotic oscillation. And, consequently, so is our entire material world..

Ego is any perception or consciousness of identity or self and/or (material) difference..

I see that I (primate) am now designated as the starter of this thread. The starter of this thread, however, is Melvin1 I also notice that the font-size of my post #2 has been changed to a larger size! What's up? Edit: OK, that's much better. The larger font-size is fine with me..

Well, my only agenda is to personally understand all of reality as it is. And I’m quite sure, reality and consciousness is not adequately or fully described by a 'sun metaphor'. Chaos, on the other hand, apparently provides a simple and complete theory of reality, which is compatible with the reality described in Vedic literature, including God/Krishna/Brahman. I should think this might also interest you and others. But my main motivation for posting these ideas here, is to have them debunked or verified by other members, for my own information. However, I first had to explain them.

You should consider (mathematical) chaos only as a metaphor of reality. In Bhagavad-gita 9.4 Krsna states: "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them." This is exactly what a chaos metaphor implies, although you may not see it, yet.. Prabhupada uses the sun (its rays, its disk, and its internal principle) as a metaphor. Does this mean he claims that reality = a sun? No. It’s just a concept or model or idea that he uses to aid our understanding of the fundamental relation between God and material reality. If Prabhupada would have been familiar with the theory of chaos, and would have really understood its implications, I’m quite sure he would have been compelled to use a chaos metaphor, which is ultimatey much simpler and much more powerful than a sun metaphor..

Actually it's Kṛṣṇa or कृष्ण (BTW, if you see any 'squares' in the above text, then your browser doesn't support the font used.)

Then I think we have the same understanding of Brahman. You call it unmanifest and formless or void; I call it non-manifest singular consciousness. I don’t see any difference.. Pradhana is what I would call (conscious) chaos. I would say: Eternal conscious chaos is the cause of the manifest state. And human consciousness is the subject of the manifest state. I would say: Conscious chaos is the sum total of all material (human) consciousness, which is contained therein. When material consciousness is manifested [by the interaction of the three modes of material nature], the manifestation is called the material world. I would say: Impersonalists say that non-manifest singular consciousness (Brahman) is without form or qualities. One might say that conscious chaos is the non-manifest singular consciousness, but actually this is not the case. Conscious chaos is distinct from non-manifest singular consciousness [because in non-manifest singular consciousness the material modes of nature do not exist]. The material world is also different from conscious chaos because in the material world there are manifestations. I would say: The stage of material nature in which the illusion of cause and effect is not consciously manifested is called (conscious) chaos. I would say: Conscious chaos is not time, because time is just a theoretical concept derived from actions and reactions in our illusory manifest material world. I would say: Nor can conscious chaos be equated with conditioned human consciousness, because this material manifestation is not eternal. And I think it can be proven.. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

Perhaps you have a wrong concept of chaos. Chaos isn’t randomness. As I said before, "chaos is infinite order". Where do you think fractal structure comes from? Where do you think the Mandelbrot set comes from? It’s all inherently present within these simple (singular) systems. The dynamic expression of the infinite order within chaotic systems is called 'self-organization'. Why wouldn’t Brahman (Krishna) employ such an infinitely creative dynamic principle?

What is "formless void"? Void is just void. There cannot be formless void. Indeed, consciousness is all that exists. Mathematical chaos (Brahman..) is famous for its self-organizing quality or inherent order. Merging into Brahman may be like merging into a void, because Brahman without its dynamics is experienced as a static singularity, but it is not void. Nothing needs to be planned. Brahman automatically organizes itself. And everything that ever consciously exists, ultimately is Brahman..

You say: Brahman is the "Void". What exactly do you mean? Void is emptiness or nothing, whereas I’m trying to convey the idea that Brahman is the ultimate conscious principle in reality..