primate
-
Content Count
553 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by primate
-
-
Ok sorry to go back to this, i need more help in finding the reference that states the Lord Vamana actually placed His foot on King Bali's head. According to the Srimad Bhagvatam King Bali offers his head at 8.22.2 but by the time he's finished explaining Prahlad Maharaj appears on the scene at 8.22.12. The Lord instructs Bali to go to Sutala at 8.22.33 but i couldnt find the reference where the Lord places His foot on Bali's head. Have i over looked something or is it in another text somewhere?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:
-
If i call Shankar,as Shankar Bhagavan,it doesn't mean that Sri Krsna is subserviant to Him.It only signifies Their Indifference.
Brahman = Bhagavan = Krishna !?
-
...
Without this knowledge people believe in various theories of why there is an appearance of patterns or design in our world. Chaos theory tries to explain reality without enough information of how our world actually functions, therefore it is completely useless as an explanatory schema because it relies on the conception that the physical reality is causal, when the truth is that physical reality is a virtual reality within and controlled by a super-conscious cosmic computer.
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..
-
Using Chaos Theory to describe Brahman doesn't work because Chaos Theory is based upon determinism and physical or material or illusory causality, whereas Brahman is not subject to determinism or physical or material causality due to it's being the primeval underlying causal agent of all causes aka the cause of all causes, and possessing absolute and total free will Brahman is not subject to determinism. Chaos theory can possibly have some similarities to the relationship between a jiva and Brahman, but not in the usual understanding of Chaos Theory where actions and reactions do not have an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent controlling agent overseeing and controlling everything in existence.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..
-
if not,why would Sri Shankaracharya say this :udAsInaH stabdhaH satatam aguNaH saGgarahito
bhavAM tAtaH kAtaH paramiha bhavej jIvanagatiH
akasmAd asmAkaM yadi na kurute sneham atha tat
vasasva svIyAntar vimala jaThare 'smin punarapi ..
"(In Your 'Brahman' aspect) You're unmovable,
indifferent, devoid of qualities
and attributes as well as associates.
If You contnue to be so, how can I ever exist
and who could be my eternal shelter?
(In Your 'Bhagavan' aspect) O my Divine Father, Sri Krishna!
If You do not actively accept me
at once with your causeless Grace,
please at least be prepared to stay passively for
innumerable lives in my pure heart again!" (In Your 'Paramatma'
aspect)
????
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..
-
What does 'oscillating atomic conscious entity' mean ??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..
-
Whole Brahm is Sri KRsna.But individual consciousness is a part/conscious sub set of Whole Brahm?
No.This cannot be.The geeta states that Cit vastu cannot be CUT/SEVERED/DRIED/SEPERATED OR CREATED.
Individual consciousness is a projection of Brahm ?
Yes.This can be accepted,considering Both Brahm and Jeevatma to be two DIFFERENT personalities eternally and hence the projection(not creation).
Individual consciousness is a function of Brahm ??
Since it is observed that each and every jeevatma has independent WILL,the Individual consciousness CANNOT be called a function of Brahm.
Individual consciousness is a quality of Brahm ??
The Vedas state that the Quality of Brahm is Sat.Chit.Ananda.
But so is the Jeevatma Sat.Chit.Ananda.
So Jeevatma and Brahm are said to qualitatively one and not the way you say it.
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 হরেকৃষ্ণ -
Don`t tell me ( primate) that`s not an example of a conscious chaos.
No, Verdana is just a bad font. Use Tahoma when you want to display text with Diacritics.
-
"..All Beings are in Me,But I am NOT in them."You seemed to have missed this.
...
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!
Bhagavad-gita As It Is 9.4
maya tatam idam sarvam
jagad avyakta-murtina
mat-sthani sarva-bhutani
na caham teshv avasthitah
SYNONYMS
maya -- by Me; tatam -- pervaded; idam -- this; sarvam -- all; jagat -- cosmic manifestation; avyakta-murtina -- by the unmanifested form; mat-sthani -- in Me; sarva-bhutani -- all living entities; na -- not; ca -- also; aham -- I; teshu -- in them; avasthitah -- situated.
TRANSLATION
By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
PURPORT
The Supreme Personality of Godhead is not perceivable through the gross material senses. It is said,
atah sri-krishna-namadi
na bhaved grahyam indriyaih
sevonmukhe hi jihvadau
svayam eva sphuraty adah
(Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu 1.2.234)
Lord Sri Krishna's name, fame, pastimes, etc., cannot be understood by material senses. Only to one who is engaged in pure devotional service under proper guidance is He revealed. In the Brahma-samhita (5.38) it is stated, premanjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena santah sadaiva hridayeshu vilokayanti: one can see the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Govinda, always within himself and outside himself if one has developed the transcendental loving attitude towards Him. Thus for people in general He is not visible. Here it is said that although He is all-pervading, everywhere present, He is not conceivable by the material senses. This is indicated here by the word avyakta-murtina. But actually, although we cannot see Him, everything is resting in Him. As we have discussed in the Seventh Chapter, the entire material cosmic manifestation is only a combination of His two different energies -- the superior, spiritual energy and the inferior, material energy. Just as the sunshine is spread all over the universe, the energy of the Lord is spread all over the creation, and everything is resting in that energy.
Yet one should not conclude that because He is spread all over He has lost His personal existence. To refute such an argument the Lord says, "I am everywhere, and everything is in Me, but still I am aloof." For example, a king heads a government which is but the manifestation of the king's energy; the different governmental departments are nothing but the energies of the king, and each department is resting on the king's power. But still one cannot expect the king to be present in every department personally. That is a crude example. Similarly, all the manifestations that we see and everything that exists, both in this material world and in the spiritual world, are resting on the energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The creation takes place by the diffusion of His different energies, and, as stated in the Bhagavad-gita, vishtabhyaham idam kritsnam: He is everywhere present by His personal representation, the diffusion of His different energies.
http://vedabase.net/bg/9/4/en1
-
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.
-
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.
(In terms of chaos, we are just an ignorant discontinuous phase-projection of this singular all pervading consciousness or God..
) -
Even if the chaos phenomenon automatically organizes itself and is infinitely in order yet it`sdynamically unstable. It folows Murphy`s Law.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..
-
That`s as close as your conscious chaos can get. Man has yet to invent a machine that can predict say, when wlll hearts stop beating with infinite accuracy.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.. -
I`m sorry, primate. There are viewer`s who doesn`t see it that way if you use the chaos theory as a metaphor. They might see it as a hidden agenda or advocacy. I have no argument with the sun metaphor because it`s simpler not revolutionary.
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.
-
Your conscious chaos, primate, can never be Brahman because it`s not transcendental. It can be conceived through computer simulations. It was Edward Lorenz a meteorologist who first discovered this oddity in physics....
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.)
-
...
The Void that I speak of is as I state it: Without "qualities" ergo, formless.
Brahman is unmanifest.
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..
There is pradhana [Perhaps you have a wrong concept of pradhana]
Pradhana is what I would call (conscious) chaos.
SB 3.26.10
The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The unmanifested eternal combination of the three modes is the cause of the manifest state and is called pradhana. It is called prakriti when in the manifested stage of existence.
I would say: Eternal conscious chaos is the cause of the manifest state. And human consciousness is the subject of the manifest state.
PURPORT
The Lord points out material nature in its subtle stage, which is called pradhana, and He analyzes this pradhana.
The explanation of pradhana and prakriti is that pradhana is the subtle, undifferentiated sum total of all material elements. Although they are undifferentiated, one can understand that the total material elements are contained therein. When the total material elements are manifested by the interaction of the three modes of material nature, the manifestation is called prakriti.
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.
Impersonalists say that Brahman is without variegatedness and without differentiation. One may say that pradhana is the Brahman stage, but actually the Brahman stage is not pradhana. pradhana is distinct from Brahman because in Brahman there is no existence of the material modes of nature. One may argue that the mahat-tattva is also different from pradhana because in the mahat-tattva there are manifestations.
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.
The actual explanation of pradhana, however, is given here: when the cause and effect are not clearly manifested (avyakta), the reaction of the total elements does not take place, and that stage of material nature is called pradhana.
I would say: The stage of material nature in which the illusion of cause and effect is not consciously manifested is called (conscious) chaos.
Pradhana is not the time element because in the time element there are actions and reactions, creation and annihilation.
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.
Nor is it the jéva, or marginal potency of living entities, or designated, conditioned living entities, because the designations of the living entities are not eternal. One adjective used in this connection is nitya, which indicates eternality.
Therefore the condition of material nature immediately previous to its manifestation is called pradhana.
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..
-
How can mathematical chaos be Brahman just because it`s, " ..famous for its self organizing quailty or inherent order"? How can chaos possess a self-organizing quality or inherent order when it`s chaotic to begin with? Brahman isn`t an static singularity but a dynamic( Krsna said He`s Brahman) one. This mathematically chaotic theory description of Brahman is a Mr. Frankenstein concocted by Isaac Asimov, a famous russian science fiction writer.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..
Moksha
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
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..