primate

Imagine an infinitesimal particle, that eternally traverses a finite region of space at infinite velocity. Also imagine that its infinite trajectory in space never exactly repeats itself. If we would shine a stroboscopic light on this system, whereby each subsequent flash of light illuminates the particle during an infinitely short amount of time, then at stroboscopic frequencies above 80 flashes per second (80 Hertz), the system will no longer appear to the human eye as an erratically moving particle in space, but as a continuous series of changing or evolving patterns. At relatively low stroboscopic frequencies, the evolving patterns will be composed of just a fraction of the complete trajectory of the atomic particle. Evolving patterns will appear discontinuous and fragmented. At higher frequencies, more of the original trajectory is illuminated and we will see a more coherent evolving structure. Only at infinite stroboscopic frequency we will see the whole continuous system. Then we will also see that the entire optical illusion at lower frequencies, is produced by a single atomic particle. It can be demonstrated that such simple, complex systems actually exist in mathematical chaos theory. And they can produce quite spectacular, evolving self-similar or fractal patterns in graphical computer simulations. I like to think of reality in terms of this mathematical metaphor. Consciousness and ignorance is the stroboscopic light, and God is the atomic particle that pervades the entire universe. Of course, in reality there is no stroboscopic light and there are no (ignorant) observers outside of the system. All consciousness must somehow exist within the infinite qualities of that One oscillating atomic particle itself..

I don't know Merging into God implies individuality or difference from God. But this must be ignorance..

You are not 'here'. 'Here vs there' is a false distinction. The fact that you think you are here is your ignorance. The question should be: Why am I ignorant?

I interpreted your question in post #164 (if i was merged in god then why would i be here) as: if I am one with God then why am I here? To this I don't know the answer. But perhaps I don’t understand your question..

I don't know 'why' you would be 'here'..

You are already one with God/Brahman/Vishnu/Krishna/etc. However, your human consciousness tends to ignore this fact. Whether this means that you can become God, depends on your point of view. Personally I think that our individuality or personal consciousness will ultimately prevent us from completely merging into Brahman or the Absolute Origin. Also, without His effulgence of more or less ignorant individual souls, I don’t think Brahman will exist any longer as God..

Yes, I agree..

So it is established that the Supreme Person (Krishna) is not the basis of the logical Absolute Origin (Nirguna-Brahman). He may be the fundamental Nature of the Absolute Origin and the primary intelligent principle of the entire cosmos and the essential cause of everything, including human consciousness, He may be Para-Brahman and He may even be the Absolute Origin itself; but nothing can be more basic then Absolute Origin. Now the question seems to be: what is God? The Absolute Origin or the Supreme Person? I guess, for most practical purposes, it’s only a matter of taste. Not absolutely necessary to understand..

I agree, atomic Jeeva cannot become Brahm. But can you really prove your following claims?

I agree. Krishna = Brahman..

Well, not really. I suggested how the idea of absolute oneness (Advaita) may be compatible with the idea of fundamental oneness and difference (Achintya Bhedabheda). Anyway, when there's both oneness and difference, God must be 'the oneness'. Agreed? And according to Prabhupada's purport of BG 4.24: "Everything becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman" (http://vedabase.net/bg/4/24/en). Thus Brahman is God. Therefore, Vishnu/Krishna either is Brahman (Absolute God) or He is not Brahman. But He certainly cannot be the basis of Brahman. This is just a plain and simple logical conclusion derived directly from Prabhupada's purport of BG 4.24, which contradicts his purport of BG 14.27: "Krishna is the basis of Brahman" (http://vedabase.net/bg/14/27/en).

I was thinking.. Most people assume that the world is real, and that everything exists within the confines of the universe (be it manifest/material or non-manifest/spiritual). This idea appears to be confirmed by the Hindu/Vaishnava belief that the Supreme Absolute Truth can be realized and be known to us as Brahman/Vishnu/Krishna/etc. When we drop the assumption that everything exists within the confines of our universe, and we say that our universe is just one of many other universes, then what we call God must be just the manifestation of the Supreme Absolute Truth within our own universe or consciousness. The Supreme Absolute Truth itself cannot be (fully) known or realized, because it (also) exists outside the realm of our own universe or consciousness. Thus, the God we know cannot be the Supreme Absolute Truth; although He is the Absolute Truth within this universe; non-different from the self or the consciousness. When we also drop the assumption that the material universe is real (ignorance), things become much simpler. Other universes must be equally unreal, and Everything must be God. It might then be possible to know or realize the Supreme Absolute Truth as non-different from the self or the consciousness. Possibly, (Supreme) Absolute Truth exists somewhere in between the latter two positions, i.e., the material universe is both real and unreal or partially real and partially unreal. Then (Supreme) Absolute Truth is still non-different from the self or the consciousness. Thus, knowing Absolute Truth seems to be simply a matter of self-realization..

Here it is: In the purport of BG 4.24 Srila Prabhupada clearly states that Krishna is Vishnu. Therefore, Krishna cannot be "the basis of Brahman". The brahmajyoti is Krishna’s spiritual effulgence, which is not the Supreme Brahman. Through realising this brahmajyoti, we attain Brahman, the Absolute Truth. "Everything becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman". So the statement "I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman" in BG 14.27, doesn’t comply with the provided synonyms (brahmanah--of the impersonal brahmajyoti), and it also doesn’t comply with Prabhupada’s purport of BG 4.24. It should have stated: "I am the basis of the impersonal brahmajyoti", which has a completely different meaning. How can Prabhupada have made this error, contradicting his own explanation of the subject in his purport of BG 4.24?

In Prabhupada’s version, the words 'of the impersonal brahmajyoti' are used as synonymous to the Sanskrit term 'brahmanah'. But what exactly is brahmajyoti? There appears to be no other mentioning in BG and SB of brahmajyoti. Brahmanah generally means 'of Brahma' (http://vedabase.net/b/brahmanah). Possibly brahmajyoti refers to the term 'para-brahmanah', 'the Supreme Absolute Truth', in SB 6.9.42 (http://vedabase.net/sb/6/9/42/)..<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

I’m not convinced of that. In mathematical chaos theory, very simple systems define a unitary (original) oscillation, which underlies 'self-similar' or 'fractal' structures and complex 'self-organized' behavior in the so called 'phase-space' of the system. I don’t intend to start a discussion about this subject matter, neither do I say that such mathematical systems will 'prove' anything, but I personally think that they could serve as logical models, that not only suggest a possible unification of quantum-physics and general relativity, but may also provide a powerful conceptualization of how a unitary Origin could underlie all manifest structure and perceived duality in this world. And, as yet, I find that such a model seamlessly fits the scriptural idea of 'simultaneous oneness and difference'..

I really like to think that the problem of 'who is the Absolute Origin', can be solved by a (logical) concept of 'inconceivable (simultaneous) one-ness and difference', like Sri Chaitanya’s Achintya Bhedabheda. But simultaneously, Sri Sankara’s Advaita must be basically true. There can only be one Origin. And if everything 'has its source' in the philosophical Absolute Origin, then everything is One. All consciously perceived differences in the world, be it between material objects or between yourself and other persons, are the product of our human ignorance, which also must 'have its source' in the Absolute Origin (God)..

Well, I tried to establish the idea that Absolute God is 'all pervading'. If so, then everything is Absolute God. Thus, everything is 'all pervading'..

It seems that 'everything pervades' the Universe..

I agree. I think BG 7.24 implies that Krishna is Brahman. At least the literal verse is not inconsistent with such a view. And if Brahman is one without a second, then Krishna might be the Supreme personal manifestation or the essence of Brahman within our tiny human consciousness. In fact, all that we are consciously aware of, including consciousness itself, must be the manifestation of Brahman. In this sense you can say that we are the all pervading Brahman; although obviously we are also different from Brahman/Krishna..

Yes. But you’re ignorant of this fact..

Bhagavad-gita as it is 10.42 The verse doesn’t say that the Supersoul 'enters' all things. It says: I 'am' all things. And that includes you. (And if the entire universe disappears, the Supersoul remains as Brahman.) And this is exactly what BG 7.24 implies..

Different scholars appear to agree here more or less.. http://vedabase.net/bg/7/24/en avyaktam--nonmanifested; vyaktim--personality; Apannam--achieved; manyante--think; mAm--Me; abuddhayaH--less intelligent persons; param--supreme; bhAvam--existence; ajAnantaH--without knowing; mama--My; avyayam--imperishable; anuttamam--the finest. Translation: Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme. http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/ avyaktam--the unmanifest; vyaktim--existence; apannam--as coming into; manyante--regard; mam--Me; abuddhayah--the spiritually deficient; param--supreme; bhavam--state of being; ajanantah--unable to comprehend; mama--My; avyayam--imperishable; anuttamam--exalted. Translation: Unable to comprehend My imperishable, exalted and supreme state of being; the spiritually deficient regard Me as the unmanifest coming into existence.

I don’t deny the personal (Saguna) aspect/quality of Brahman as Vishnu, Krishna, Bhagavan, Para-Brahman, etc. However, in Vedanta the creation and the creator are one and the same. They cannot be separated. The dance dissolves in the dancer the moment he stops dancing. Krishna is the dance, the manifest Person. And (Nirguna) Brahman is the dancer, the Origin. And again, I am quite convinced that in the Bhagavad gita, Krishna (the dance) sometimes speaks as Brahman (the dancer), because He is Brahman. As to your quotes: Isopanisad 15: hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham tat tvam pusann apavrnu satya-dharmaya drstaye hiranmayena--by a golden effulgence; patrena--by a dazzling covering; satyasya--of the Supreme Truth; apihitam--covered; mukham--the face; tat--that covering; tvam--Yourself; pusan--O sustainer; apavrnu--kindly remove; satya--pure; dharmaya--unto the devotee; drstaye--for exhibiting. This verse seems to say that the Supreme Truth is covered by the dazzling golden effulgence of the Lord. I could agree with that.. Isopanisad Invocation: Om Purna madah purna midam, purnaat purna mudachyate, purnasya purna maadaya, purna mevavah shishyate. Om--the Complete Whole; purnam--perfectly complete; adah--that; purnam--perfectly complete; idam--this phenomenal world; purnat--from the all-perfect; purnam--complete unit; udacyate--is produced; purnasya--of the Complete Whole; purnam--completely, all; adaya--having been taken away; purnam--the complete balance; eva--even; avasisyate--is remaining. This verse appears to say: Even if all is taken away from the perfectly complete unit Om, from which the perfectly complete phenomenal world is produced, the complete unit [Om] is remaining..

In his translations and purports of SB 6.16.21-23, Srila Prabhupada consistently suggests that Krishna is the source of Brahman. But this is not at all stated in the original Sanskrit texts! It appears to me that SB 6.16.21 is saying: Brahman who is one without a second cannot be described or understood. He is without form and totally spiritual. May He who is the cause of all causes kindly protect us. SB 6.16.22 simply states: This cosmic manifestation is caused by the Supreme Brahman. It is born in things made of earth, it is situated in the Supreme Brahman and annihilated in the same Supreme Brahman. Offer your respectful obeisances to Him. Finally, SB 6.16.23 just seems to say: He who cannot be touched nor known by the mind, the intelligence, the senses and the living force, who is both within and without, expanded like the sky, I offer unto Him my respectful obeisances.

No. Brahman/Krishna cannot be the 'effulgence' of anything..