primate

String theory predicts the existence of consistent quantum field theories within space-time dimensions (degrees of freedom) higher than our familiar four dimensions (three space dimensions and one time dimension). And the requirement of local interactions (usually present as a basic principle in ordinary quantum field theories) can, at least theoretically, be dropped in string theory. It might then be possible to define a 'nonlocal' quantum field theory (without a coupling constant) that models all local forces in nature as well as nonlocal gravity. In string theories, nonlocal (gravitational) interactions are explained by fundamental strings (tiny vibrating lines without mass) that can stretch between different points in space-time. By mediating some force between nonlocal points, strings could create mass and gravity. This means, string theory could ultimately become the quantum gravitational field theory that unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity theory. Furthermore, the necessary extra dimensions are believed to be extremely small (compacted). Therefore, the geometrical shape of these extra dimensions and the different resonance frequencies of the different length strings that exist in these dimensions, may explain all the various types of observable quantum particles in nature. Many important details of string theories are still unknown, however, and gravitational string theory (if it exists at all) is commonly believed to be in its very early infancy. Personally I’m not getting a nice warm feeling when I think about string theory. I think e.g. 'quantum chaos theory' is much simpler and much more powerful than any quantum string theory. Especially when it comes to understanding reality as it is..

So Brahman is Krishna. I like to speculate that this means that without any ignorance or maya, we would see impersonal Brahman. And at different levels of enlightenment or self-realisation, we become consciously aware of qualitatively different manifestations of Brahman. Krishna consciousness or self-realisation is the manifestation of Brahman as the supreme person. The ultimate manifestation may be the Origin itself. And I guess you can call it either Krishna or Brahman or both.. But maybe only the person (Krishna) is relevant..

But that cannot be true. Krishna stated time and again that he is the Supersoul that is present in everyone’s heart. The last line also contradicts the first two lines. And "na cAhaM teSv avasthitaH" literally means: "not also I in them situated", which may refer to His transcendental situation as Saguna Brahman, which is different from our transcendental situation. So Krishna just seems to say here that he is simultaneously one with us and different. I think that's also Prabhupada's conclusion..

Hm, maybe it means that Krishna is the 'nirguna aspect' of Brahman..

Well, maybe, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is sometimes talking as Brahman, because he is Brahman. When Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, "I am the ultimate origin", he is talking as Brahman. However, when He says, "I am the origin of Brahman", I don’t have a clue as to what he means. It doesn’t seem to make sense at all..

I don't think I can..

For us humans, to worship/serve Brahman, we can only worship/serve Krishna, who appears to be the only manifestation of Brahman in our ignorant perception of reality.

Krishna is Brahman. Human ignorance (maya) hides impersonal Brahman, and apparently 'transforms' Him into personal Krishna..

Agni Purana (The section of The Dwarf) http://www.astrojyoti.com/agnipurana.htm

I don’t know the answer to your question. My basic argument is that there can only be One origin, and One cause of all causes. And if Krishna is both (which seems reasonable), then He must be the Brahman who is equally described in the Vedas as being the ultimate origin and the ultimate cause. And If He is not Brahman, then He must derive from (originate from) Brahman. BTW, your reference to Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.3, appears to translate to: "When the seer sees the brilliant maker and lord (of the world) as the Person who has his source in Brahman, then he is wise, and shaking off good and evil, he reaches the highest oneness, free from passions" (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15020.htm). Your reference to Bhagavad Gita 14.27: "brahmano hi pratishthaham" (I am the basis of Brahman) cannot be misunderstood..

The confusion in this thread, seems to arise from two different interpretations of the Ultimate Reality or the Absolute Truth, as it is presented in the Vedic literature. These are Sri Sankara’s Advaita and Sri Chaitanya’s Achintya Bhedabheda. As I see it, these two philosophies are very closely related and basically they only disagree about the question of Origin, i.e.: What is the Absolute Ultimate Origin on which everything else rests? The Vedas describe Brahman as the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute or Paramatman (Universal Soul). Brahman is the indescribable, inexhaustible, incorporeal, omniscient, omnipresent, original, first, eternal, both transcendent and immanent, absolute infinite existence, and the ultimate principle who is without a beginning, without an end , who is hidden in all and who is the cause, source, material and effect of all creation known, unknown and yet to happen in the entire universe. So there doesn't seem to be much room for an argument. Brahman is the ultimate Origin. However, Hindus view the Brahman as having two aspects: impersonal and personal. The impersonal aspect is called Nirguna Brahman. Nirguna Brahman has no attributes and, as such, is not an object of prayer, but of meditation and knowledge. This aspect of Brahman is beyond conception, beyond reasoning and beyond thought. The personal aspect of Brahman is known as Saguna Brahman, that is Brahman with attributes. The beauty of Sankara’s Advaita, is its simple solution to the problem. Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika). According to Chaitanya’s Achintya Bhedabheda, however, the Ultimate Reality is Vishnu (Krishna), the God of love and grace. He is one without a second. He is Sat-Chit-Ananda. He is Nirguna in the sense that He is free from the qualities of Maya. He is Saguna (with attributes) as He is endowed with the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. He is the material and the efficient cause of the world. He is the source, support and end of this universe. He is the efficient cause through His higher energy (Para-Sakti). He is the material cause through His other energies (Apara-Sakti and Adya-Sakti). So the question seems to be: Is Brahman original or is Krishna original? Personally I like to think Advaita must be true; Nirguna Brahman is the Supreme origin and Krishna is Sarguna Brahman: the 'first derivative' of Nirguna Brahman. Krishna cannot be the Vedic Brahman because one cannot be both the ultimate Origin and the ultimate Cause without being the Brahman. The Cause of everything can be a part of the ultimate Origin, not vice versa. Advaita appears to imply Achintya Bhedabheda! The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya. The world is not an illusion, according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). And The Atman (Soul) is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). Although it is not established by extraneous proofs, it is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The material world is the product of Maya or Avidya (ignorance). The unchanging Brahman appears to be the changing world through Maya. Maya is the mysterious power that hides the real and thereby manifests itself as the changing material world. This super-imposition of the world on Brahman is due to Avidya or ignorance. Ignorance implies that we perceive less of reality than what is actually out there. So Krishna the cowherd boy cannot be the Ultimate Origin, he is a part of our limited perception of reality. Nirguna Krishna is Brahman. So why don't we simply call Him Brahman..?

OK, this starts to make some sense.. Nirguna Brahman is simultaneously all and nothing. Therefore, nirguna Brahman must be the ultimate origin and the most fundamental principle. Nothing can be any simpler than nothing and simultaneously be all of reality. Anything existing in between must be one with nirguna Brahman and different from nirguna Brahman. The primary form or being originating from nirguna Brahman is called saguna Brahman, which is a transcendental person: Krishna (Vishnu, Narayana). He is the supreme personality of Brahman (Godhead), and He is the transcendental fundament of all conscious living entities, which as such are simultaneously one with Krishna and different from Krishna..

Well, I’m just trying to make some personal sense of it all. As I said earlier: It seems to be logically impossible for a part of the whole (humans) to know or comprehend the whole (nirguna Brahman). Nirguna Brahman, (the attributeless or formless) refers to the Supreme Reality which pervades the Universe. Saguna Brahman refers to the Absolute with (knowable?) qualities. And according to Sankara, saguna Brahman and nirguna Brahman are basically the same. And what to make of the following?? In the purport of Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.7.39, Prabhupada says: "The material world is created by the energy of the Lord, which is manifested in the beginning of the creation by the penance of Brahmājī, the first living being in the creation …". http://vedabase.net/sb/2/7/39/ According to this, the material world is created by the penance (meditation) of Brahma. Thus Brahma must be Krishna. And Brahma is the first (supreme?) living being (person?) within the creation. Therefore, Brahma (Krishna) is part of the creation and cannot be the ultimate origin of creation, which must be (nirguna) Brahman.

Nirguna and Saguna are dual aspects of Brahman. These categories basically complement each other. It’s like having the comprehensible (Saguna) along with the incomprehensible (Nirguna) simultaneously. They do not contradict or negate each other..

Krishna (Brahma) is the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Brahman). He is of God. He is not the source of God. He is the supreme personal energy of God. He is the supreme person that we can relate to or 'know'. Impersonal Brahman is the 'unknowable' origin..

I would be afraid to be a Siddha..

Agreed..

It's more like: Bread-making is a term that applies to science. We 'know' how to make bread if it is understood at some level and if it can be tested in reproducible scientific bread-making experiments. Thus knowledge can be found on the internet. However, we cannot know how to make God in this sense. Although God may know us, and may do scientific experiments with us, we don't know God. It appears to be logically impossible for a part of the whole [God] to know the whole [God] ..

But 'description' is not 'knowledge'..

I agree. Knowledge is a term that applies to science. We 'know' something if it is understood at some level and if it can be tested in reproducible scientific experiments. Thus knowledge can be found on the internet. However, we cannot know God in this sense. Although God may know us, and do scientific experiments with us, we don't know Him. It appears to be logically impossible for a part of the whole to know the whole..

I guess if God needs to kill or slay, He will just do that. There's no need at all for us humans to do the job for Him. Religion that incites violence or condones violence performed by humans in the past, seems to have gone wrong somewhere down the road..

It’s really quite simple. Brahman is the impersonal 'all of reality'. And Brahma is Brahmans’ personal energy or consciousness. As such, Brahma is simultaneously a part of Brahman and one with Brahman. Krishna is Brahma. Humans are merely like Krishna. But like Him we are simultaneously one with Brahman..

Where was that written? But what is Yogamaya?