primate

Okay. But my point is that both the Bible (New Testament) and Vedic literature (Bhagavad Gita) seem to refer to the same God in much the same way, indicating that Christ and Krishna really are on the same level. The Bible makes it perfectly clear that Jesus Christ is God himself. Jesus said "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30). And the book of Hebrews speaks of the Son as "the Being through whom God created the universe", and "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." (Hebrews 1:2-3). Yet, Jesus was also a man; a human being of flesh and blood, who preached God's word on Earth, and who suffered and died for the sins of mankind. Now, my argument is that this apparent dichotomy of Jesus Christ being both God and human, is remarkably similar to the dichotomy of Krishna being both the all pervading God himself and a human avatar, teaching Arjuna all of lives philosophy. And in the sense that both Christ and Krishna are God, it can be said that Christ is Krishna, i.e., they must ultimately be the same divine being or God..

Yes. That's a real problem of general Biblical texts. There are (too) many inconsistencies in the different accounts from different authors. One testimony may state: "For in him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts 17:28), yet in another, the same Lord Jesus Christ exclaims: "My God, my God, why didst Thou forsake me?" (Mark 15:34). But don’t you think this could be similar to the confusion between Krishna the Absolute Truth, the Cause of all causes, and Krishna avatar the cowherd's boy?

Well, I think it’s an interesting proposition that Christianity and Vaishnavism actually have the same concept of God being both equal to (immanent) and different from (transcendent) His creation, contrary to dualism or deism in, for example, Islam. Of course Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam explain this much better than the Christian New Testament. Also Judaism, which is much related to Christianity, is more explicit: According to the quotes in my previous post, Christianity also has a panentheistic (monistic theist) concept of God. So the entry on Christianity in the above Wikipedia article, which suggests that "Christianity strongly maintains the Creator-creature distinction, and so firmly rejects metaphysical monism", is wrong. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is (the Son of) God. So, Christ must be Krishna. Even Prabhupada said that Christianity is Vaishnavism. Christians practice bhakti-yoga when they worship Jesus Christ, because they are accepting him as (the personal) God. Vaishnava blog feeds » Blog Archive » Christianity is Vaisnavism

Actually, Vaishnavism and Christianity may have the doctrine of monistic theism or panentheism in common. All Vaishnava schools are panentheistic and view the universe as part of Krishna or Narayana, but see a plurality of souls and substances within Brahman. Panentheism or monistic theism, which includes the concept of a personal God as a universal, omnipotent Supreme Being who is both immanent and transcendent, is prevalent within many other schools of Hinduism as well. And this also appears to be the Christian position:

That sounds quite reasonable, Melvin.

This obviously can't be true, Melvin, because an avarage flower contains considerably more water than an average drop of rain..

Yes. That’s the conclusion we reached earlier. We may be able to logically understand or know physical reality in terms of oneness (Brahman), but beyond fundamental oneness must be a person (Krishna), simply because our consciousness is personal. Our material consciousness is a fraction of absolute reality or total consciousness. In this sense everything we consciously perceive is real, including other conscious beings. But underneath all duality in this world lies a single unifying principle or Absolute Truth which is ultimately personal. The fact that you and other conscious beings exist can be known by me beyond the level of speculation. Their physical appearance and the effects of their actions are consistently and verifiably present within my individual conscious experience of reality. And although your consciousness is localized differently from my consciousness, we obviously experience a common reality. This can also be logically inferred to be true from a principle of absolute oneness. Consciousness must be the limit of what can be known or logically understood. The true nature or origin of consciousness cannot be understood through logical inference. We simply have to accept the fact that it exists.

I’m not denying that in everyday life, we constantly need to believe in the truth of what we perceive with our senses or what is told to us by some credible authority or by people we trust. This is simply because we neither have the time nor the means to verify the truth of everything that we base our actions on. It wouldn’t be practical and ultimately impossible. But I think it’s good to realize that most of the time we are making decisions based on unverified beliefs and hypotheses, which is of course the root of all kinds of widely held falls beliefs and incorrect prejudices and unreasonable fears, etcetera. Actually, to verify that anything we consciously perceive is absolutely true, we must logically prove it to be true all the way down to the most fundamental quantum level of reality and Absolute Truth, which is ultimately impossible. Even science and the scientific method can only provide relatively true statements, which are based on some formal theory and confirmation through repeatable experimental observations. No matter how often we repeat an experiment, we can never be absolutely sure that it will have the same outcome next time. All we can say is that it’s extremely unlikely that, for example, the next time I drop a solid object it won’t fall down to the ground. This is not absolute knowledge. Nevertheless, I would say that we know that solid objects fall down. Any statement about reality that is not logically derived from other (relatively) true statements or is not (scientifically) tested to be true beyond a certain level of chance occurrence, I call belief. So only when logic or scientific tests indicate that a statement about reality (e.g. this drug is a cure for Hansen’s disease) is true beyond a certain level of speculation, I call it knowledge. Otherwise I call it belief. If I’m correct, the pharmaceutical industry accepts the effectiveness of a drug as true knowledge if tests have shown that the statistical probability of it being not effective is less than 5%. Obviously this distinction between knowledge and belief is largely irrelevant for our everyday functioning. Most often we just have to trust our common sense and at best we can make educated guesses about the true state of affairs we encounter. However, in some situations we want to be as sure as possible about the outcome of our actions. For example, when you diagnose a patient to have a certain illness and prescribe a certain drug to cure the illness. That’s when knowledge is applied, not just belief or common sense. Finally, in discussing the true nature of reality, it is pointless to base an argument on belief. When an argument is based on true statements about reality, any conclusion that is logically derived from it will also be true. Thus we obtain knowledge of reality and not just speculation.

If we are 'not our body', then how can we be sure that we have a brain? Ultimately it all comes down to Absolute Truth. Most likely, in reality, there exists only one true axiom or fundamental proposition..

My answer would be: "I only told you I believe I have a brain. I didn’t say that I know I have a brain"..

Well, before I would give Mrs X my money for the operation of Mr X, I would like to know if Mr X actually has to be operated. Mr X is in the ICU, but Mr X’s condition may have been stabilized, and Mr X may in fact be likely to leave hospital within a few days. Of course you can ask the physician responsible for the treatment of Mr X, but he may have struck a deal with Mrs X to split your money among themselves. There’s only one way to be sure. You must examine Mr X yourself in order to acquire true knowledge. And Thomas didn’t belief Jesus Christ had risen, even after seeing his wounds. He first needed to examine the wounds with his own hands. Then he knew..

Melvin, knowledge is factual, i.e., knowledge concerns what exists and what doesn’t, or what is true and what is not. Seeing something is generally not enough to know it is true. If you see a patient who appears to be seriously ill, you still have to examine the patient and apply scientifically established true medical knowledge and insight, in order to verify that the patient is indeed seriously ill and that he is not faking the illness or only has a minor illness that can be left untreated. Although medicine is not an exact science, only then you can say that you have knowledge of the patient’s illness, as opposed to just information and belief. If one day you happen to see God, how would you know this is true and that you are not hallucinating? Unless somehow God makes it absolutely clear to you that He is indeed the Absolute Truth, you can’t be sure. Therefore, if I were God, I would reveal myself by altering your consciousness, such that you can directly experience and understand the absolute oneness of everything in God, including your own conscious being. That could proof His existence as set forth in Vedic literature. If you are able to understand absolute oneness, it can be logically inferred that everything else must necessarily be based on it. Thus, even God or Absolute Truth might be knowable as true fact, based on logical understanding. Only when you understand absolute oneness as the single axiomatic fact of reality, you can say that you have absolute knowledge..

Information is much too broad a term for my taste to be used in any definition of knowledge. The concept of fact in philosophy is equivalent with my definition of knowledge. Fact in science is a part of the scientific method that leads to knowledge. Objective empirical observations or facts, in combination with logical proof or theoretical understanding, is what I call knowledge. This is my last post on the subject. Again, you are free to disagree with me. But I don’t think continuing this discussion will be productive in any way. Best of luck.

Sant, I think melvin is right. Let’s agree to disagree on this issue. I think by now I’ve made my definition of knowledge perfectly clear, and I’m not going to discuss any definition of logic. If you still don’t understand my point of view, then you can reread my last posts. I don’t think that I can make it any clearer for you. And if you disagree, then that’s fine. All I can say is that my definition of knowledge is the general scientific definition, which works for me, and which is what is generally understood as (scientific) knowledge.

The fact that you anticipate that if you press Enter the cursor will jump to the next line, is not knowledge per se. Until you logically understand why this is the case, I would call it belief and not knowledge. Likewise, you can find out the function of all the keys on your keyboard simply by trial and error. Yet, until you logically understand the working of the keyboard, I would say that you just believe the keys have specific functions. And communication satellites are here because some 50 years ago, people logically understood that it must be possible. Nowadays, most people believe communication satellites exist, and a few people actually know that they do. I agree it’s all a matter of definition..

Yes. Although such knowledge doesn’t fit into any regular definition of knowledge. In this sense it would not be knowledge but belief. As yet, we can only speculate about Absolute Truth. Perhaps my definition of knowledge would change if Absolute Truth reveals itself. But I must admit, you win this one..

Personally, I prefer a game of chess..

Actually, Sant, the definition of knowledge is still an ongoing debate in epistemology, starting with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief". (see: Knowledge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Personally I adhere to the view that (scientific) knowledge must be based on some form of logical understanding or (verifiable) formal theory, otherwise it would just be belief or speculation. I agree that as far as a logical argument is based on (or logically inferred from) other logical arguments, this can also be called knowledge. However, logic in itself cannot be considered knowledge, because a logical system is nothing but a minimal set of (arbitrary) axioms and inference rules, which per definition are not based on any other true assumptions. If you insist, however, that knowledge is the basis of logic, because you have to know the axioms and inference rules in order to apply them, that's fine with me. I suggest you come up with your own definition of knowledge then, and introduce it to the epistemological community. Note, that the only exception to my own definition of knowledge, might be knowledge of the Absolute Truth. As discussed earlier, it can be logically understood that Absolute Truth cannot be inferred from any logical system, and it might simply reveal itself to us. In that case we would have knowledge (of the Absolute Truth) without logical understanding..

Okay, that's almost the same as acknowledging that Brahman can be logically understood, whereas Krishna can't. I think I understand what you mean.. BTW, a strict ontological (and epistemological) separation between Brahman and Krishna, based on what we can logically understand and what not, might be an interesting philosophical proposition..

Then what exactly did you acknowledge here: ..?

Well, I'm sure that words and language and logic are ultimately inappropriate to describe the relation between Krishna and impersonal Brahman, because it would always suggest something that cannot be proven within the particular applied formalism. However (as you acknowledged), the Brahman effulgence is within the range of logical understanding, and (as I acknowledged) Krishna is not. So there is a fundamental ontological difference between Brahman and Krishna. Whatever this is, cannot be formally described. But for all practical purposes, you may say: Krishna is the basis or foundation or rest of Brahman. I no longer have a serious problem with that..

..

I already came back from that conclusion. I still think the term "basis of Brahman" is not appropriate, but since logic doesn't apply to God or Absolute Truth, language doesn't apply either. Thus, any formal logic and terminology will ultimately be incorrect in describing the relation between impersonal Brahman and Krishna..

No. Ultimately the rules are self-sufficient. They don’t need you to apply them. You can use a computer to calculate the answer for you. Then you would still have the answer or the knowledge, but without (necessarily) knowing the rules. No. What Peirce says here, is that a correct application of the rules of mathematics will necessarily lead to a true conclusion or true knowledge. This implies that the rules are leading. Thus, logic precedes knowledge..

Sant, your example of the order of arithmetic operations, only shows that to arrive at a correct answer, you have to apply the rules correctly. Mathematics in itself is not knowledge, it's just a logical system of rules that we agree upon. That's not knowledge per se. When we apply the rules, we get knowledge, e.g., 6 x (5 + 3) = 48. Another example: suppose we have a variable number of boxes, each containing 8 objects. How many boxes (n) do we need to get a total of 48 object? At this point you don't have that knowledge. To solve the problem, you define a logical model: n = 48 / 8. You apply the rules of arithmetic and arrive at the answer: n = 6. Now you know you need 6 boxes. Thus, logic precedes knowledge. To test if your model is correct, you can take six boxes and count the total number of objects in them. Yet another example: you first have to learn the letters of the alphabet in order to learn to read. The letters of the alphabet do not contain knowledge in themselves. Even the ensuing ability to read is not knowledge in itself. Although it can be said to be based on knowledge of the letters of the alphabet, the ability to read is just a skill. Now, suppose you have a book you didn't read. At this point you have no knowledge of the contents of the book. Only after you apply your reading skills to all the sentences in the book, you will have knowledge of its contents. So, again, logic precedes knowledge. And what if you didn't understand the overall meaning of the book? Then you must read the book again and apply the rules of language correctly to its overall contents. When you finally understand, you will have knowledge of the meaning of the contents of the book. Again, the application of logic (linguistics) preceded that knowledge. Knowledge always implies a question. This can be an abstract question (e.g., how much is 6 x [5 + 2]?) or a practical question (e.g., how many boxes of 8 objects do I need to get 48 objects?). To answer a question, we always apply a form of logic to obtain the answer. The answer can even be an abstract logical construct or analogy. Nevertheless, logic per definition precedes knowledge and not vice versa. I agree with you that some questions are beyond certain logical answers, so that it seems we can't obtain the specific desired knowledge. However, there is basically no way of telling whether this is due to a limitation or flaw in our applied logic, or to the fact that the answer is fundamentally unknowable. For example, consider the statement: "this statement is false". Does it mean that the statement is true or false? The statement is neither true nor false, so the answer to the question is unknowable. This is clearly a limitation or flaw of language, which allows for such meaningless statements. Likewise the question "if God is all powerful, can God create a being more powerful than himself?" is meaningless. The answer can neither be yes or no. Now, the philosophical challenge is to find a formal logical description of reality, that only allows for true statements about reality to be derived from it. Such a model would be absolutely true. That is not to say, however, that such a model would also be an absolutely complete model of reality. As I mentioned earlier, according to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, there can never exist a complete system of formal logic that allows all true statements about itself to be derived from itself. Therefore, it seems that Absolute Truth is fundamentally unknowable by any logical means..