primate

Interesting question.. My guess is that there is no difference between you and me and an avatar of Krishna, except that the avatar is on a much higher spiritual level than you and me. Actually, an avatar is suppost to be on the spiritual level of God himself, Who is one without a second. In this sense the avatar is God, and we can never reach His level. But apparently He can reach ours. That’s a difference..

Yes. That makes sense. There is a limit to what can be logically explained or understood. I guess consciousness (or God) is that limit. And absolute truth might simply reveal itself within our tiny human consciousness..

When you say: "mental models are not perfect", you have got a point. There is indeed no way to prove that any theory about physical reality is absolutely true. However, a mental model can be extremely accurate, such as: when I put my hand in fire, it will be quite painful. Most people will take that as absolutely true knowledge. Most scientific models are much more complex than that. Yet, the currently most advanced mathematical models of physical reality (i.e., general relativity and quantum mechanics) have proven to be amazingly accurate in both their explanatory power and predictive power; even to the extend that many believe that reality is actually non-different from these models. Thus, when you say: "the result or knowledge taken from these models are conclusions shotful of holes", you are very wrong. Now, I explained that the model of reality that I have in mind is both strikingly compatible with the knowledge in the Vedas, as well as with contemporary scientific models. Thus, when you say: "they easily sink to the bottom when confronted with the reality stated in the Vedas", you are again very wrong, and you are actually saying that you don’t understand or care about science, and/or you didn’t read or understand my previous posts, and/or you have some unreasonable adverse attitude towards science and the scientific method, which I would think is quite a remarkable state of mind for a physician..

No. Philosophy or logic always precedes knowledge. We see a phenomenon; we don't understand it; we think about it and make a mental model of it; we test this model in reality; and we decide whether or not our logical model is valid. Only then, we have knowledge..

You actually can't say that. You can say, "when logic ends knowledge ends". But to say, "when logic ends knowledge of God begins", you must first come up with a definition of knowledge that is different from the usual scientific definition, i.e., we know something when a formal (logical) theory exists about it, which is in any way consistent with known empirical reality as well as with any (as yet) unknown empirical facts about it..

Yes. Logic is of the subtle mind. As such, logic can transcend our (non-subtle) material world and provide theoretical knowledge about reality which cannot be obtained directly by empirical means or perceptual observations. However, any theory about reality must ultimately have a verifiable or testable objective basis in our empirical world, in order to be considered a scientific theory and not just philosophical speculation. Theist, do you think the Brahman effulgence can be logically understood as the basis of our manifest material universe? And are you suggesting that God/Krishna can’t fully understand His own greatness, i.e., that this is a limitation of His omniscience? In fact, there exists a logical argument that no conscious entity can have complete knowledge of itself. According to Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem, there can never exist a complete system of formal logic that allows all true logical statements about itself to be derived from itself. (see e.g.: Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Mathematics and, for that matter, general logic, are not material, Melvin. Just like we can mentally imagine anything outside actual material reality, we can also mentally define any formal logic. Mathematics simply is a very successful formal logic or language. Many mathematical constructs happen to accurately describe relevant aspects of our material reality; ranging from basic arithmetics and Newton’s classical laws of physics, to Einstein’s general relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Chaos is yet another mathematical construct or model or theory, which I personally think might accurately describe and explain the fundamental quantum nature of reality in relation to our manifest material universe. I agree with you, however, that consciousness or God can only be fully explained and understood by 'transcendental logic'..

Thank you.

Yes! You finally understand.

You understood my post #2, in which I stated that extremely simple mathematical systems can produce complex infinite order or structure, which indicates that the fundamental principle (God) that underlies the universe, can actually be infinitely more simple than manifest reality. My last post was an attempt to further explain how a mathematical chaos analogy of reality also indicates how God can be simultaneously smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest. Finally I tried to explain how such a model indicates how our material reality can be the product of ignorance, and how absolute reality can be absolute oneness. You must admit that this is quite nice, although I understand that the specific mathematical concepts involved are somewhat over your head. Anyway, this mathematical analogy isn’t less personal than, for example, the Sun analogy. Does the Sun have personality? Moreover, a chaos analogy indicates how our partial material consciousness can be part and parcel of total consciousness in absolute oneness. And since our individual consciousness is obviously personal, absolute oneness must ultimately be personal. Actually (according to the chaos model) it must be the complete, total, or supreme Person. I further understand that you have difficulty accepting that absolute oneness is void or nothingness. Yet, as I stated in my post #8, this is how many philosophers and mystics have described and experienced absolute reality. A chaos analogy of reality, clearly indicates how such a void can be understood. That is not to say, however, that in reality this nothingness or void is impersonal. By now, I agree with you that a supreme Person must somehow exist 'beyond' this void (see above). And He certainly exists beyond the scope of any mathematical chaos theory of reality. Nevertheless, the overall analogy explains remarkably many extremely complex religious concepts in terms of an extremely simple mathematical model, which I think is very nice..

My guess is that God being simultaneously smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest, as well as being simultaneously one with and different from the material creation (like the sun and the sunshine), and God being simultaneously simplest and most complex (like a singular chaotic system), may all be (more or less) valid and related conceptualizations of the Absolute Truth. Personally, as you might know, I am particularly intrigued by this mathematical chaos analogy of absolute reality, because (apart from its quantum physical implications) it seems to provide a formal theory of various religious concepts, including the (Vedic) notion that the simplest possible system can be infinitely creative. A singular point in a state-space (smaller than the smallest), can produce infinite evolving structure (greater than the greatest) in each of infinitely many different so called phase-projections of its infinite (chaotic) trajectory. Ultimately, in such a model, nothing actually exists but a dimensionless (void) point. However, when we plot the position of the point (e.g., on a computer screen) at regular phases or intervals or harmonic frequencies, the infinite order or structure that is present in the chaotic oscillation becomes manifest. Now, if it is assumed that this point is infinitely conscious, then our individual consciousness may be a particular infinitesimal fraction of this total consciousness, which is tuned to a particular harmonic frequency (Om) or phase-projection or universe. Moreover, nothing will exist from the perspective of this singular point or total consciousness, whereas from the perspective of our fractional (ignorant) consciousness, our entire universe is real. Nice..

Ego is the perception of the 'self' as distinct from everything else, whereas in absolute reality, everything, including the 'self', is but one (God)..

Any philosophy that doesn’t culminate in the immediate experience of the absolute Reality aka the absolute Truth aka Brahman aka God, is but a vain pastime. Absolute Reality contains both subject and object, i.e., experiencer and experienced. And everything we subjectively experience in this empirical world, has an objective ontological basis in Brahman. That is to say, whenever we experience something in this world, we are in reality experiencing Brahman or God; not in its absolute aspect, to be sure, but in one of its particular self-revealing phenomenal forms. The absolute aspect of God has been described through the ages by mystics of all religious - and philosophical schools, as the unity or oneness experienced in a subject-less state of consciousness (e.g., Samadhi), in which all complexity and differentiation within the phenomenal world, including ones own sense of being, is ultimately unified in the absolute Truth of indeterminate existence. This fundamental nothingness or void, is simultaneously infinitely simple in its aspect of oneness, and infinitely complex in its infinite self-manifestations in our subjective - or relative reality. (see e.g., The concept and reality of existence - Google Books)

Atheists that say God must be more complex than the universe itself, seem to have a remarkably deep understanding of theistic reality. They appear to acknowledge the (Vedic) notion that God is the ultimate cause of all causes, who controls everything. However, they don’t seem to grasp the idea that our material world is only a fraction of absolute reality, and that it’s therefore not a problem at all for God (absolute reality) to be more complex than our material universe. Furthermore, we know from mathematical chaos theory that even extremely simple systems can produce complex infinite self-similar order or structure (see e.g., Mandelbrot set - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) So, the fundamental principle (God) that underlies the universe, can actually be infinitely more simple than manifest reality..

So, the basis of Brahman is "transcendental knowledge only available by Vishnu Avataras". Then how can it be said, that "Krishna is the (knowable) basis of Brahman"?

No. There is a difference between the higher self (the soul) and the lower self (the ego), which are each other’s 'enemies'.. Essays on the Gita - Google Books

Whether not chanting the name of the Lord is insulting or not, it definitely feels better to chant the name of the Lord..

No. Kaisersose uses a capital 'C'. I.e., Cheers, not cheers..

Absolute Truth So, Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Brahman It is stated here that when the covering of Maya or material illusion is removed, everything is one in Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. So there can be no basis of Brahman. It is not stated here that everything becomes one in Krishna. Krishna/Bhagavan Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervasive, is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth. Conclusion My personal conclusion from the above quotations of Prabhupada, is that Brahman is the aspect of oneness -, and Krishna is the aspect of all-pervasiveness of the same Absolute Truth. Krishna is the ultimate (most complete) concept of the Absolute Truth, because all-pervasiveness (logically) implies oneness. I think this interpretation is consistent and, therefore, acceptable. Ultimately, Krishna and Brahman are non-different, like "the sun and the sunshine are non-different". Krishna is smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest, indicating His all-pervasiveness. And everything is one in Brahman. Hence, I am mystified when Prabhupada translates 'brahmano hi pratishthaham' in BG 14.27 as: "Krishna is the basis (or source) of impersonal Brahman"..

I tried it "om namo bhagavate vasudevaya" is much better..

I don't understand this..

I guess you are not taking this seriously, Melvin. The impersonal and personal aspects of the Absolute Truth are well established in Vedic literature. If Krishna would be the basis of impersonal Brahman, this would mean that personal Brahman is the basis of impersonal Brahman. How can something personal give rise to something impersonal, and simultaneously be non-different from that impersonal Brahman effulgence, or cosmic manifestation?

प्रतिष्ठा pratiṣṭhā प्रतिष्ठा 1 P. 1 To stand firm, be established.-2 To be supported.-3 To rest or depend upon.-4 To stay, abide, be situated.-5 To set (as the sun); उदेति च यतः सूर्यो Revised and enlarged edition of Prin. V. S. Apte's The practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary

Dear Theist, Surprisingly the thread http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/454154-play-creation.html has been closed! Because I don’t think our discussion is quite finished, I will post my response to your last posts in this new thread. Hopefully, it will not be deleted. As you know I’m referring to my argument in post #65 of the before mentioned thread. I don’t expect you to comment on it, but again I would very much appreciate it if you did. I agree, that "philosophy without religion is just mental speculation". And I am indeed personally convinced that God exists. My agnosticism only concerns the particular ontological status of God. I'm one of those people who are also inclined to understand the truth through philosophical (or even experimental) means. Moreover, that's the whole point of the Vedic literature, which, contrary to any other religious scriptures such as the Christian Bible, provides a wealth of detailed information, which enables one to do just that. I.e., to understand the Absolute Truth and consequently to understand the cosmic manifestation and who we are ourselves. I think we exhaustively covered the example of the sun, and we reached the consensus that, although as a material analogy it is not perfect, it must be understood as an indicator or pointer to the truth. As such it is stated in SB 4.31.16: Just as the sunshine is nondifferent from the sun, the cosmic manifestation is also nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now, my question to you still remains: How does the above notion comply with the notion that Krishna is the basis of Brahman? SB 4.31.16 clearly indicates that Krishna is non-different from the Brahman effulgence, and it doesn't say that the sun is 'the basis' of the sunshine. Although the latter is true in material terms, this can't be applied to the spiritual realm, and it's certainly not what this verse means. Furthermore, I argued that the Sanskrit word 'pratishtha' in BG 14.27 doesn't mean: 'the basis' or 'the rest'; it means: 'the manifestation' or 'to rest on' or 'to depend upon', which implies that Krishna is an image or manifestation of parabrahman or a hypostasis or representation of the divine in the world of manifestation. Why is this so important? Well, as you yourself admit in your last post: "religion without philosophy is just sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism". Krishna is the basis of Brahman, is a very strong statement, which goes against anything set forth in Vedic literature, and it also goes against many instances of Prabhupada's own teachings. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be what Prabhupada intended to communicate, and possibly it's even a transcription error. If you can't refute this and/or corroborate your own point of view by evidence from scripture or from Prabhupada's own words, and still hold on to the idea that Krishna is the basis of Brahman, like the sun is the basis of the sunshine, I will regard your opinion to be religious sentimentality, without definite philosophical justification.. Respectfully yours, primate

I posted the above post in a new thread, which might have been deleted, or something else may have gone wrong. It is not intended as a reply in this thread. So it can be deleted here. I will try again later to post it as a new thread..