Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

primate

Members
  • Content Count

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by primate


  1. 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..


  2.  

    Logic points to God but God cannot be found purely through logic, He is self revealing. He gives the intelligence that points to Him and the path best to seek Him out and then graces the seeker with revelations of Himself as he likes.

    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..


  3.  

    Mental models aren`t perfect. To test these models in reality is surreal since what we know to be reality is an illusion. So, how`d we know these logical models arrived at are valid when the mental models to begin are speculative? The result or knowledge taken from these models are conclusions shotful of holes. They easily sink to the bottom when confronted with the reality stated in the Vedas.

    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..


  4.  

    So as baba says logic comes from the amount of knowledge we have.

     

    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..


  5.  

    Where logic ends, knowledge of God begins.:)

    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..


  6. 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)


  7.  

    Mathematical equations or models in describing the Absolute Truth is still material to me, Primate. Only a transcendental mathematical equation or model can describe in full the Absolute Truth. Thus the saying, " It takes a thief to know one(a thief ).":)

    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'.. :)


  8.  

    I can't follow mathematical examples primate Sorry. However this sounds way off. In fact it is just a scientific approach to impersonalism as I hear it.

     

    From the perspective of the impersonal conception of the brahman nothing exists but from the conditioned souls level of perspective everything (the universal manifestation) is seen.

     

    From the Vaisnava's perspective this is not nice but another definition of hell.

     

    The Vaisnava is specifically concerned with viewing life from the perspective that lies beyond the Brahman, which includes the material manifestation, The brahman and Krishna.

     

    Leaving Krishna out of the picture is like leaving the sweetness out of sugar.

    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.. :)


  9.  

    This is very interesting. It seems that just as God is both smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest He is also the most complex and the most simple.

    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.. :)


  10. 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)


  11. 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.. :)


  12.  

    Brahman is Nothingness/Zero/Void/Absolute Vacuum ---anything beyond this understanding is simply transcendental knowledge only available by Vishnu Avataras [Yes, I know, we already possess this].

     

    "Location, Location, Location" ---not, 'Jiva, Jiva & more Jivas'.

     

    In the beginning there was the void & the waters stirred below . . .

     

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    All varieties of MATERIAL manifestations occupy its own space in the vast empty MATERIAL sky [aka brahman].

     

    BTW, yes, Krishna is the source/resting place/personification/refuge/mystery of 'Brahman'/the fountainhead reservior & emitter of the Original 'Light' {brahmajyoti that we preceive only within the confines/refracturing prism/filterings of the MATERIAL sky & our material senses}.

    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"?


  13. Absolute Truth

     

    "Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are three aspects of the same Absolute Truth" (Sri Isopanishad 15, Purport)

     

    So, Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth.

     

    Brahman

     

    "... The word brahma (Brahman) means "spiritual." The Lord is spiritual, and the rays of His transcendental body are called brahmajyoti, His spiritual effulgence. Everything that exists is situated in that brahmajyoti, but when the jyoti is covered by illusion (maya) or sense gratification, it is called material. This material veil can be removed at once by Krishna consciousness; thus the offering for the sake of Krishna consciousness, the consuming agent of such an offering or contribution, the process of consumption, the contributor, and the result are -- all combined together -- Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth covered by maya is called matter. Matter dovetailed for the cause of the Absolute Truth regains its spiritual quality. Krishna consciousness is the process of converting the illusory consciousness into Brahman, or the Supreme. When the mind is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness, it is said to be in samadhi, or trance. Anything done in such transcendental consciousness is called yajna, or sacrifice for the Absolute. In that condition of spiritual consciousness, the contributor, the contribution, the consumption, the performer or leader of the performance, and the result or ultimate gain -- everything -- becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman. That is the method of Krishna consciousness."

    (BG 4.24, Purport)

     

    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

     

    "I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead who is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and death. There is no way for liberation other than this knowledge of that Supreme Person.

     

    "There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person, because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies."

     

    From these verses one concludes that the Supreme Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervading by His multi-energies, both material and spiritual.

    (BG 7.7, Purport)

     

     

    "Krishna is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth: mattah parataram nanyat" (Purport of Sri Isopanihad 15, Purport, refering to BG 7.7)

     

    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"..


  14.  

    Yes. Just as Krsna(sun) in His form as Siva(moon) is the basis of impersonal Brahman (moonlight). Krsna (sun) is directly the basis of personal Brahman (sunlight) which indirectly is the basis ( the moon has no light) of impersonal Brahman(moonlight). Brahman(sunlight) and impersonal Brahman(moonlight) therefore are simultaneously one and yet different. Lord Caitanya`s acintya-bheda-abheda-ttatva confirms this metaphor or analogy.

    I don't understand this..


  15.  

    ----

     

    If Krsna ( sun) is the basis of Brahman (sunlight), then Siva ( moon) is the basis of impersonal Brahman (moonlight).

     

     

    -----

    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?


  16.  

    Bhagavad-gita As It Is 14.27

     

    brahmano hi pratishthaham

    amritasyavyayasya ca

    sasvatasya ca dharmasya

    sukhasyaikantikasya ca

     

    SYNONYMS

     

    brahmanah -- of the impersonal brahmajyoti; hi -- certainly; pratishtha -- the rest; aham -- I am; amritasya -- of the immortal; avyayasya -- of the imperishable; ca -- also; sasvatasya -- of the eternal; ca -- and; dharmasya -- of the constitutional position; sukhasya -- of happiness; aikantikasya -- ultimate; ca -- also.

     

    TRANSLATION

     

    And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

     

     

    Bhagavad-gita As It Is 3.3

     

    TRANSLATION

     

    The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who try to realize the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service.

     

    PURPORT

     

    In the Second Chapter, verse 39, the Lord explained two kinds of procedures -- namely sankhya-yoga and karma-yoga, or buddhi-yoga. In this verse, the Lord explains the same more clearly. Sankhya-yoga, or the analytical study of the nature of spirit and matter, is the subject matter for persons who are inclined to speculate and understand things by experimental knowledge and philosophy. The other class of men work in Krishna consciousness, as it is explained in the 61st verse of the Second Chapter. The Lord has explained, also in the 39th verse, that by working by the principles of buddhi-yoga, or Krishna consciousness, one can be relieved from the bonds of action; and, furthermore, there is no flaw in the process. The same principle is more clearly explained in the 61st verse -- that this buddhi-yoga is to depend entirely on the Supreme (or more specifically, on Krishna), and in this way all the senses can be brought under control very easily. Therefore, both the yogas are interdependent, as religion and philosophy. Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation. The ultimate goal is Krishna, because the philosophers who are also sincerely searching after the Absolute Truth come in the end to Krishna consciousness. This is also stated in the Bhagavad-gita. The whole process is to understand the real position of the self in relation to the Superself. The indirect process is philosophical speculation, by which, gradually, one may come to the point of Krishna consciousness; and the other process is directly connecting with everything in Krishna consciousness. Of these two, the path of Krishna consciousness is better because it does not depend on purifying the senses by a philosophical process. Krishna consciousness is itself the purifying process, and by the direct method of devotional service it is simultaneously easy and sublime.

     

     

    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


  17. 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..

×
×
  • Create New...