Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

primate

Members
  • Content Count

    553
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by primate

  1. 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 here 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 (http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/454154-play-creation-4.html#post1149064). I don’t expect you to comment on it here, 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 nothing more than religious sentimentality, without definite philosophical justification.. Respectfully yours, primate
  2. Actually, it's best to do both..
  3. Why, Melvin, do you think the Vedas exist, if the authors didn't think reality can be logically explained? I made it clear (and so do the Vedas) that material analogies are necessarily limited in explanatory power, because everything material is an illusion and a product of our ignorant material consciousness. However, this doesn't mean that we can't understand reality in our (subtle) mind. That's where mathematics and logic reside..
  4. No. There can be strictly logical analogies of reality, without any material reference, apart from the obvious requirement that such a model must explain all of reality including our material world. For example, a mathematical model of reality (such as a mathematical chaos model) is a non-material analogy..
  5. I don't think creation 'occurred'. There simply is a cosmic manifestation. As far as proof is concerned, I didn’t say anything that isn't also stated in Vedic literature. That should be proof enough..
  6. In order to understand creation, it first has to be established who or what is the creator and what is the created. The creator is the cause of all causes, which is itself causeless. Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Therefore, neither can be said to be the cause or the creation of any of the others. Moreover, everything material and spiritual is Brahman/Bhagavan. Then what's left to be created? It must be concluded that the Absolute Truth (or God) is both creator and creation simultaneously: acintya bheda-abheda. Thus, the creation is causeless. Then what is causality? Causality is a characteristic of the material illusion in which everything appears to have a material cause. In reality, however, God is the cause of all causes. Logically this means that causality doesn't exist (we now know from quantum physics that this is true). There is only one cause, which means that nothing is the cause of anything else, which ultimately means that everything is one. The creation or the cosmic manifestation, is our conscious illusion of independent material existence and difference. In reality, however, nothing exists independently and everything is one in Brahman/Bhagavan..
  7. Please, Melvin, no more material analogies!
  8. Yes. Moreover, Brahman/Bhagavan is everything. Everything is a manifestation of God. I'm not sure if the terms 'based on' or 'sustained by' are ultimately applicable. These seem to imply duality and causality, which are, again, material concepts. However, I agree that this is the way in which the relation between God and the material manifestation is sometimes 'indicated' in Vedic literature.
  9. Well, I have a logical basis or argument, which is stated in my post #65 and some other posts in this thread. But I agree that one cannot be absolutely sure whether something is absolutely true or not. Hereby I correct my earlier statement to: Any sun-metaphor of reality is unlikely to be absolutely true. And, of course, anything that has a cause, cannot be God..
  10. I’m not declaring anything.. I’m trying to understand the truth (as an agnostic). And I simply asked for your opinion about some ideas that I have..
  11. Spiritual variegatedness means that everything is animate.. (SB 3.15.18, Purport)
  12. Yes. But it is not the Truth..
  13. I don't think you can disturb me.. I’m just curious about your scholarly opinion..
  14. I didn’t say that the 'sun-globe' is not the basis of the sunshine! I said Krishna is not the basis of Brahman! If you are unable to refute this, then I guess that I can safely assume that I’m correct. Which is fine with me..
  15. Okay Theist. "One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintya bheda-and-abheda-tattva -- simultaneous oneness and difference." (BG 7.8) God is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. In your own words, Krishna and His impersonal Brahman effulgence are simultaneously one and different. Similarly, the living beings are of equal quality to the Supreme being, but they don’t share the qualities to an infinite extent. "Qualitatively the living entity and the Supreme Lord are one, but in quantity they are different." (Madhya 6.163) The analogy often used as an explanation in this context is the relationship between the Sun and the Sunshine. (SB 4.31.16). I have been thinking about this. Actually it is not such a bad analogy at all. The sun-light can indeed be considered non-different from the sun-sphere, because the sun-sphere is inferred from the sun-light. What we actually see are just photons. This may also be analogues to how we infer the cosmic manifestation from our (ignorant) conscious perception of reality. My only problem is the conclusion that Krishna is 'the source or basis' of Brahman. I don’t think that’s what acintya bheda-abheda-tattva means or implies. And how can Brahman be properly described in such material terms, when Brahman is the basis of the material world and everything? I also argued (based on Prabhupada’s own general teachings), that this cannot be what Prabhupada meant to say or intended to say. Now, can we please go back to the argument in post #65? I would appreciate it if you could comment on it..
  16. primate

    new

    I think it's a big improvement that you can now click on a small button within a quote, to jump directly to the quoted message. This way you can easily navigate back through a number of posts that refer to eachother, without having to look through the whole thread for the quoted posts 'by hand'.
  17. Your answer makes me wonder.. Are you actually interested in the Truth? And if not, then what are you interested in?
  18. Yes. Forget about time. That’s what I was trying to say all along. After all, time only has meaning in a material context. Even though our material consciousness is ultimately a function of God’s creative energy, I don’t think God can be understood in material terms. Causality and the irreversible passage of time, are material illusions, resulting from Maya, which hides the Absolute Truth from our human consciousness. I think, therefore, that any conception or formal description of the Absolute Truth that doesn’t depend on such material concepts, is to be preferred over a description that does. Now, allow me to (again) consider the following quotes from Prabhupada: This concept of the Absolute Truth doesn’t involve time or any other material reference. Here Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, clearly are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Therefore, I could accept this as a true statement about the Absolute Truth. Please notice, that in the next quote, the translation of the original Sanskrit verse must actually be: “… there is no truth superior to Me. Everything is strung in Me, like pearls on a thread”; and it is obviously not: “... there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread”! This verse can once more be understood as a concept of the Absolute Truth that doesn’t involve time or causality; although ‘pearls strung on a thread’ is a ‘material’ example, it simply appears to illustrate the all pervasiveness of God, which is confirmed by Prabhupada’s purport: “... the Supreme Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervading by His multi-energies, both material and spiritual”. This is even further explained by Prabhupada in the next quote: And once more, there is no temporal or causal implication here. Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervasive, is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth. And that is that. Now, you might ask, then what exactly is the Brahman aspect of the Absolute Truth, that was mentioned in the first quote? This is explained by Prabhupada in his Purport of BG 4.24 as follows: Again, the Absolute Truth remains non-causal. There is no mentioning of any action-reaction-like relation between Krishna and Brahman. Instead, it is stated that when the covering of Maya or material illusion is removed, everything is one in Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. My personal conclusion from the above quotations, is that Brahman is the aspect of oneness -, and Krishna is the aspect of all-pervasiveness of the same Absolute Truth. However, Krishna is the ultimate (most complete) concept of the Absolute Truth, because all-pervasiveness (logically) implies oneness. I don’t see any other possible interpretation, and I think it is consistent and acceptable. Consequently, I am mystified when Prabhupada translates ‘brahmano hi pratishthaham’ in BG 14.27 as: “Krishna is the basis (or source) of Brahman”. According to my earlier conclusion, he actually says: ‘all-pervasiveness’ is the basis of ‘oneness’! This doesn’t seem to make sense at all. Apart from the implied causal relation between Krishna and Brahman (which can’t be true), I don’t see how all-pervasiveness can be the basis of oneness. Especially not, when in Krishna Consciousness everything (material) dissolves into oneness or Brahman, as per Prabhupada in his Purport of BG 4.24. I therefore assume that the meaning of the original Sanskrit verse must be something like: “Krishna is the manifestation of Brahman”. But I can’t be sure.. I would very much appreciate it if you (or anyone else) could explain this, or point out the error in my argument. I hope you can see that I’m sincerely trying to understand Prabhupada’s teachings. This is not ‘nitpicking’, but really a fundamental question that I have. At this point, however, I will just assume that the translation of the original Sanskrit verse of BG 14.27 is not correct. I don’t know if this is Prabhupada’s error or the error of one of his editors. In the Purport of BG 14.27, Prabhupada himself appears to confirm my point of view by stating: “both Paramatma and the impersonal Brahman are within the Supreme Person”. Since, per definition, the basis of something is more basic or fundamental or simple than what is based upon it, Krishna cannot be the basis of Brahman and Paramatma, because both are within him. For example, a house is build with bricks. The bricks are the basis of the house and not vice versa. And the bricks are within the house and not vice versa. Finally, as I suggested earlier, 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’:
  19. No. We just can't be sure that there is a sun. But don't worry, it's very likely that the sun exists..
  20. Theist, I hope you can understand that I don’t think I’m opposing Prabhupada’s conclusions. Possibly I’m opposing the English transliteration of one of his ideas. If, however, I am opposing his conclusions, then can you please explain this to me?
  21. No. I’m not just analysing the pointer. I’m also reformulating the pointer in more exact terms, possibly directing it more precisely to its target. My 'causality argument' is a very important consideration in this reformulation, even though we are talking about "nano-seconds". Events are simultaneous or not. And that’s absolute. What I would like you to comment on, is the result of the effort. Does one state something completely wrong when one says: "Brahman is an attribute of Krishna"..?
×
×
  • Create New...