primate

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 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

..

Krishna cannot be found through mental speculation. Better to put one's faith in God than in one's mental abilities.

Actually, it's best to do both..

I hate to say this, Primate. But I can`t really understand what your saying using this so-called physical theories. They are still material to me in explaining the spiritual. Physics is not my forte. I failed in math when I was in high school. I`m sorry.

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..

Aren`t all analogies, Primate, material in explaining the spiritual?

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..

Sounds like you already decided how Creation had occurred.

 

However, no matter how well a person's explaination is, you need to understand that your theory IS a theory. There is no way you could proof that this is true. Unless you witness the Birth of the Universe yourself.

 

If you ask me, I will follow Gautama Buddha's advice on this one. He stated that it doesn't matter how the Universe formed or how it will end. All that matters is achieving Enlightnment.

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..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ain't you people Offtopic here? We supposed to be discussing Creation and not whether Theist or Primate wrong or right.

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..

How about this sun-moon metaphor, Primate, of mine. The light we see on the moon on earth is but a reflection of the light coming from the sun. We might have this idea that moonlight is the brahmajyoti and the moon Brahman. This is why Srila Prabhupad stated that Krsna (the Sun ) is the basis ( moonlight) of impersonal Brahman (the moon). Sri Caitanya`s acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva confirms this analogy.

Please, Melvin, no more material analogies!

...

Here is a question for you.

Don't you think that if there is a God then everything else material or spiritual must be based and sustained on His person and will?

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.

This is a declaration of fact. You yourself have no basis to make this statement by your own honest admission. better to remain open to the possibility that Prabhupada is right and you are wrong. Not blindly accept what Prabhupada said but remain open.

 

Problem is since you are also brahman your position is that you existence as brahman is also independent and not based on anything or anyone.

 

But the truth is there is a God who is the source of everything and everyone. All rest upon Him as pearls are strung on a thread. God is called the Cause of all causes. This means He has no cause.

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..

Last week you called yourself an agnostic and now you are declaring what is the nature of the absolute truth. What happened? Struck by lightening maybe?

 

Anyway you are welcome to your opinion.

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..

How are you, Primate? I would like you to interpret this for me which I will quote verbatim from this book, The Teachings of Lord Caitanya, I`m now reading:

 

After hearing the direct interpretation of the Vedanta-sutra, one of the sanyasis immediately declared, O Sripada Caitanya, whatever You have explained in Your condemnation of the indirect interpretation of omkara is most useful. Only a fortunate person can accept Your interpretation as the right one. Actually, everyone of us now knows that the interpretation given by Sankara are all artificial and imaginary, but because we belong to Sankacaraya`s sect we take it for granted that his interpretation is the right one. We shall be very glad to hear from You further explain the Vedanta-sutra by direct interpretation."

 

Being so requested, Lord Caitanya explained each and every verse of Vedanta -sutra according to the direct interpretation. He also explained Brahman, indicating that Brahman means the greatest, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Brahman indicates that the greatest is full with six opulences: the reservoir of all wealth, all fame, all strength, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation.

 

When Lord Krsna was personally present on earth, He exhibited these six opulences in full. No one was richer than Lord Krsna, no one was more learned than Him, no one more beautiful, no one stronger, no one more famous and no one more renounced. Therefore, the Supreme Personality of Krsna is the Supreme Brahman. This is confirmed by Arjuna in Bhagavad-gita(10.12). Param brahma param dhama: " You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode." He is the shelter of the Absolute Truth(para-tattva) because He is param brahma. There is nothing material in His opulences and exhibitions of wealth, fame, strength, beauty, knowledge and renunciation. All the Vedic verses and hymns indicate that everything about Him is spiritual and transcendental. Whenever the word Brahman appears in the Vedas, it should be understood, the Supreme Personality, is indicated. An intelligent person at once replaces the word Brahman with the name Krsna.

 

To accept the Supreme as impersonal is to deny the manifestation of His spiritual energies.When someone simply accepts the impersonal exhibition of spiritual energy to the exclusion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he does not accept the Absolute Truth in full. To accept the Supreme Personality in full is to accept SPIRITUAL VARIEGATEDNESS which is transcendental to the material modes of nature. By failing to indicate the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the impersonalists are left with an incomplete conception.

 

 

Primate, spiritual variegatedness doesn`t mean spiritual oneness, right?

Spiritual variegatedness means that everything is animate.. (SB 3.15.18, Purport)

I am not a scholar so I don't approach God as if I were. I look for the most simple and direct why to understand something.

 

You are also not a scholar so this method may be helpful for you.

 

In your previous post you accepted that the sun was the basis of the sunlight. Well the sun represents Krishna and the sunlight represents the brahman effulgence.

 

Perhaps now you can see why I refuse to go away from this example. It is the simplest and most direct.

Yes. But it is not the Truth..

You already assume you are right. Why should I disturb you?

I don't think you can disturb me.. I’m just curious about your scholarly opinion..

If you cannot see how the Sun globe is the basis of the sunshine then there is nothing left to talk about. It is such a basic thing. What is the point of talking math to someone who won't accept that 1 is the basis of all other numbers?

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..

You say you understood this all along yet you continued to nit pick over the unavoidable flaw in the example of the sun and sunshine. It is that nit picking that shows me you don't really understand this.

 

 

 

 

Well until you address the point of the example of the sun and sunshine, also given by Prabhupada, I have no inclination to consider your examples. Sorry but first things first.

 

I offered this example to show how Krishna is the basis of the Brahman.

 

Please address this directly or please allow me to end this particular conversation.

 

Hare krishna

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..

How do people like this new style of website.Personally i am finding it a little hard reading through posts and getting used to.

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'.

reread the thread

I mean, what's your point?

I am not interested in word games primate. I go to Prabhupada for the truth.

 

You still won't address the point. What is your problem.

What's the point? Really..?

Deleted

You say you understood this all along yet you continued to nit pick over the unavoidable flaw in the example of the sun and sunshine. It is that nit picking that shows me you don't really understand this.

 

 

 

 

Well until you address the point of the example of the sun and sunshine, also given by Prabhupada, I have no inclination to consider your examples. Sorry but first things first.

 

I offered this example to show how Krishna is the basis of the Brahman.

 

Please address this directly or please allow me to end this particular conversation.

 

Hare krishna

Your answer makes me wonder.. Are you actually interested in the Truth? And if not, then what are you interested in?

That is what I have been trying to do and the explanation is right there in the form of the Sun and the sunshine. That is not my example by the way. I heard it first from Prabhupada but it goes back as far as the vedas.

 

Drop the idea of time altogether. Speaking of time means you are still analysizing the finger.Look at the moon only. Or in this case the eternal sun, Krishna.

...

 

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:

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

 

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”!

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 7.7

 

mattah parataram nanyat

kincid asti dhananjaya

mayi sarvam idam protam

sutre mani-gana iva

 

SYNONYMS

 

mattah -- beyond Me; para-taram -- superior; na -- not; anyat kincit -- anything else; asti -- there is; dhananjaya -- O conqueror of wealth; mayi -- in Me; sarvam -- all that be; idam -- which we see; protam -- is strung; sutre -- on a thread; mani-ganah -- pearls; iva -- like.

 

TRANSLATION

 

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

 

PURPORT

… 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.

 

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:

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

 

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:

"... 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."

 

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’:

Pratishtha pratistha (Sanskrit) [from prati-shtha to stand towards, stay from prati towards, upon, in the direction of + the verbal root shtha to stand]

 

Dwelling place, residence, receptacle; preeminence, superiority. In the Bhagavad-Gita Krishna refers to himself as a pratishtha of Brahman or parabrahman; an image or manifestation of parabrahman or a hypostasis or representation of the divine in the worlds of manifestation.

 

Thus the hierarch or manifested divinity in any world system is a pratishtha of the surrounding invisible life or Brahman, Brahman again being one of the infinitely numerous channels or pratishthas of parabrahman.

 

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Pratishtha_pratistha/id/135709

 

Also see:

 

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=apte3&query=pratiSThA&matchtype=exact&display=utf8

 

http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/

 

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.

 

PURPORT

 

The constitution of Brahman is immortality, imperishability, eternity, and happiness. Brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization. Paramatma, the Supersoul, is the middle, the second stage in transcendental realization, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth. Therefore, both Paramatma and the impersonal Brahman are within the Supreme Person.

…

 

You mean there is no sun?

No. We just can't be sure that there is a sun. But don't worry, it's very likely that the sun exists..

Which is worse, one who openly opposes the conclusion of krishna's devotee or the one who pretends to be a disciple of said devotee while openly and publically opposing his conclusions?

 

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?

You say you agree but you don't really. You still want to analysis the pointer. You still don't get it.

 

...

 

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"..?