primate

In the Dutch language, the term 'Godheid' is used, and in German it is 'Gottheit'. Semantically, these terms most closely resemble the English term 'Godhood' or 'Godness' or 'being God' or simply 'God'. The English term 'Godhead', however, could also mean 'head (or hood) of God', which might actually be a better translation of the Sanskrit word 'Bhagavate' or 'Bhagavan'..:

I agree. But the more exact a pointer points to what it is intended to point to, the better. If a pointer is exactly on target, we only need to follow its direction to find the target. If, on the other hand, a pointer is not exactly on target, we may have to search a whole region that is approximately pointed to, in order to find the intended target. Especially when the medium of words and language is used inexactly as a pointer, there is the risk that you will find something completely different from what was originally intended, simply because it seems closest to the meaning of the words. 1) "Krishna is the source of Brahman" Due to the causal or temporal connotation of the word 'source', this can’t be correct, although it just might have been intended to indicate the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman. 2) "Krishna is the basis of Brahman" This is better. It could mean that Krishna is a more basic aspect or principle of the Absolute Truth than Brahman. However, it also appears to mean that Brahman is derived from Krishna, or that Brahman is based on Krishna. Therefore, again, due to the causal/temporal undertone, this can’t be exactly correct; although, again, it might just have been the intention to indicate the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman. 3) "Brahman is an attribute of Krishna" This seems to be much better. There is no causality involved. No temporal assumption at all. Brahman simply is an attribute of Krishna, and both are aspects of the same Absolute Truth. It also complies with 1) and 2), by indicating the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman. 4) "Krishna is an attribute of Brahman" This states the opposite of 3), and it is very far removed from 1) and 2), because it doesn’t indicate the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman. Therefore, it's unlikely to be correct.

It's big, it's heavy, it's wood..

Faith is blind, per definition..

Okay PassingThru. I can tell you that personally I’ve learned quite a bit from these forums. My interest is mainly philosophical and some (more or less religious) discussions made me adjust and/or better understand my own (more or less formal) theory of reality. In terms of hard physics, I wouldn’t expect too much input here, although personally I may be able to link your data with a particularly elegant, non-linear mathematical model of material reality. I have a PhD in neuro-sciences, mainly from doing computer-simulation studies of the brain, using various neural-network formalisms, genetic algorithms, and other computational search - and optimization algorithms. But I came to the conclusion, that (apart from low level perceptual processing), the working of the (mammalian) brain cannot be understood in terms of a computer program (or Turing-machine). This is especially evident when it comes to higher cognitive processes, like reasoning, understanding and consciousness. So, currently I’m working as a software engineer, solving complex scheduling problems and other interesting tasks, which are difficult for humans, but relatively easy for a computer, because the latter can do arithmetic calculations really much faster than our human brain. Good luck!

Okay Sant, the statement is not entirely correct or unambiguous. I think I already explained it, but here goes one more time, because I think it’s quite relevant. The sun and the sunlight, are often used to illustrate the relation between Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His effulgence the Brahman. The idea is that even though the sun and the sunlight exist simultaneously, the sun is the source of the sunlight. So, even though Krishna and the Brahman effulgence exist simultaneously, Krishna is the supreme principle of reality. There is, however, a problem with this sun-metaphor. The sunlight is spatially separate from the sun. Nuclear fusion reactions in the sun’s core produce heat and ultimately photons (and other types of radiation), which are emitted by the sun and travel away from the sun at the speed of light. When these photons reach Earth (after 8.3 minutes), we see this as the sun and its sunlight. However, what we actually see are just these photons, from which we conclude that there must exist a sun in the sky. Now, as you know, God is all pervasive, and Krishna and His Brahman effulgence are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. This means that, contrary to the sun and the sunlight, they are not spatially separate entities. Furthermore, they are also not separated in time, because they exist simultaneously. Importantly, this means that one cannot be 'the cause' of the other. For example, a nuclear fusion reaction in the sun’s core between two atoms of hydrogen - that combine to create helium and energy, which is ultimately emitted as photons - can be said to be 'the cause' of the emitted photons. Cause and effect are not simultaneous. A cause precedes its effect. So, cause and effect (or action and reaction, if you like) are always separated events in time. Simultaneous events or phenomena, on the other hand, are events that occur at exactly the same point in time. There cannot exist a causal relation between any two simultaneous events or phenomena. one event cannot be 'the cause' of another simultaneous event. In fact, we know of only one type of correlated events in our material reality that occur simultaneously. These are so called 'entangled' quantum events. When, for example, the 'spin' (or another property) of one of two entangled quantum particles is changed, the spin of the other particle changes accordingly and instantaneously, no matter how large the distance between them. Einstein called this 'spooky action at a distance'. Any other physical or material events or phenomena that we know of (including sunlight), always seem to occur as the result of a causal (action-reaction-like, non-simultaneous) relation with other material events..

BERLIN (June 25) — A bird-bone flute unearthed in a German cave was carved some 35,000 years ago and is the oldest handcrafted musical instrument yet discovered, archaeologists say, offering the latest evidence that early modern humans in Europe had established a complex and creative culture.. http://news.aol.com/article/prehistoric-flute/542196

What do you need to know? What right circumstances do you mean? After all, this is public internet.. If you have found some ground braking scientific answers to religious questions, I would publish the research in a peer reviewed journal, and I suppose we will hear about it in due time. If, however, you have questions or uncertainties concerning the subject matter, we can discuss these here..

Here Prabhupada says: "Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are three aspects of the same Absolute Truth". So, there is only One Absolute Truth, although it has different aspects, which can be known separately, in different stages of Krishna Consciousness. "Krishna is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth: mattah parataram nanyat". In my understanding, this means that Krishna is the complete concept of the Absolute Truth. So far so good. But Prabhupada also states: "Krishna is 'the source' of the brahmajyoti as well as the all-pervading Paramatma", and "Krishna is 'the basis' of Brahman". Both these 'finger pointings' can be misunderstood as: Krishna is 'the cause' of Brahman, as a result of their temporal connotation..

Yes, I think that is a much better statement than "Krishna is the basis (or source) of Brahman"..

I didn't say that!

Yes, but that's not relevant for the discussion. We are looking here for simultaneously (non-causally) correlated events..

The point is, that there is an action-reaction-like relation between a light source and the light it emits. In your example of a mach, first the sulphur and phosphor in the tip of the match must ignite, and only after that the match starts to emit light. So the match is the cause of the light. Now, in the case of Krishna and Brahman, neither is the cause of the other. They simply exist simultaneously. They are different aspects of the same causeless Absolute Truth..

Didn't you know that when you look at the stars, you are actually looking at the stars as they existed millions of (light)years in the past. Some of the stars we can still see today, may not even exist anymore..

That's okay Theist. No bad feelings here either. Sorry for the unnecessary remark on the sunshine metaphor.

I mean that the nuclear reactions within the Sun’s core and the resultant radiation do not exist simultaneously in time. Although the Sun and its sunshine (or a star and its starlight) appear to exist simultaneously, they are always separated in time. Whenever there exists such a causal relationship between two events, this cannot be used as an example of the relation between Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, because these are three simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth, as per Prabhupada..

No Theist, actually I completely agree with Prabhupada! But I think you didn't quote his translation of BG 14.27 in the correct context. That's what I try to say. And I think his purport of BG 4.24 proves this. Apart from this, I just don't understand why Prabhupada didn't stick to the literal Sanskrit verse in his translation of Sri Isopanishad Invocation, which would have illustrated my point much better..

I don’t think so! I’m attempting to remove the concept of time from the definition of the Absolute. Consequently, statements like "Krishna is the basis of Brahman" become problematic. Now you are imposing the concept of time onto the Absolute. Causality implies time. If time isn’t of the Absolute, Krishna cannot be the cause of the Brahman effulgence. Agreed. Cause and effect only have meaning in our temporal material world. Indeed, the Sun and its rays are not a good example, because the Sun’s nuclear reactions are clearly the cause of its rays. They don’t exist simultaneously.

The literal Sanskrit verse states: "I am the 'rest' of Brahman". I think that Prabhupada’s translation "Krishna is the 'basis' of Brahman", actually means that Krishna is the 'essence' of Brahman. So, Krishna and Brahman are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. In fact, this is confirmed by Prabhupada himself in his purport of BG 4.24, in which he explains the method and the result of Krishna Consciousness: So, if according to Prabhupada, everything ultimately becomes one in the Absolute Truth, the Supreme Brahman, then how can Vishnu/Krishna be the basis of Brahman, other than being Brahman? Also, Isopanishad clearly speaks of a perfectly complete unit Om, from which everything originates: The above translation of Prabhupada mystifies me. The original verse simply states: Even if all is taken away from the perfectly complete unit Om, from which the perfectly complete phenomenal world is produced, the complete unit [Om] is remaining..

Well, I said: "there is in fact no difference between Krishna and Brahman or God". Krishna is the person (or knower) and Brahman is the mechanical system (or mechanism, if you like). In reality, I don’t think one is 'the basis' of the other. To be the basis of something, the basis must come first. This implies sequential order, which implies time, which implies Maya. And God isn’t subject to Maya or time; God is Maya..

Yes, I think you got it. This 'exclusionary principle' (Maya), is the basis of time. We consciously perceive only specific 'material singularities', that occur in a specific sequential order. Hence, the illusion of duality, change and time. What do you mean? Are you proposing an actual experiment?

Agreed. As I suggested earlier, I think God (impersonal Brahman) is total consciousness as well as total energy, all present in a singular cosmic oscillation. Our individual (material) consciousness is a discontinuous fraction of this total consciousness, and a function of its creative energy or Maya. In such a model we are simultaneously one with God and different from God, and God is the origin or basis of our (partial) consciousness. According to this, our consciousness is incomplete, and since our knowledge is obviously part of our consciousness, our knowledge is incomplete. Therefore, we can never fully know God, or the origin of our consciousness. If Krishna/Vishnu, or the supreme personality of Godhead, has total consciousness (including our own consciousness), then Krishna has complete knowledge of Brahman, and there is in fact no difference between Krishna and Brahman or God. Perhaps my (implicit) question was, whether consciousness or knowledge and (mindful) understanding are equivalent. In other words, can total consciousness (or God) fully understand itself? I suspect, however, that 'understanding' is just a characteristic of our material brain and subtle mind. Beyond that, only absolute knowledge might exist..

Personally, I would be quite content just to know how the universe approximately works, and to understand who or what we are ourselves in relation to God. No need to understand God and/or His origin. It’s even questionable whether any sentient being (including Vishnu/Krishna) can understand God as the origin of everything (or Brahman). Logically, no conscious entity can have complete knowledge of its own origin, because any knowledge is a part of the entity itself and therefore it is different from its origin. This may also relate to 'Gödel's first incompleteness theorem', which basically states: There can never exist a complete system of formal logic that allows all true logical statements to be derived from itself. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems)

(The book of Galatians in the New Testament part of the Bible, is a letter written by Paul.)

We must remember Krishna when we die. I'm not sure if this is off any topic..