Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by shiva

  1. http://michaeljacksongod.blogspot.com/
  2. For the same reason that sometimes just Shiva is referred to as God in various sastra: the name isn't important, Sadasiva and Shiva are used interchangeably in various sastra.. Jiva Goswami makes all of this very clear, I can't see why anyone would claim that what Jiva Goswami taught is not Gaudiya theology since he is a foundational acarya of the sampradaya. I'm not making any of this up, anyone can read what he wrote, the sanskrit is there and can be checked if people have doubts about the translation.
  3. Originally Posted by Sonic Yogi Shiva wrote: Originally Posted by shiva Vishnu tattva means one thing only in Gaudiya theology: Vishnu means all-pervading; Vishnu-tattva refers to swamsa or plenary expansions of Krishna, that is they are all the same all-pervading supreme Lord. Vishnu-tattva is only applicable to someone who is all-pervading, only applicable to God. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Lord Siva is all pervading within the universe. That is your mistake to think that Lord Siva is not all pervading. Even Lord Brahma is all pervading. Sorry to burst your misconception. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 8.7.21 śrī-prajāpataya ūcuḥ deva-deva mahā-deva bhūtātman bhūta-bhāvana trāhi naḥ śaraṇāpannāḿs trailokya-dahanād viṣāt SYNONYMS śrī-prajāpatayaḥ ūcuḥ — the prajāpatis said; deva-deva — O Lord Mahādeva, best of the demigods; mahā-deva — O great demigod; bhūta-ātman — O life and soul of everyone in this world; bhūta-bhāvana — O the cause of the happiness and flourishing of all of them; trāhi — deliver; naḥ — us; śaraṇa-āpannān — who have taken shelter at your lotus feet; trailokya — of the three worlds; dahanāt — which is causing the burning; viṣāt — from this poison. TRANSLATION The prajāpatis said: O greatest of all demigods, Mahādeva, Supersoul of all living entities and cause of their happiness and prosperity, we have come to the shelter of your lotus feet. Now please save us from this fiery poison, which is spreading all over the three worlds. PURPORT Since Lord Śiva is in charge of annihilation, why should he be approached for protection, which is given by Lord Viṣṇu? Lord Brahmā creates, and Lord Śiva annihilates, but both Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva are incarnations of Lord Viṣṇu and are known as śaktyāveśa-avatāras. They are endowed with a special power like that of Lord Viṣṇu, who is actually all-pervading in their activities. Therefore whenever prayers for protection are offered to Lord Śiva, actually Lord Viṣṇu is indicated, for otherwise Lord Śiva is meant for destruction. Lord Śiva is one of the īśvaras, or the controllers known as śaktyāveśa-avatāras. Therefore he can be addressed as having the qualities of Lord Viṣṇu. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, these are all slokas in 8th Canto in regards to Lord Siva, the husband of Bhavani, who drank the ocean of poison to save the universe. These verses were not offered to Sadasiva of Vaikuntha, but to Lord Siva in this universe. Srila Prabhupada says clearly here that Lord Siva is empowered with all-pervading and has the qualities of Lord Vishnu as such.
  4. Posted by Sonic Yogi No, you are wrong. The husband of Parvati, Lord Siva is not a jiva. Siva is always in connection with Mahamaya, but that does not make him a jiva. When Siva is not in touch with Mahamaya, then he is the original Sadasiva who is the husband of Rama-devi, Lord Vishnu and is not the Sadasiva expansion that is in connection with Mahamaya. The second Sadasiva who is the consort of Mahamaya is the combination of Vishnu-tattva and Jiva tattva as Srila Prabhupada has explained. The second Sadasiva who is the expansion of the Vishnu Sadasiva is always in contact with Mahamaya and sometimes acts as Vishnu-tattva, as in his preserving the universe and protecting it from the kalakuta, and sometimes act in capacity of jiva to destroy the universe. The second Sadasiva who consorts with Mahamaya is this combination of Vishnu tattva and jiva tattva. Srila Prabhupada refers to him as shaktyavesha avatar which means a jiva who has been empowered with some Vishnu-tattva powers. Shakytavesha avatars are not jiva and are not Vishnu, they are combination of both. Ordinarily, the jiva cannot attain any powers to the level of Vishnu, but in the case of shaktyavesha there is some function of Vishnu working through the jiva. When Vishnu works through a jiva that is shaktyavesha avatar and is not ordinary jiva. In effect, a jiva can be empowered to function as Vishnu tattva. That is shaktyavesha avatar. At that time the jiva is not acting as a jiva but as Vishnu tattva or Siva tattva. These Shaktyavesha avatars do not have all the powers of Vishnu, but some powers of Vishnu are invested in them. The Bhagavatam describes several of these shaktyavesha avatars who were jivas that became empowered with some powers otherwise only found in Vishnu. svamsa-vibhinnamsa-rupe hana vistara ananta vaikuntha-brahmande karena vihara svamsa-vistara -- catur-vyuha, avatara-gana vibhinnamsa jiva -- tanra saktite ganana sei vibbhinamsa jiva - dui ta' prakara eka - "nitya-mukta," eka - "nityasamsara" Krsna expands Himself in many forms. Some of them are personal expansions, and some are separate expansions. Thus He performs pastimes in both the spiritual and the material worlds. The spiritual worlds are the Vaikuntha planets, and the material universes are the brahmandas, gigantic globes governed by Lord Brahma Expansions of His personal self -- like the quadruple manifestations of Sankarsana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Vasudeva -- descend as incarnations from Vaikuntha to this material world. The separated expansions are the living entities (vibhinnamsa jiva). Although they are expansions of Krsna, they are counted among His different potencies The living entities (vibhinnamsa jiva) are divided into two categories. Some are eternally liberated, and others are eternally conditioned.
  5. Originally Posted by Sonic Yogi But, those quotes seems to be at odds with Srimad Bhagavatam. I don't know where you got those translation of if they are dependable. Here is the best explanation that I can find. Srila Prabhupada says that Siva is simultaneously an expansion of Vishnu and jiva. As the annihilator of the universe, the jiva aspect of Siva is acting. It doesn't appear as Siva is two different types but simultaneously a combination of jiva tattva and Vishnu tattva. Those are from Prabhupada's Bhagavatam. The question of this thread was about the Gaudiya Vaisnava conception. Since Jiva Goswami is considered to be the greatest philosopher and was one of the founding acharyas in Gaudiya Vaisnavism his opinion certainly should be considered as representative of Gaudiya theology. I already quoted his opinion on this topic, he clearly states what I have stated: two different Shivas, one Vishnu tattva, the other not. Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura said the same exact thing and added that a jiva fills the position of the deva Shiva. He is also considered a major acharya for Gaudiya Vaisnavism. Sri Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura said, "Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura was the protector, guardian, and acarya during the middle period (1600-1700) of the historical development of Gaudiya Vaisnavism."
  6. You seem to be saying different things, I gave the opinion of Jiva Goswami and Visvanath Cakravarti who both said that there is a Shiva who is a plenary expansion of Krishna, Vishnu tattva, God himself, and that there is another Shiva which is a post like Brahma; which is either a jiva (who becomes superior to ordinary jivas) or Vishnu (when there is no qualified jiva to fill the post).Here are the relevant verses: http://vedabase.net/sb/8/12/10/en1 naham parayur rishayo na marici-mukhya jananti yad-viracitam khalu sattva-sargah yan-mayaya mushita-cetasa isa daitya- martyadayah kim uta sasvad-abhadra-vrittah SYNONYMS na -- neither; aham -- I; para-ayuh -- that personality who lives for millions and millions of years (Lord Brahma); rishayah -- the seven rishis of the seven planets; na -- nor; marici-mukhyah -- headed by Marici Rishi; jananti -- know; yat -- by whom (the Supreme Lord); viracitam -- this universe, which has been created; khalu -- indeed; sattva-sargah -- although born in the mode of material goodness; yat-mayaya -- by the influence of whose energy; mushita-cetasah -- their hearts are bewildered; isa -- O my Lord; daitya -- the demons; martya-adayah -- the human beings and others; kim uta -- what to speak of; sasvat -- always; abhadra-vrittah -- influenced by the base qualities of material nature. TRANSLATION O my Lord, I, who am considered to be the best of the demigods, and Lord Brahma and the great rishis, headed by Marici, are born of the mode of goodness. Nonetheless, we are bewildered by Your illusory energy and cannot understand what this creation is. Aside from us, what is to be said of others, like the demons and human beings, who are in the base modes of material nature [rajo-guna and tamo-guna]? How will they know You? SB 8.12.35: O Maharaja Parikshit, best of kings, when Lord Siva had fully discharged semen, he could see how he himself had been victimized by the illusion created by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Thus he restrained himself from any further maya. SB 8.12.36: Thus Lord Siva could understand his position and that of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has unlimited potencies. Having reached this understanding, he was not at all surprised by the wonderful way Lord Vishnu had acted upon him. SB 8.12.37: Seeing Lord Siva unagitated and unashamed, Lord Vishnu [Madhusudana] was very pleased. Thus He resumed His original form and spoke as follows. SB 8.12.38: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O best of the demigods, although you have been amply harassed because of My potency in assuming the form of a woman, you are established in your position. Therefore, may all good fortune be upon you. SB 8.12.39: My dear Lord Sambhu, who within this material world but you can surpass My illusory energy? People are generally attached to sense enjoyment and conquered by its influence. Indeed, the influence of material nature is very difficult for them to surmount. SB 8.12.40: The material, external energy [maya], who cooperates with Me in creation and who is manifested in the three modes of nature, will not be able to bewilder you any longer. SB 8.12.41: Sukadeva Gosvami said: O King, having thus been praised by the Supreme Personality, who bears the mark of Srivatsa on His chest, Lord Siva circumambulated Him. Then, after taking permission from Him, Lord Siva returned to his abode, Kailasa, along with his associates. SB 8.12.42: O descendant of Bharata Maharaja, Lord Siva, in jubilation, then addressed his wife, Bhavani, who is accepted by all authorities as the potency of Lord Vishnu. SB 8.12.43: Lord Siva said: O Goddess, you have now seen the illusory energy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the unborn master of everyone. Although I am one of the principal expansions of His Lordship, even I was illusioned by His energy. What then is to be said of others, who are fully dependent on maya? SB 8.12.44: When I finished performing mystic yoga for one thousand years, you asked me upon whom I was meditating. Now, here is that Supreme Person to whom time has no entrance and who the Vedas cannot understand.
  7. In the Bhagavatam and other sastra we can see the story of the Mohini avatar of Vishnu clarify the position of Parvati's husband as not being God: http://vedabase.net/sb/8/12/en1
  8. In authentic Gaudiya theology there are two different Shivas. There is Sadashiva who is Vishnu Tattva and therefore non-different from Krishna, an example is Advaita Acharya being called an incarnation of Sadashiva. The other Shiva is the demigod Shiva who is different than Vishnu or Krishna. That is the Shiva who is married to Parvati and who was bewildered by the Mohini incarnation of Vishnu. That Shiva is a position which is usually held by a jiva (like Brahma), with a different demigod Shiva (and Brahma) in every Brahmanda. When there is no qualified jiva to fill those roles then Vishnu fills those roles. Jiva goswami explains the difference between the demigod Shiva and Sadashiva in his Paramatma Sandarbha -- Anuccheda 17 This is also explained by Sri Visvanath Cakravarti Thakur in his Sri Bhagavatamrita Kanika:
  9. In Jaiva Dharma Bhaktivinoda Thakura wrote:
  10. I was quoting Jiva Goswami, he wrote that as a commentary to Brahma Samhita. In Gaudiya Vaisnavism Durga, either one, is a plenary expansion of Radha. Gaudiya Vaisnavism is monotheistic, some may consider it to be polytheistic where they envision more than one person being God, but that is due to a poor understanding.
  11. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 4
  12. Exactly, that is the authentic teaching of the Gaudiya Sampradaya: From the Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna-prakasa of Srila Raghava Goswami: Even Durga is identical to Krishna, as told by Jiva Goswam in this commentary to Brahma Samhita:
  13. What are thoughts? They are a dialogue in the mind. How do you understand the dialogue? You are dependent on memory for understanding the language of your thoughts, you are dependent on knowledge to understand the concepts of your thoughts. You are dependent on Krishna for memory and knowledge: Krishna says The mind is not you, and the mind is not under your control. Due to conditioning people identify the mind as themselves or under their control, but Lord Kapila says: Aniruddha is a Vishnu expansion of Krishna. Paramatma exists at the heart or core of the jiva, the soul of our soul, and functions as the mind. Through meditation on detachment from the mind, the mind can reveal it's true identity to the realized yogi. Lord Kapila continues: At the stage of bhava-bhakti the devotee has the truth of the mind and his or her relationship to Krishna revealed to them through Krishna's control over the mind -- Krishna speaks to the devotee through the mind because the devotee understands that he or she is not the controller of the mind; thereby letting Krishna speak to them in the mind. The jiva is always under control in all he says or does in all circumstances because will power only belongs to the Lord. The jiva is only sakti or controlled energy, while God is sakti and saktiman: the controller of energy. Becoming conscious of this reality is essential for entering into bhava-bhakti: The jiva is not the doer because the jiva is not in control of his thoughts which inspire the jiva to act, knowing this we can be conscious of Krishna because Paramatma is the mind and controls thought:
  14. I was talking about the lila that is created by acharyas for the purpose of aiding people in their raganuga-sadhana practice. I replied already to someone who asked the same thing, this is what I said: "I'm not saying rasa-lila didn't take place, I'm saying that the rasa-lila created by Gaudiya acharyas serve very specific purposes. Unless you are educated enough in Bhagavat tattva and Radha Krishna tattva the true purpose of those writings for raganuga practice will not be attained." Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written:
  15. No, that is a form of raganuga-sadhana. Siddha-pranali is a diksa initiation into that proper practice by a guru, it isn't the practice itself. But you don't really need to get that diksa initiation if you have sufficient siksa instruction from authentic sources in order to practice raganuga-sadhana. In the practice itself you are supposed to imagine yourself in a specific sthayi-bhava (primary type of relationship -- like a lover or parent or friend, whichever way you are attracted to follow). Because lila is performed by people with eternally youthful beautiful bodies, you are supposed to conceive of yourself as being youthful and beautiful, you don't need to imagine an actual form though, just imagine yourself as being youthful and beautiful. There are different types and stages of lila-smaranam, although commonly most devotees think only of meditating on the rasa-lila pastimes written in the books or kirtans and bhajans of past Gaudiya acharyas as being the only aspect or type of lila-smaranam; when in fact that type of lila-smaranam is a preliminary stage to bhava-bhakti. It is necessary though in order to understand rasa (the different types of interactions going on between people in lila), and rasa is necessary to understand in order to develop bhava-bhakti ("During bhava, by meditation, the Lord appears in the mind" - from Madhurya Kadambini) In order to attain bhava there is a prerequisite of being firmly educated in Bhagavat tattva, which I explained in an earlier comment in this thread: Krishna is in constant and total control of everything you experience from moment to moment, including the mind and everything you encounter in your environment; awakening to this reality is essential for esoteric authentic lila-smaranam. What lila-smaranam is really supposed to be about is the meditation on remembering the nature of your relationship with Krishna from moment to moment; not in the sense of "I am such and such person in lila", but in the sense of Bhagavat ontology or "Krishna is controlling everything, including me and my thoughts, by constantly remembering this (smaranam) Krishna and his lila can and will be revealed to be all around and within me all of time". Who is qualified for raganuga-sadhana? This is what Rupa Goswami says in Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu: From http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Rupa_Goswami/Bhakti_Rasamrita_Sindhuh/EASTERN_DIVISION_OF_THE_OCEAN.htm And Visvanath Chakravarti Thakura gets into the same topic at http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Vishvanatha_Chakravarti_Thakura/Raga_Vartma_Candrika.htm
  16. Prabhupada was only saying that in ISKCON the classes are limited to those books. He didn't say that he didn't want people reading other books. It would be unprecedented for a gaudiya acharya to disallow the study of the works of the Goswamis or other previous acharyas, and in fact he didn't. He may have written that in India but he published that in America and had it distributed around the world to millions of people, if he didn't mean it he would have had it removed.
  17. http://vedabase.net/sb/introduction/en
  18. You misunderstood what I meant to convey. I'm not saying rasa-lila didn't take place, I'm saying that the rasa-lila created by Gaudiya acharyas serve very specific purposes. Unless you are educated enough in Bhagavat tattva and Radha Krishna tattva the true purpose of those writings for raganuga practice will not be attained. Here is an example: If you were to meet Radha, Krishna and the nitya-sakhis, how would you treat them? If you believe Radha and Krishna and the nitya-sakhis to be different personalities from each other, then you will treat them as different persons. But that will be a mistake and your relationship with them will be based upon your ignorance of who they really are and what your real ontological relationship with them is. We are taught that Radha and Krishna are the same person and that the sakhis are Radha's personal expansions; they are not jivas. Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 4.56 rādhā-kṛṣṇa eka ātmā, dui deha dhari' anyonye vilase rasa āsvādana kari' SYNONYMS rādhā-kṛṣṇa — Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa; eka — one; ātmā — self; dui — two; deha — bodies; dhari' — assuming; anyonye — one another; vilase — They enjoy; rasa — the mellows of love; āsvādana kari' — tasting. Here we are being instructed in Radha Krishna tattva - eka ātmā, dui deha - one atma or one person in two bodies. What is the position of the sakhis, queens and goddesses? Without understanding Radha Krishna tattva you will misunderstand the writitngs of the Gaudiya acharyas on rasa-lila. You will take it all literally, when in fact the authors were fully aware of Radha Krishna tattva and their writings are for people who are also fully aware of Radha Krishna tattva. Those writings when taken literally appear to be only about the romantic and erotic pastimes between Radha, Krishna, and the sakhis and to a lesser degree the sakhas; with the focus on the erotic rasa between Radha and Krishna, and to a lesser degree the rasa between the sakhis and Radha and the sakhis and Krishna. But in reality those relationships make no sense if you understand that Radha and Krishna are the same person, and that the sakhis are the same person as Radha. They are all the same person; and therefore real rasa is not possible between them anymore than you can enjoy rasa with your image in a mirror; you cannot enjoy rasa with yourself, rasa can only be enjoyed when there is a real relationship as opposed to a pretend relationship. My point to you was that when devotees get involved with a mistaken conception of lila, than their lila-smaranam will not be effective. They will waste their time imagining those descriptions of lila to be literal truth, when in reality the real esoteric intent of those writings will not even be perceived by them. Bhaktivinoda Thakura has written:
  19. The only people I know who took siddha-pranali diksa are a handful of people I have conversed with on the Internet. I have had long conversations over many years with them on forums and blogs about all aspects of Gaudiya theology. IMHO each of them thinks they are much more advanced than they actually are. In fact each one of them has what I consider to be distorted ideas about what they think they are experts on. Their theological views on rasa-tattva are seriously flawed on many different levels because they have seriously flawed conceptions about the most basic ontology of Radha Krishna tattva -- they see Radha and Krishna and the nitya sakhis as unique and different persons from each other. Even though Mahaprabhu and the previous acaryas taught that Radha and Krishna are one and the same personality, and that the nitya-sakhis are Radha's personal expansions, that is they are her (Radha is the vine they are the leaves and flowers of the vine of Radha); not a single one of those devotees are able to see how that ontological truism changes the meaning of rasa-lila from having a primarily literal to a primarily metaphoric purpose. They take rasa-lila literally, therefore they base their conception of raganuga-bhakti and lila-smaranam on something that is not literally real. And it shows when I converse with them. Instead of having developed a closer relationship with Krishna; which is the purpose of raganuga and siddha-pranali; they end up being obsessed with the minutiae of lila because that is what they think lila-smaranam is supposed to be about -- when in fact lila-smaranam is meant to be taken metaphorically in raganuga sadhana. Partially because of that none of them has been able to develop to the level of bhava-bhakti. I don't blame siddha-pranali for this, even without siddha-pranali the result would be the same for anyone who has basic misconceptions about Radha Krishna tattva and then tries to follow raganuga sadhana. Siddha-pranali isn't good or bad, it's neutral. A knife in the hand of surgeon can save a life, but in the hand of a fool a knife can harm you. What kind of harm? Without sufficient knowledge of Bhagavat tattva and Radha Krishna tattva, rasa-lila is unable to be understood properly because the sadhaka will take metaphor literally; all they will see in those stories and poems is the erotic relationships between Krishna and the gopis. They will miss the metaphoric intent. And even worse happens when those types of people become gurus themselves and pass on their misconceptions. We end up with thousands of bhaktas and gurus who practice and teach about raganuga sadhana from a literal perspective of lila, whose misinterpretations of the writings of the 6 Goswamis and their contemporaries becomes seen as the standard for raganuga bhakti. Prabhupada dismissed siddha-pranali because his guru had dismissed it. But Bhaktivinoda taught about it. Why did Bhaktisiddhanta dismiss it? Because like a knife it can be good or bad; so why keep a practice that could end up with bad results when you are trying to expand a large preaching organization? Siddha-pranali was never taught as something that was necessary, it was taught as something that could aid a sadhaka in his raganuga sadhana. But the "reality on the ground" is that few if any devotees were attaining bhava-bhakti from siddha-pranali because both the disciples and the gurus were more often than not full of misconceptions, and not nearly as advanced as they thought they were. Lila-smaranam is an esoteric practice, but to people with misconceptions about lila-tattva it's just about trying to meditate on being in the rasa-lila they read about. Their conception of rasa-lila is based upon a lack of understanding lila-tattva (Radha and Krishna and the nitya-sakhis are all the same person and all that implies) and a lack of understanding Bhagavat tattva: Krishna is in constant and total control of everything you experience from moment to moment, including the mind and everything you encounter in your environment; awakening to this reality is essential for esoteric authentic lila-smaranam. What lila-smaranam is really supposed to be about is the meditation on remembering the nature of your relationship with Krishna from moment to moment; not in the sense of "I am such and such person in lila", but in the sense of Bhagavat ontology or "Krishna is controlling everything, including me and my thoughts, by constantly remembering this (smaranam) Krishna and his lila can and will be revealed to be all around and within me all of time".
  20. That translation is not correct. Here is the proper one from "The servants of Hari revel in satisfying His transcendental desires. They worship the path of spontaneous devotion, whereby awe and reverence is overthrown."
  21. Can you explain in some detail what you mean by "Based on my research, it CAN work".
  22. For a large part of the gaudiya vaisnava society at that time the caste goswamis were predominant. Diksa guru had become a family caste based business; those families claimed hereditary rights (they still do today) as diksa gurus for the gaudiya sampradaya. Bhaktisiddhanta preached against the conception of hereditary gurus, so he didn't want to take diksa from his father because he would have been accused of hypocrisy.
  23. There are some misconceptions about siddha-pranali on this thread. It was never supposed to be about revealing someones actual siddha-deha. It's supposed to be about creating a mental siddha-deha to aid in meditation. Raganuga sadhana is about cultivating the mood of one of the nitya-siddha parishads from nitya Krishna lila. One way to do that was that a guru would tell a disciple to imagine himself or herself as a specific nitya-siddha parishad according to his or her natural inclination. Maybe that conception was changed by some people into a process where a guru reveals to the disciple his or her actual siddha-deha. Or maybe there is just some misunderstanding of who is doing what. I don't know because I have never met anyone who claims to be able to reveal your actual siddha-deha, has anyone here? Bhaktivinoda speaks something about this in his Dasa Mula Tattva: If you don't have access to a qualified guru that doesn't mean you are out of luck and can't take up the above process. You can still practice the above process with the aid of the writings of gurus who write on the topic and with aid from caitya-guru and other vaishnavas.
  24. Whoever wrote the above from http://theparty.netraver.org.za/chaos.html , is ignorant of how our world actually works, which is a basic problem of chaos theory. Chaos theory is bogus because everything that happens is under the control of one super powerful all pervading all powerful intellect. Krishna controls everything, but some people who don't believe in or understand the absolute truth (Krishna controlling everything) but see patterns in nature that shouldn't be there without a controlling principle, come up with theories like Chaos Theory to try to explain how those patterns exist without an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent conscious controller. Have you seen the movie The Matrix? In the movie the matrix is a virtual reality world which is exactly like our experience of our world...BUT, that reality is an illusion, everyone in the matrix is in a sleep lie condition, their bodies exist in controlled nest-like shelves, millions of them in some warehouse where their bodies are being fed by tubes and they are unaware of where they actually are or what reality actually it. A computer is controlling the system where their bodies are being taken care of, while they sleep, but their minds exist in a dreamlike virtual world created by the computer, like the holodeck in Star Trek. They think that the virtual dream world created by the computer is the real world, they are unaware that their real physical bodies are in a warehouse being kept alive by a computer with feeding tubes, and that everything they think is real is a computer generated virtual reality. Our existence is similar to that in that our world is a virtual reality, it is an illusion of chaos, but in reality everything is comprised of and controlled by God, just like everything in the matrix is comprised of pixels within a computer and controlled by the computer. Without this knowledge people believe in various theories of why there is an appearance of patterns or design in our world. Chaos theory tries to explain reality without enough information of how our world actually functions, therefore it is completely useless as an explanatory schema because it relies on the conception that the physical reality is causal, when the truth is that physical reality is a virtual reality within and controlled by a super-conscious cosmic computer.
  • Create New...