theist

Actually the quote is from Srila Prabhupada in a letter discussing analogies in the Bhagavatam like Rahu the headless demon trying to eat the moon. I'll post it again.

I am sure your posts make sense to you but I am afraid to you alone. I did notice you made no attempt to address any of the on-topic points I raised but instead went straight into babbling mode. There is no point in continuing this. I have no problem with those who disagree with me. You can live in your world of the Moon being a heavenly self-effulgent plant which is more distant than the Sun if you like. The moon is a good example of reflecting the sunlight. The stars are not.

The monism of the Saraswata (GV) schools is nothing like the monism of Shankaracarya. Oneness AND difference simultaneously!

Be coherent. What does Bush have to do with this topic? I do not accept the Bhagvatam's cosmology. You do. Fine. The universe according to the SB has a diameter of 4 or 5 billion miles. You believe that if you like but it has been shown to be much much larger. Yes I accept that modern science has a much better view of some things, and this being one of them. You can accept that the one sun in our solar system is providing enough light to bounce off all those stars (planets in your view) but I find the idea lacking. Ever hear of a super nova? These things are observable phenomena at this point in history. According to the one sun theory when our sun dies the whole universe will become void of light and the life giving energy of sunshine and therefor will also die out. Believe what you like. It is nothing to me. But when these ideas get presented alongside transcendental knowledge the reality is people tend to not listen to the transcendental knowledge because they cannot take the so-called science of the Bhagavatam seriously. "Take the essence" and leave the rest.

Yes it seems to be the idea taught in the Vedas. I do not accept it.

This is extremely high subject matter. It is self explanatory and we must pray for the Lord within to give us an understanding of it.

Prabhupada gave us a loose definition of sahajiya which is one who takes spiritual things cheaply. One can be a sahajiya under this definiton and reside in a iskcon temple or anywhere else while making of a show of being a GV. In the west the stricter defintion has no meaning to the mass of followers and especially in the sixties and seventies would not have been helpful. We may or may not see this fault in others but better we concentrate on weeding out the sahajiya tendancies within our own inner gardens. I myself instantly become a sahajiya when I start to take myself too seriously and think and project myself to be a real devotee to others. The fact that people missuse the word sahajiya is irrelevant really. We also have to gaurd against using the bad habits of others as an excuse to bash them. Introspection is always a valuable tool we must employ in our search for a relationship with the Lord based in reality. Hare Krishna

Gottcha. I was a bit confused as to how a Gadahara das would not know such a difference and didn't read the thread only the opening post.

There are living entities everywhere. The astral world is where you are when you are free from a gross body, as in death. There are hellish portions of the astral as well as heavenly and all states in between. Into which portion of the astral world one finds himself upon bodily death depends on one's consciousness Pure devotional service to Krishna dissolves the subtle astral body and upon bodily death the pure devotee goes straight to Krishna. It is just more subtle aspect of the illusory universe. We have all been there many times between death and subsequent rebirth and even between sleep and wakefullness. Hare Krishna

Interesting question considering the title of your thread? Maybe ask yourself what you mean by "impersonalist" and then ask me.

Getting a patent and creating a market for the product are two entirely different things as I am sure you will agree. Westerners will gladly eat every disgusting part of the cow but never the urine and feces.

"uttama-bhagavata is an impersonalist?" Another point is an impersonalist is no kind of bhagavata at all let alone a first class bhagavat.

No of course not. The conclusion is Krishna is inconceivably everywhere yet He is not limited to the conception of only being everywhere. Why do you want to limit God in this way? Just being everywhere is a limitation. Krishna is everywhere and simultaneously localized beyond everywhere as the very source of everywhere.

Does this verse say that there is only one sun in the universe which is the only source of universal light or that sunlight which illuminates all this universe only comes from sun alone of which there could be many? Clearly it is just an analogy to show the real point which is how consciousness radiates from and a specific point i.e. the soul of that body. TRANSLATION Bg 13.34 O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness. PURPORT There are various theories regarding consciousness. Here in Bhagavad-gītā the example of the sun and the sunshine is given. *As the sun is situated in one place, but is illuminating the whole universe, so a small particle of spirit soul, although situated in the heart of this body, is illuminating the whole body by consciousness. Thus consciousness is the proof of the presence of the soul, as sunshine or light is the proof of the presence of the sun. When the soul is present in the body, there is consciousness all over the body, and as soon as the soul has passed from the body, there is no more consciousness. This can be easily understood by any intelligent man. Therefore consciousness is not a production of the combinations of matter. It is the symptom of the living entity. The consciousness of the living entity, although qualitatively one with the supreme consciousness, is not supreme because the consciousness of one particular body does not share that of another body. But the Supersoul, which is situated in all bodies as the friend of the individual soul, is conscious of all bodies. That is the difference between supreme consciousness and individual consciousness. *Clearly Prabhupada is repeating the teachings of the vedas that the there is only one sun in the entire universe. Just as clearly this is not correct. The problem is if Krishna is actually teaching there is only one sun but there are actually billions then how do we accept that as God's word on the matter?

Was Krishna wrong when He told Arjuna that the sun alone illuminates the entire universe? Now what are we gonna do?

The material world is a plane of exploitation, envy and emnity. You and I came here to exploit others the same way others exploit us. Now you are sensing the wrong in it all which is wonderful. We need to concentrate only on becoming from free those dark traits ourselves and not be concerned with how others treat us. By constitution we are meant to see Krishna, God, as our only truly reliable friend and well wisher. This also includes those rare souls who have realized their relationship to Him. Without God consciousness we have only the sense of being surrounded by hungry wolves and alternatively being part of a wolf pack surrounding others. "It's a dog eat dog world" without Krishna consciousness.

Good knowledge shared by Veno. I would only add that before we can truly surrender all out thoughts feelings and deeds to the pleasure of the Supreme Lord we must be free the desire to use the Lord as our weapon of retribution against those who we perceive as our enemies. We are Krishna's servants and not the other way around. We must learn and practice the divine art of forgiveness. That will protect us from further material entanglement. This is a necessary component of living in the perpetual sate of God's grace. "O' Lord, please forgive our tresspasses as we forgive those that tresspass against us." Hare Krishna

:D

We do make the simple seem so complicated sometimes. KC or Krishna consciousness is not a religious formulea of some kind. It simply means being conscious of Krishna. To leave Krishna consciousness means to become forgetfull of Krishna which is also called becoming covered by maya. This is the eternal choice of the marginal living being. Deliberate fully and then make your choice Lotus Flower. Continue to blossom or fall back into the murky pond.

"YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT" The body is what they body eats. I don't eat, I AM. But I know what you mean. You are right we should treat the body carefully. Thanks for the reminder.

Knowledge of life sciences is not very well covered in the Bhagavad Purana. Modern science has provided incredibly detailed knowledge of living bodies (soul in-habitated). Does the knowledge of genetics not also come from God?

This is not really an object of meditation but is a valuable aid to a spirtual and healthy life nontheless. Meditation means concentrating on God. The Bhagavad-gita lists anger as one of the 3 gates to hell along with lust and greed. You can approach this from numerous angles. One is to understand that what you have experienced from others to make you angry is a resdult of your own karma. You and you alone are responsible for your fate. So who then can you remain angry at? Hypnosis is valuable for reliving and relieving oneself from past traumas that are blocking our growth. Essential though is coming to a place of consciousness where anger towards others is not allowed to develop in the first place and this is the special domain of God consciousness. Christ while hanging on the cross looked about those who were trying to kill him and prayed, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

Srila Prabhupada said that omniscience (knows everything) in the guru means the guru knows everything because he knows Krishna, who is everything. If the guru needs to know anything for his service to Krishna then Krishna who knows every detail of everything can tell him and empower him with the ability to understand. The idea that guru knows how many atoms there are in the universe is farcical. There seems to be a difference in Srila Prabhupada's explaination and NM, I am not sure. Exactly!!! Not even Krishna wants to know such details in Goloka-lila. "Let Vishnu handle it". ? Krishna's compassionate devotee already wants to offer every living being in Krishna's service but that entails convincing the jiva to freely become a devotee himself. After this the cities, world's and universes will follow with no separate endeavor on the devotees part. But attracting one to krishna and convincing him to love krishna is no simply task. Besides this krishna has no need of San Francisco. It is already in His control. What he desires is the forgotten love from the hearts of the lost living entities be redirected to Him. Hare Krishna

I'll go with stars being self-efficient suns in their own right. The idea of only one sun in the vast universe should have died along with the flat earth theory.

Sadly, yes. This is not a slam against Iskcon. This mistake is routinely made by most beginning students and lay followers. This is innocent and just a phase of development. But when it becomes propagated by the leaders as a truth it may even be criminal. Krishna exists within the matha and outside of it as well. Krishna Consciousness is the pinnacle of personalism. Instituionalism can never be a satisfying substitute. Hare Krishna