HerServant

Yes. I would agree .. I think Srila Prabhupada saw Mayavadi philosophy as such a threat to the salvation of the living entity, that he saw no choice but direct all of the readers attention to Krsna. In this way, for sure, the reader would have "no danger" of stumbling into darkness of impersonalism. For devotees with firm faith in the personal God, Srila Prabhupada retains original sanskrit including transliterations. We can then go back and read meditate on God's many names revealed in SB Hence for us devotees, satya param jnana realization is inseparable from the Person of God. The jnana realization is more like hearing the speaker in the next room. The words we hear are complete and convey the entire meaning, though the speaker is not directly visible. Yet, we KNOW also the person (the speaker) is the source of the Word! Om Amen HS and yours.

I agree with this of course. jnana and bhakti ... different and still one. But Srila Prabhupada translates in such a way to Personalize technical terms which could otherwise be interpreted impersonally by Mayavadis We should be reminded that there is also Brahmavadi If a spiritual seeker is seeking God even in the advaita line, Krsna may fully bless their endeavor. As such, they will not say "I am god". They will say something more like "I am the droplet, God is the ocean" .. we are one. These authors will experience God as universal love, and this too is sattvic. But if you examine a saying like satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon. You will not find a single historical, literary, linguistic reference to make the above say Krsna has the same meaning as satyam — truth; param — absolute; The devotee knows Krsna is the absolute truth, but the name Krsna does not mean absolute truth .. it means "all attractive" . Sat and tat and param satya have different meanings. These are impersonal, jnana terms. Your quote above says "no infiltration" .. but I disagree. If we look at translations of Gita, SB etc. and how definitions of Sankrit words vary by translators, I think it is safe to say many translations and scriptures have been polluted. Hence Srila Prabhupada entitles his BG "AS IT IS" !

If you look at BG and SB for example, many times, Srila Prabhupada decides to use Krsna in place of a less personal term for God that is present in the actual sanskrit. This is a choice by Srila Prabhupada in any case. He chooses to direct the reader to the Person of Krsna rather than the nama rupa revealed in the name present in the scripture. tat param--Krsna consciousness mat-asrayah--in consciousness of Me (Krsna consciousness) yunjita--must concentrate in Krsna consciousness samadhau--in transcendental consciousness, or Krsna consciousness; SB 1:1 om namo bhagavate vāsudevāya janmādy asya yato 'nvayād itarataś cārtheṣv abhijñaḥ svarāṭ tene brahma hṛdā ya ādi-kavaye muhyanti yat sūrayaḥ tejo-vāri-mṛdāḿ yathā vinimayo yatra tri-sargo 'mṛṣā dhāmnā svena sadā nirasta-kuhakaḿ satyaḿ paraḿ dhīmahi The holy name Krsna does not appear above. Srila Prabhupada's translation -- om — O my Lord; namaḥ — offering my obeisances; bhagavate — unto the Personality of Godhead; vāsudevāya — unto Vāsudeva (the son of Vasudeva), or Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, the primeval Lord; janma-ādi — creation, sustenance and destruction; asya — of the manifested universes; yataḥ — from whom; anvayāt — directly; itarataḥ — indirectly; ca — and; artheṣu — purposes; abhijñaḥ — fully cognizant; sva-rāṭ — fully independent; tene — imparted; brahma — the Vedic knowledge; hṛdā — consciousness of the heart; yaḥ — one who; ādi-kavaye — unto the original created being; muhyanti — are illusioned; yat — about whom; sūrayaḥ — great sages and demigods; tejaḥ — fire; vāri — water; mṛdām — earth; yathā — as much as; vinimayaḥ — action and reaction; yatra — whereupon; tri-sargaḥ — three modes of creation, creative faculties; amṛṣā — almost factual; dhāmnā — along with all transcendental paraphernalia; svena — self-sufficiently; sadā — always; nirasta — negation by absence; kuhakam — illusion; satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon. TRANSLATION O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth. In the above, Srila Prabhupada calls Bhagavan, "Krsna". In this case, his choice is to shift the devotees attention from the Nama Rupa of Bhagavan to the Nama Rupa of Krsna Srila Prabhupada makes it a point to direct one's meditation the name and form of Krsna (nama rupa) as he says then again he translates satyam — truth; param — absolute; dhīmahi — I do meditate upon. as This is perfect for a devotee of Krsna who sees no distinction between the terms used in SB and Krsna Himself. This is a very mild example of how Srila Prabhupada interchanges the name Krsna with technical terms in the SB. There are many many more examples. This is not a criticism. I think his translation is great. However, at the same time, I believe this approach compromises Vyasadeva's intentions. Specifically, that the other names for God are in and of themselves, revelatory! All of the names of the Lord are perfect, and HE reveals Himself in these names as Nama Rupa ! Being a devotee to the Personal Lord, meditation on Him is greater than the Brahmavadi realization of satyam — truth; param — absolute, ... His absolute Truth essence. I agree with theist in that the technical terms are perfect AS THEY ARE for a devotee who has a relationship with the Personal God. There is no conflict. However, there IS difference and oneness. I can say for certain that Faith and Love are One! This is a jnana. But as a devotee, I then seach Faith in Whom and Love for Whom and bhakti is manifest .. person to person. HS and yours.

All of our traditions are invaded by Mayavadi .. even SB. I know that may seem like blasphemy to many, but I have studied SB and analysis points to Mayavadi infiltration, particularly to the degree of Mayavadi influence on the translator. We (most of us) on this forum love Srila Prabhupada's translation because of the high degree of devotional personalism retained in his translation. BUT the readers should recognized just how much Srila Prabhupada Personalizes BG and SB. Read the actual sanskrit and many impersonal technical terms are in the BG and SB HS and yours

Now we are getting somewhere! SB 12.8.31: The mighty King Indra was most astonished when he heard of the mystic prowess of the exalted sage Markandeya and saw how Cupid and his associates had become powerless in his presence. SB 12.8.32: Desiring to bestow His mercy upon the saintly Markandeya, who had perfectly fixed his mind in self-realization through penance, Vedic study and observance of regulative principles, the Supreme Personality of Godhead personally appeared before the sage in the forms of Nara and Narayana. SB 12.8.33-34: One of Them was of a whitish complexion, the other blackish, and They both had four arms. Their eyes resembled the petals of blooming lotuses, and They wore garments of black deerskin and bark, along with the three-stranded sacred thread. In Their hands, which were most purifying, They carried the mendicant's waterpot, straight bamboo staff and lotus-seed prayer beads, as well as the all-purifying Vedas in the symbolic form of bundles of darbha grass. Their bearing was tall and Their yellow effulgence the color of radiant lightning. Appearing as austerity personified, They were being worshiped by the foremost demigods. SB 12.8.35: These two sages, Nara and Narayana, were the direct personal forms of the Supreme Lord. When Markandeya Rishi saw Them, he immediately stood up and then with great respect offered Them obeisances by falling down flat on the ground like a stick. Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya. I bow down to the Father and to the Son, the perfect son. HS and yours.

Imagine telling a fundie that Genesis is Vedic text and has to be understood from that perspective. Like HV (Eve) is jiva and Adam (Atman) The word for God's revealed knowledge in the Hebrew is Yeda Yada and in the Greek is Oida. Yeda is Veda . The dieity names Yahu and Yeshi and Yishma in Hebrew are Vasu and Vishnu in Sanskrit. In the Christian New Testament Eli-Yahu's (Hari-Vasu) knowledge is again called Oida or Eido ( the English word 'idea' is from Oida or Eido) hundreds of times. Together the yd , Oida word is used for knowledge over 900 times in the Hebrew and Greek Bible. Sanskrit-related Greek Biblical word for knowledge is related to the root of the word 'knowledge' itself. ‘Know’ is related the Greek ‘Gnosis’ and the Sanskrit ‘jnan’. The ancient root jn, gn, kn had several meanings. Prominently, two meanings were associated with knowing and beginning. Ganesha is Gnosis. When they open the scriptures, students and masters alike pray to Ganesha before beginning their labors. As Gan-eshvara, he is gen, jnan, Gnosis, know-ing personified, the very being and spirit of knowledge or jnan.

".. seek and ye shall find .." is a pretty serious statement of Jesus. We can't expect to look around for a few minutes then give up .. to quote the Vaisnavas, it may take "many many lifetimes" Christians to a large extent are not really listening to their gurus and saddhus. I am talking about the true leaders. The saints (saddhus). source: http://www.goveg.com/f-popejohnpaulii.asp

This is very interesting and puts things in a proper light. First that HH Bhaktivindod Thakur was sincerely non sectarian. 2nd, that his exposure to Christian teaching was presented from Unitarian views. Unitarian perspective is generally considered as heresy by apostolic (unbroken disciplic succession of Jesus). They reject the idea of the Trinity and propagate many other false teachings. source -http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15154b.htm

Well .. the transmigration of the body to animal or from animal to body was rejected by St. Justin. I personally don't think his arguments hold water. BUT I think reincarnation is actually there in the doctrine of Purgatory. The catholic history of teaching on purgatory includes life on earth as a part. If you go to purgatory after death, you get a new body and you are in a higher existence if in purgatory after this world of purgatory. That is a reincarnation of sorts. There is something unique to Christian teaching in this regard. If studied carefully, it is saying, that the prayers of the saints and the church get you to move up a notch on the spiritual plane and no matter what you don't have to take a birth on planet earth again. Not saying I buy it, but it is interesting.

Well, I felt this way for a little while especially after discovering the SB. But I don't agree now. I think what you *might* be saying is that Christians just have the message of Jesus in such a watered down state. They cannot convey nor can they understand Jesus' message. Hence .. "No philosophy" But this document is filled with fantastic gems: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm Trouble is .. no one reads and meditates on the teachings, neither catholics or protestants.

Pentacostals are not apostolic christians having any system of GSS whatsoever. Try these christians instead, then decide: http://www.vagamon.com/kurisumala/kurisumala.htm http://www.conventualsindia.org/communities7.php

Hare Krsna! It Works! On the top bar just under Audarya Fellowship select: User CP (short for User Control Panel) There is a buddy/ignore list setting. Thank you again theist!

Haribol! Thanks to Theist we now no how to "step in it" or "taste it"

Prabhupada said Jesus is Isvara: - http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/bhakta/perfect.html

Guruvani, have you ever visited Kerala or Tamil Nadu? Last time I checked, they too are part of India. You should understand that you are very offensive to people from Kerala having a long intertwined history with Christianity, whether they be Hindu, Muslim or Christian. A community known as Saint Thomas Christians has existed in Kerala from very ancient times. They celebrate the feast of the Apostle on the third of July. It is for them a day of obligation and national rejoicing. They call it "Dukrana" (Commemoration) being the day of his martyrdom according to tradition. It is believed that the Apostle landed at Kodungalloor on the twenty-first of November. The sacred office of the oriental rite of Kerala for "Dukrana" with its Octave reiterates the tradition. No other place or rite keeps this Octave. The kindling of the light of faith, the opening of the gate of heaven to the Indians and the glorious martyrdom of the Apostle are commemorated in these prayers. In the commemorative prayers of the Nestorian Church for the feast of St. Thomas, it is clearly stated that the Apostle died a martyr in India and his relics were translated to Edessa by a merchant named Kabir. The Malayalam popular songs of antiquity, known as "Thoma parvam" and "MargamKali Pattu," describe vividly the advent of Thomas in Kerala, his apostolate here and his martyrdom near a temple of the goddess Kali at Mylapore, on the third of July, 72. "The Ramban Songs" are also popular ballads which the St. Thomas Christians have sung from generation to generation, narrating the work of Thomas in Kerala. These ballads are believed to have been composed by Ramban Thomas Maliekal who received baptism and priesthood from the Apostle. The "Veeradian pattukal" are other popular melodies sung by Hindus on special occasions. They extol the preaching of Thomas in Kerala and the special privileges granted later by King Cheraman Perumal to Kerala Christians. The tomb of Thomas is traditionally believed to be at Mylapore. No one has ever questioned this belief, and no other place has claimed to contain his tomb. The Kerala Christians used to go on pilgrimages every year to the tomb. They considered it their duty to do so at least once in their lives. This practice continued uninterrupted until 1654.[8] According to tradition Thomas erected seven churches in Kerala at Kodungalloor, Palayur, Parur, Kokkamangalam, Nilackal, Niranam and Quilon. Hindus and Mohammedans also maintain this tradition and offer prayers and gifts at these churches. No one else claims to have introduced Christianity in Kerala. The Church of Mesopotamia and Babylon respect the tradition of Kerala. In 1542, the people of Sokotra told Saint Francis Xavier that Thomas, after spreading the Gospel in their land, went to Malabar and died a martyr at Mylapore.[9] ....e Doctrine of the Apostles>, a Syriac book produced in Edessa in the second century, expressly declares that India received the Apostle's "Hand of Priesthood" from Saint Thomas who planted and built the church there. Abdias who was Bishop of Babylon (second century), Dorotheus (third century), Saints Ephraem, Jerome, Ambrose (fourth century), Theodore (fifth century), Saint Gregory of Tours (sixth century), Saint Isidore (seventh century) and all the early Fathers of the Church have attested to the preaching of Thomas in India and his martyrdom in Mylapore. Ephraem further states that the relics of the Apostle were transferred from Mylapore to Edessa by a merchant.[10] Source: http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/KERALA.TXT

Interesting posts once again (provide of course we ignore the devil ) So I personally believe that we are all saying the same thing yet having different perspectives. I did not mean to say that Baladeva is ONLY Jiva Tattva, but that His manifestation IS ALSO the Shelter of All Jivas. This means that the perfected Jiva rests within His Jiva body. He is not only Jiva body though. He offers Himself for the salvation of the jivas, but He is not only this perfect Jiva Tattva. The absolute highest state that the living entity can attain is oneness (yet simultaneous difference) with the Perfect jiva body of Baladeva. This concept is expressed on the christian tradition as the body of Christ. I am not talking about brahmavadi merging into Jesus consciousness either. I am saying that our true identity is in relationship to Baladeva and Baladeva's relationship with Krsna. I can see and understand more clearly from your posts the reasons why there are legitamate theological differences in the Trinity. I think these are more nuances that are admittedly far above me. My Christian experience seems to be very vaisnava. I am not relying 1st on the doctrine and theology of either religion. Rather, I am saying I look at both in context of my personal experience. So I am really enlivened (again) by this discussion because it feels like a genuine discussion among godbrothers having unique experiences. It would be fantastic to someday have a kirtan with such wonderful and sincere and knowledgable godbrothers. HS and yours.

Right. So let's talk about the trinity for a moment. We will agree that the only Absolute is God Himself. So we have Krsna Baladeva and Paramatma as Trinity. Since Baladeva is servitor, His form (and association) must be Perfect Jiva, i,e Jiva Tattva. But He is not limited As Jiva. The perfect soul who receives His Mercy then too becomes perfect jiva. This I believe is Jesus' teaching in John 15:1 (I am the Vine, you are the branch, ny Father the vine dresser) The Jiva relationship to Visnu is subordinate. It is dependent on, it rests on Visnu. If Jesus is Jiva Tattva, it a makes no difference if He is branch or vine. The essence is the same. This is why salvation can come directly from Baladeva or a saint. They are one. Guru is one. Therefore it is the correct conception, even from the christian perspective to think of Jesus as perfect godbrother. But any jiva soul that becomes pure must be Jiva Tattva and one with the Shelter of All Jivas. That is Baladeva, a divine person. He is simultaneously the same identity as those that obtain the fullness of His mercy, yet He is also beyond jiva tattva. The desert fathers and christian saints have the realization that Jesus is that. A perfect person (expressed as "True Man" in the Christian creed) AND simultaneously the manifestation of the Father Visnu. This is why He is called True God and True Man. No Jiva Tattva can be Jiva Tattva without being One with the Body of the Shelter of All jivas. That Shelter of All Jivas is known as Sankarsana, God Himself. Yet HE does not reveal Himself that way but rather as a servant. This is what I beleive is meant by Shakti Avesya .. partial revelation of the Godhead, because He does not choose to reveal Himself in fullness and opulence. The varying degrees of Shakti Avesya all must still be one with jiva tattva. This is why Paul calls Jesus the "image of the invisible God" and the Church fathers call Him "True Man" and "Only Begotten" I concede, as the above thoughts indicate, now we are talking about the theological views and differences of the Trinity. I am comfortable with the eastern view that Jesus is perfect godbrother. That is how He wishes to be thought of anyway. "Our Father, who art in heaven ..." But I am reasonably certain that if Baladeva makes an appearance, He would be the same "personality" Whether you view that personality as the Vine that shelters all the branches, or just branch of the One True Vine, will be a matter of personal realization or logical conviction. Devotees on either side are one, particularly if they keep it simple.

I have no problem with Jesus being Lord Brahma either. I do not view this thread as a debate. It is place to present different ideas. I think I can make the following observation: A realization of Jesus as master reveals His Lordship which is the same realization of Jesus as Visnu. But Jesus says He reveals the Father. Then there must be a realization of Visnu as Visnu and in this realization, Jesus must be an associate. We should remind ourselves we are "talking" about realizations we really could not describe with words.

Jesus appears as servant of servants. Does Visnu? If St. Paul is correct, Jesus also renounces equality with God (Visnu) because Jesus' Himself does not deem equality with God "something to be grasp at/for" But this does not mean the Jesus is not Visnu. IF Visnu wished to take birth and take the form of a servant, would He still be Visnu? These are some of the questions that I have. And one more question: Where, anywhere in Vedas, Upanishads, and Vedic literature is there a reference to such a thing as Shakta avesa avatar? I have not been able to find this term anywhere! (expect among the HK commentaries). No scripture seems to have such a term.

Seek and ye shall find. First of all you must seek and ask the meaning. Do you think this passage refers to physical fire? Or is the the fire of prana? Try translating Jesus words into sanskrit terms and see what you will find. ( .. not that "scholar" is really interested as all of "scholar's" posts to date are atheistic..) For those really interested, here is a basic explanation: "If you don't believe in me " (that means all of the spiritual precepts that Jesus teaches as they are one and the same with Him, the Word) "he is cast forth as the branches of a tree, and is withered" - that means anyone without spiritual discipline and devotion to God becomes weak and "withers" and covered in maya. Hence Withered branches are pruned from the Kingdom of God and are "cast forth" into the material modes of passion (fire) and ignorance. "and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." Lusty affairs of "men" bond the withered vines and they burn in the fires of passion.

PAMHO I am not trying to "sell" the similarities. I don't want sell anything and I am not asking you to buy anything. I am pointing out 2 things. First there is difference of theological interpretation of the relationship of Baladeva to jiva tattva. Second, that the catholic credo (statement of core belief) says: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];" - The Nicene Creed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed So the person who wrote the thread asked "Is Jesus Visnu?" To the body of christian believers, the answer has been "yes" and can be historically documented as such since the 1st century. Now if you compare the CC Adi Lila and Vaisnava and Shaivaite theologies on Jiva Tattva, the only honest academic conclusion is that the Christian teachings on Jesus divinity and 2nd person of Godhead, and Vaisnava teachings on Baladeva have strong similarity. Also, IF we were to expressed or decribe the Jesus Son of God, of the Nicene creed in sanskrit terminology, then WHO would we describe and how? You can tell me Jesus is not Visnu and I am happy to respect your opinion. But I can tell you what our belief is, and that is He is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God. I personally do not see any conflict in the scriptures between our traditions. The only conflict arises in the commentary and evangelists. Peace. HS and yours

Yes. All other forms are put away. That is why all the devotees no longer read or comment on the philosophy of the vedas. Right? I have asked a similar question but also did not get a response. If Bhakti is best, then why is Gaudya math having so many books of advanced PhD topics? Why do iskcon devotees criticize other religious beliefs as being simplistic and having no philosophy? Why do these devotees always say that BG to SB to CC is like college then PhD then advanced PhD and other religions or philosophies are simple. I thought simplicity is the point Bhakti.

You may respectfully disagree, but you are not correct to quote Sri Caitanya in this way. Please review the following: From CC Adi-Lila Ch. 5. The Glories of Lord Nityananda Balarama Text 5 "They are both one and the same identity. They differ only in form. He is the first bodily expansion of Krishna, and He assists in Lord Krishna’s transcendental pastimes." Purport "Balarama is a svamsa expansion of the Lord, and therefore there is no difference in potency between Krishna and Balarama." Text 10 Purport "Sri Balarama is the servitor Godhead who serves Lord Krishna in all affairs of existence and knowledge." Text 18 Purport "That transcendental abode exists by the energy of Sri Baladeva, who is the original whole of Shesha, or Ananta. The tantras also confirm this description by stating that the abode of Sri Anantadeva, the plenary portion of Baladeva, is called the kingdom of God." Text 41 Purport "Sankarshana, the second expansion, is Vasudeva's personal expansion for pastimes, and since He is the reservoir of all living entities, He is sometimes called jiva." [For more important discussion of Lord Balarama as jiva, see especially numbered points 1 and 2 on page 170 regarding refutation of Adi Shankaracharya’s teaching that Sri Baladeva as jiva is the ordinary living entity.] Text 41 Purport, "In the spiritual sky there is a spiritual creative energy technically called shuddha-sattva, which is a pure spiritual energy that sustains all the Vaikuntha planets with the full opulences of knowledge, wealth, prowess etc. All these actions of shuddha-sattva display the potencies of Maha-Sankarshana, who is the ultimate reservoir of all individual living entities who are suffering in the material world. When the cosmic creation is annihilated, the living entities, who are indestructible by nature, rest in the body of Maha-Sankarshana. Sankarshana is sometimes therefore called the total jiva." THE THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY REGARDING SRI BALADEVA AS JIVA TATTVA IS NOT ONLY BETWEEN THE SHANKARITES, SHAIVITES AND VAISHNAVAS, BUT IS ALSO FOUND BETWEEN THE VARIOUS SCHOOLS OR LINEAGES OF VAISHNAVISM AS WELL. Christian thought is a branch of devotional Vaisnavism. The theology of Jesus and the teaching of His divinity is very similar to Vaisnava teaching on Baladeva.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away" - Mark 13:31 We have in contemporary physics the understanding that there are 4 basic aspect to physical phenomenon which have their analogues in vedic "cosmology": Time (kala) space (desa) matter (anu) energy (om) If we consult the vedas and other western theistic scriptures we find that God is: Timeless (eternal) Omniscient (not bounded by space or dimension) Omnipresent (non localized -- classical matter (ie particle) ) His Word (Om) which is simultaneously manifested externally and present without external manifestation From the timeless comes time, from the indivisible comes division (atoms) etc. Time in modern physics is relative to light in some context. It cannot be conceptualized without light (and darkness). Darkness is present even in relativistic cosmology (e.g. singularity, black hole, etc.) Time is also understood with respect space. That is, in there has to be a "frame of reference" in scientific analysis. In the vedic literature, it is said that the heavenly planets are the ones closer to the center of the galaxies, having so many suns, that there is no darkness as we understand. Be even still, light must travel from these places in the cosmic manifestation. Hence, these places too are in time. We can expect that in the presence of many suns, light may behave differently that we can understand or predict. For example, read this page on quantum teleportation http://www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/teleport.html For example, it may be easy to understand being in 2 places at once if you lived in a world having many (strange) interactions of many high energy light sources. So these are merely some physical possibilities. The Lord of Time is still beyond the physics and time of the center of galaxies. HS and yours

OK .. I understand completely .. thx