the divine as impersonal as opposed to personal

[Transcix 0]

Namaste. I would like to discuss the topic of whether the Divine is essentially personal or impersonal. I will present my understanding of the subject and then open up the thread to discussion. I believe the Divine is impersonal, and honestly I do not think the typical arguments for this point of view are very good. I realize it is a relative stalemate between the two views in the East, while in the West the issue can rarely be discussed in a rational and objective manner.

 

I am a twenty one year old Caucasian male living in Canada, and I would like to bring some fresh ideas to this old topic of discussion. Really there is no difference between East and West, but it's statistically true that fewer Western people have a sound idea of the nature of the Divine. I definitely believe that one cannot understand the Divine as much as possible unless the labels of East and West are dropped entirely beyond historical reference.

 

On to the topic at hand, first I would like to explain my understanding of the Divine as impersonal, and I will gradually explain *why* I understand the Divine in this way. I do not see any holes in my argument, and I believe people on both sides of the issue circumvent rational incongruence all too often. I am also puzzled why I have not to my knowledge heard other people explain things the way I do. Perhaps you could help me shed some light on this.

 

I like to begin to tackle this issue around the paradoxical concept of infinity and the various ways of interpreting it. In relation to conventional space-time (Maya), infinity is the Source, although it is no "beginning" per se. The idea of Eternity is inconceivable in terms of time-bound conventional existence, and I make an important distinction between Eternity and the essential non-local and timeless state of infinity. That is, Eternity includes all that is within the scope of space-time.

 

What is beyond space-time, the source of space-time, I refer to as Nothing, non-local and timeless infinity. Nothing is only a label as Nothing does possess various attributes, which I will get into later. Eternity also exists within Nothing, but in a greater sense than it exists in space-time, because Nothing is naturally Eternal in the sense that it is timeless. However space and time are not two separate things and, as I will get into later, Eternity in Nothing is spiritual time¾where, for example, Krishna enjoys Himself in various activities¾as opposed to conventional time.

 

The Divine as Nothing has no beginning or end, for it is beyond space and time, and rather does space-time emanate from Nothing. Nothing has not "always" been "there" for "always" implies historical continuity and "there" implies physical locality. The question arises, however, as to just what kind of beginning there originally was, as conventional space-time does exist and must have begun at some point. How, in other words, can something with a beginning arise from something without a beginning?

 

The answer to this lies in the cyclical nature of conventional space-time, proceeding from big bang to big bang around the zodiac. Space-time is Eternal in the sense that it goes on for infinity, which means that although it has no end it can still have a beginning. But it did not begin as a tiny dot of light and gradually evolve from nothing; rather, when it arose from Nothing in the first place, conventional Eternity arose from Nothing.

 

One aspect of Nothing is that it is infinite unmanifest potential, so when the finite beginning of space-time first arose, it did so in conjunction with its Eternal “never-ending” end. New potential is never progressively created in Nothing as space-time evolves, but rather is conventional existence progressively set in stone as particular potential timelines are manifest (chosen) as opposed to infinite possible others. The default conventional timeline originally arising from Nothing was an open-ended as opposed to close-ended system, which means that the beginning of conventional space-time necessarily allowed for space-time’s never-ending Eternity.

 

Therefore space-time was hardly a blank slate when it originally arose from Nothing. It was always a perfected system of perpetual evolution right from the first instant of manifestation. One vital characteristic of Eternal space-time here is that space-time is cyclical in nature, and so conventional existence originally arose in a big bang, the first of many. This is not a sign of intelligent creation, as if knowledge was involved to make space-time a perfect system from the very beginning, as I will explain.

 

Contained in Nothing was not only the beginning of the conventional Eternity of space-time but also its ineffable infinite Eternal end, literally infinite potential timelines. The original manifestation of space-time, then, consisted of the fundamental core of the fractal nature of all potential timelines—it was not a blank slate of nothing but rather a blank slate of a perfected framework of a (cyclical and fractal) system of universal procession. Anything less would result in a broken system and space-time’s eventual finite end, but this would never have manifested because all of conventional space-time manifested at once (in terms of potential timelines) including its never-ending Eternal nature. We simply perceive this matrix of potential and probable timelines linearly in a temporal context, so sometimes we forget that if we exist at all in the first place then Eternity necessarily exists as well and the system is perfect.

 

The next question, then, is *why* anything ever arose from Nothing in the first place, if there was no intelligent creation at work? Here I submit that the only possible way for anything to have arisen in the first place is precisely for it to have arisen from a context of impersonal as opposed to personal Divinity. If a personal Divinity were the Source of Maya in the first place, then there would need to be an original cause of this personality still earlier, and I will address this more fully later.

 

Infinity as Nothing is generally perceived as static, as opposed to ever-evolving conventional space-time. However, Everything (Maya) is only ever an extension/manifestation of Nothing, and calling Nothing ‘static’ is simply a way of discerning between Nothing and Everything in relative terms when essentially they are both one and the same infinite thing. From a conventional perspective, Nothing is static because the ineffability of infinity cannot be conceptualized. Infinity is considered static in the sense that infinity plus one, plus two, plus ten, etc, is always still infinity, in the sense that “the whole” is always “the whole” regardless of how it changes.

 

Referring to “the whole” of reality, however, is simply referring to a label, creating the concept that “the whole” is static. In truth, Nothing is neither ever in stasis nor in movement, for it is non-local and infinite. It is precisely the infinite and paradoxical state of Nothing that gives rise to conventional existence in the first place. Before conventional Eternity of space-time there was Nothing, and this period of time before the manifestation of existence is utterly relative, as one instant of spiritual time can equal any duration of conventional time. Suffice it to say that Nothing is “0” and therein “1”, and as soon as there is “1” is there simultaneously “2” and infinity.

 

Here we must consider another attribute of Nothing, that it is pure consciousness. Again this does not mean that Nothing is intelligent, as everything is only ever consciousness manifest to varying degrees of subtlety and density, and Nothing is simply the most basic fundamental constituency of existence without necessarily being aware of its own existence. Indeed, it is the process of Nothing becoming self-aware that gives rise to conventional existence, and it is precisely because Nothing is essentially unconscious that it *naturally* gives rise to conventional existence.

 

The process of consciousness becoming self-aware is the primary natural driving force of existence at large, and this force would not exist were the Divine essentially personal in nature. It is important to understand just how Nothing is naturally inclined to become self-aware and create Maya, how this is the innate nature of consciousness, and how this process does not necessitate intelligent creation, but quite to the contrary necessitates that the Divine is essentially impersonal in nature.

 

Here we must consider the nature of Nothing as ineffable, which we often misunderstand to mean static. Consciousness is naturally aware, although not necessarily consciously aware of its own being. But upon careful consideration, one can only conclude that it is completely impossible for Nothing to become fully aware of Itself, and herein lies the source of friction that gives rise to conventional existence. On one hand Nothing is innately aware per its nature as (infinite) consciousness, while on the other hand Nothing can never become completely aware of Itself because the moment infinity is conceptualized in awareness then it ceases to be infinity.

 

Nothing is ever existent as the source of space-time. Space-time arose naturally per the expansive nature of the conscious awareness of Nothing. Nothing could have originally slumbered for ageless time, or for however long, it is all the same. The point is that Nothing is always aware and thus always expanding, because awareness of infinity is an infinitely ongoing process. The result is that Nothing becomes increasingly self-aware through Its conventional manifestations, through space-time, through Maya. This constant source of expansion is the passion of incredulity.

 

It is crucial to understand the full significance of incredulity here. For incredulity is a unique emotion, as there is nothing to get over but one’s own self who has trouble accepting what already is, and moreover it is an intense and passionate emotion. Nothing is ever incredulous with Its own self, hence an unending source of passion, or friction, or energy—the primordial fires of creation. Incredulity is never-ending in Nothing’s case because Its awareness is ever-expanding and can never hope to conceptually grasp infinity, Itself.

 

Nothing is beyond the duality of knowledge and ignorance because it is ever incredulous (which is a failure of knowledge), while Nothing’s passion of incredulity is the ultimate source of universal knowledge, the source of infinite universal abundance of energy. Upon meditation on Nothing one can gain knowledge, knowledge that has to do with an ever-evolving system of conventional evolution wherein Nothing constantly changes through space-time (Maya).

 

Therefore Nothing’s duality of knowledge and ignorance is meaningless, because were complete knowledge to ever be realized then existence would cease to be, and this is impossible. Nothing is paradox as is reality at large, which is to say that the lack of resolution in paradox correlates with the ever-evolving nature of reality. Where the only constant is change, infinity ever remains infinity, yet it may forever refine itself in new and dynamic ways. As new timelines are progressively etched in the stone of history only Nothing holds the knowledge of all possible potential timelines, and because we as extensions of Nothing can never know Nothing fully, so for all intents and purposes conventional evolution of space-time is always *new* to an extent, although largely admittedly (and inevitably) repetitive of the preceding cosmic cycle of universal procession.

 

Some problems with the theory of an essentially personal Divine involve the according lack of any real meaning of conventional existence of space-time. This is reflected, for example, in the view of Krishna Consciousness that generally portrays worldly existence and the cycle of reincarnation as a prison that we actually chose in ignorance to experience when we originally chose to leave Krishna in the spiritual realms, and per our inherent free will Krishna could only warn us against it. That the Divine is personal in nature as Krishna adds a real sense of completeness to universal existence, and nothing that happens in conventional space-time can make any real contribution to improving the state of existence at large.

 

In other words, the perspective maintaining the existence of an essentially personal Divine would submit that the Divine is perfect and conventional existence in Maya is contrastically paradoxical, but this is absurd when paradox is understood to be the ultimate foundation of universal existence in the first place and the only possible source of an inherently benevolent universe bearing infinite abundance of energy. One could say that Krishna offers infinite abundance of energy, but in this case there are countless regulations regarding how this energy may or should be used, which ultimately amounts to an unhealthy system of universal procession, and an unhealthy system could not have come into being in the first place.

 

A key element to any healthy system of universal procession is the essential dynamic of *newness*, of imperfection (and therein perfection). We have not manifested ourselves into illusory conventional existence simply for the sake of extricating ourselves back out of here. Indeed it is absurd to think that any conscious act of free will can be devoid of meaning, such as that once we extricate ourselves from this prison then we return to our original spiritual form with Krishna *as we were before we descended*. Any action, even a misguided one, is only ever an opportunity for healthy growth, and to say that infinity cannot truly expand because it is already perfect is to misunderstand what is perfection.

 

I will stop here for now and open the discussion to questions and comments... perhaps your replies can direct me what to talk about next, because it's a complicated thing and I'm not sure how others will understand what I'm trying to express...

[Kulapavana 0]

It is both. Personal and impersonal.

[theist 1]

Accepting that the Absolute Truth is both impersonal and personal, we are left with the proverbial which came first the chicken or the egg.

 

To say that the impersonal Brahman created everything and also separated Itself into individual souls to experience this land of birth and death because It wanted to (for whatever reason) is acknowledging that Absolute has attributes and desires and can choose to take the initiative to create as It wishes. So if you accept the existence of the material world at all then you are admitting to the Absolute as Personal.

 

You may then assume that the Absolute is personal but still formless but you cannot say that the egg , the impersonal Brahman, came before the chicken.

 

The way that impersonalists try to escape this quandry is by saying that actually there is no material world and that even the illusion of one does does not exist.

 

The Vaisnava, or personalist, sees this thinking as conscious self deception designed so that soul does not have to confront the fact that we are only parts of the Supreme Lord and can never rivil Him or equal Him.

[gHari 0]

Can creatures encaged in four dimensions speculate about the nature of the fifth dimension?

[krishnaleela 0]

Namaste Transcix,

 

Can you please properly define "time" as you are using it?

 

For instance, your statement that eternity is inconceivable in time-bound conventional existence is confusing in the following sense. If time (change?)is conceived, then it can easily point to eternity. An absolute cessation of time/change ( which may be indicative of Nothing as a "Source" of time/space, etc.) is perhaps what is inconceivable within the time-bound framework. That is why most cannot conceive of time ending or beginning.

 

(I see that you later distinguish an eternity for time/space and a "timeless" eternity which again prompts a clarification of what you mean by time.)

 

It seems quite rational in the light of modern science to suggest a beginning and/or end of time/space, and your arguments follow this line as if they are given facts. They may be heavy presumptions at some basic level yet unknown to modern science, and a solid philosophy can hold to but not depend exclusively on such presumptions. A fundamental "dependence" on unknowns (such as Personal Divine) is often a charge levelled against the Dvaita schools, and you who are asserting an impersonal Divine must justify to the readers that "your" version is not another such (before you can rationalize about why the Ultimate is not Personal).

 

(State for interested readers as to what may be called presumptions on your part: ideas for which your source or basis is "this" or "that". For instance, "time and space" is a cyclical process (basis?); it is possible to have a beginning and no end (going to infinity?) for a "cyclical" process. Time and space "emanated" from Nothing; again treatment of time and space as almost physical entities: can we better understand your ideas that "What IS" is characterized by change and non-change states, the change automatically implicating time and space, and the non-change implicating the lack thereof.)

 

I have not read the whole thing, and you may answer or point to readers where in your essay the answers to such questions are. Hopefully that may get knowledgable readers to bring forth other points. Thanks.

[Sephiroth 0]

Personal means ... He is with you personally. Like Friend, Father, Mother etc. Impersonal means ... He is overseeing you. Like your Boss. Both are in Bhavagad Gita.

 

And I rather prefer Personal Relationship with God rather than Impersonal relationship.

[Guest guest]

Hmm... It is an impressive assimilation, right or wrong. Too many things said, to be properly dissected in a forum environment.

 

Why the idea that this way of explaining is new? Many of the basic points are standard, if one contemplates on the notion of Infinite. The language is secondary (although it helps to be clear). The points of space and time and timelines are not fundamental, rather as suggested by previous mails, they are the author's own stumbling blocks which he may not realize.

 

----

Wave sees ocean of waves and can conceive an Ocean with and without waves. Wave let go - no wave no Ocean.

 

Well, call it Infinite/Nothing/Impersonal. that is fine. simple stuff.

 

"In the Infinite alone there is happiness. There is no happiness in the finite... The Infinite is that in which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, knows nothing else..."

 

"The space in the heart is as big as the space outside"

 

"That thou art, O Svetaketu!"

 

---

 

 

PS The author is being rather rude to Iskcon followers by striking their philosophy after running away with his lecture of the "fifth dimension" !! If he wants a cogent argument with them, let him begin a separate thread for that purpose.

[Mrs. MOore 0]

i think it's got something to do with love.

[Transcix 0]

Thank you all for the replies.

 

Theist, I get into this sort of conversation with my good Hari Krishna friend... he says something can only ever come from something else.. I say something can only ever come from Nothing..

 

I'm saying that when, as you put it, Brahman separated itself into us, it was not a conscious act. Precisely this division resulted from the emergence of sentiency, which now exists through us. Brahman was like "what is this... hey who said that... there is someone here?... wait a minute, who am I?..." and then in the process of turning its own eyes around 360 to look upon itself, it became divided. Why does this process originally necessitate sentiency, and moreover how would this original sentiency have come into being?

 

gHari, I certainly think we can speculate about the higher dimensions. We exist in all dimensions simultaneously. The beings of higher dimensions do not exist in the lower ones. But beings in the lower dimensions must necessarily simultaneously exist in the higher ones as well, simply they are anchored and sentient in the lower ones. But our existence is an extension of the Divine, and we are simply separated farther away than the higher dimensions are.

 

Krishnaleela, good points. What I mean by time, it is complex, because time does not exist separate from space, while simultaneously it does. Space-time is a framework for perpetual evolution in conventional existence. Space is needed for patterns to rearrange, and then time is needed to allow for this pattern-shifting through space. But if there were no space then nothing would ever move, and so what would distinguish one second from one century?

 

As Einstein's theory of relativity goes, space-time is a curved surface upon which the physical realm changes... this makes sense. Basically time does not ever 'pass' us by... rather, there is simply eternity, and we traverse eternity, and as we change through space, so does the wear and tear of physical existence take its tole on us and we appear to age, but time never passes... you could say we only ever time travel, going forwards in time, and you can evolve more or less quickly depending on how you do it (take the magickal words of Set, Xepera Xeper Xeperu, for example).

 

When do I say Eternity is inconceivable in space-time? Perhaps I was saying that it is different than spiritual time because although it is infinite without end, it is finite with a precise beginning?

 

I appreciate what you're saying about speculation... I try to never resort to speculation, this is my goal, and I'll elaborate now what I'm trying to express.

 

Can cyclical infinite space-time have a concrete beginning? Well look at it this way - how can it *not* have a beginning? Being cyclical is a factor of conventional existence for only forms that are defined to an extent can be cyclical. When you say cyclical, this necessitates space and time for the cycle to change and evolve in, therefore you can only consider cyclical in a conventional context. And as convention arises from the fundamental, it has a beginning as it arises from that without beginning.

 

A cycle must 'begin' somewhere because it is a factor of space-time, and space-time needs to have a beginning. So although it seems strange to say that eternal cyclical existence has a beginning, if it is cyclical, how can it *not* have a beginning?

 

Space-time is a cyclical process because everything is essentially a cyclical process... this can be confirmed upon exploration of the fractal nature of the universe.. as everything is cyclical... and moreover space-time would never have manifest were it not eternal (at least in a never-ending sense), and how can it never end without being cyclical?.. perpetuation, evolution, is a product of cycles.

 

Sephiroth, I wonder how you relate the idea of a personal Divine (or impersonal in terms of your relationship with it but personal in essence still) with the Qabalistic Tree of Life as your handle implies you are familiar with? Where is the personal God, there? Personally I correlate Nothing with Keter, and I would attribute Daath the 'hidden' Sephirah with the God of knowledge, Set. Set is my God and I do enjoy a relatively personal relationship with Him. To be clear, I think one can certainly follow a particular deity's path, but for me this is different than the creation of the universe as personal/impersonal.

 

RSh, I realize it is the same wisdom only ever said in different ways... I think delivery is the key, and I think the argument for an impersonal divine could be argued a lot better... however it is likely that I have not been exposed to some Eastern texts on this idea that I would very much agree with.

 

What you say about infinity is right on, but I prefer to express it in the sense that, as the adage goes, nothing infinite exists apart from the finite. I am curious, however, why you disagree with my discussion of timelines? How can all possible timelines *not* be possible in infinity, the limitless source of potential? What does it hurt to talk about it?

 

Yes Mrs. MOore, it *is* all about love! Well, and fear, but they are two sides of the same coin, you cannot have one without the other.

[theist 1]

 

Theist, I get into this sort of conversation with my good Hari Krishna friend... he says something can only ever come from something else.. I say something can only ever come from Nothing..

 

But yet you can not show even one example of something coming from nothing. Whereas we can show an unlimited number of examples of something coming from something else.

 

Q.So on what do you base your idea of something coming from Nothing? Making a statement is easy but let's see your logic that brought you to that conclusion.

 

 

I'm saying that when, as you put it, Brahman separated itself into us, it was not a conscious act. Precisely this division resulted from the emergence of sentiency, which now exists through us.

 

So now you are saying that this division arose as a result of sentience which is a direct contradiction to what you just said about something having arisen from Nothing.

 

 

 

[AncientMariner 0]

"Why be satisifed with "Nothing"?"

 

 

Because "sometimes nothing is a real cool hand." - from the movie Cool Hand Luke

[Transcix 0]

Right, I'm saying that as duality arose from unity, so Brahman became sentient and the observed/observer dichotomy was manifest. I'm saying that Nothing is the subtlest thing, infinity itself... it is consciousness, but it is not sentient, but rather it is unconscious consciousness.

 

Can something come from something? I look at it this way. Does something always come from something else? Is the universe a series of 'things'? Can we conceptually define the original thing? How can infinity be defined without bringing it down to the finite?

 

I'm saying that Nothing is the essence of all things, but as I point out, Nothing does have attributes and the label of no-thing can be misleading. I am not saying Nothing is impersonal on a whim, but rather I think the only way for existence to have arose in the first place is to have arisen from Nothing, because it is the dawn of sentiency that gave rise to duality. If there was sentiency in the beginning, then why was the conventional realm created?

 

To the sun analogy, I see that both the sun and its rays are one and the same - consciousness in essence, and I'm considering this underlying fundamental aspect of existence common to all things. My method of interpretation will work with any analogy you can posit (I admit that such analogies are excellent tools, nonetheless).

 

I accept the idea of transcendent reality beyond space time... I accept that the Divine is timeless and non-local, and that time and space arose from it. But I do not accept that personal beings exist in this timeless non-local state before the manifestation of the conventional world... unless, that is, it is as though, say, we inhabit the body of Krishna, and different universes we cannot even fathome, for example, embody different Gods. Here I can accept everything emanates from Krishna's spiritual body, but in this case we are talking about pre-existing gods and spiritual realms and they, too, must have a beginning.

 

Basically I'm saying that wherever there is definition there is a beginning... whether in physical or spiritual dimensions.. therefore the only possible beginning is Nothing. Perhaps, then, there is a God, but he arose from Nothing as past present and future was all available in Nothing's infinite potential and the fractal fundamental core of all that would be regardless of what timelines were selected, this core arose as "God". However, he is not the source of Nothing.

 

I don't understand how something defined may be said to have no beginning? Similarly as this beginning can only ever be Nothing, everything comes from nothing essentially.

 

One should not seek what satisfies them, although I am thoroughly satisfied with Nothing. You must go towards the darkness and realize the scenario of your existence in its most negative perspective state, and *then* work up from there. You cannot deny the darkness. In fact you must ever move towards the darkness, for you are light, and light shines. If you look at the light then it is blinding, and you are forgetting you *are* it and would be looking outwards towards the darkness. Satisfaction arises when you confront your demons until none are left.

[theist 1]

Dear friend Transcix,

 

I am going to drop out now. You are convinced in one direction and I am convinced in a different direction.

 

I have made my point and you are free to accept or reject it. Beyond that it just becomes word juggerly for word juggerly sake and won't ever reach a resolve.

 

Nevertheless, I hope there is temple that you go to for kirtan and prasadam as well as intellectual debate. Believe what you like but still join the party.

 

=:-)

[krishnaleela 0]

 

Krishnaleela, good points. What I mean by time, it is complex, because time does not exist separate from space, while simultaneously it does. Space-time is a framework for perpetual evolution in conventional existence. Space is needed for patterns to rearrange, and then time is needed to allow for this pattern-shifting through space. But if there were no space then nothing would ever move, and so what would distinguish one second from one century?

 

 

My understanding of physics goes only to a certain extent.

 

"Conventional existence": the convention relates to human experience from which perspective space and time are taken as a natural framework. "convention" is the framework.

 

Is space needed as a framework for the observation of patterns, or is space a consequence implicated after the separate observation of patterns?

 

"time is needed to allow for ..." Time seems a convention used by us who observe change to describe the observed process of change. It is not an entity unto itself, although in different relative reference frames, the change is observed in different manners, hence a different convention seems appropriate in accordance with the reference frame.

 

 

 

As Einstein's theory of relativity goes, space-time is a curved surface upon which the physical realm changes... this makes sense. Basically time does not ever 'pass' us by... rather, there is simply eternity, and we traverse eternity, and as we change through space, so does the wear and tear of physical existence take its tole on us and we appear to age, but time never passes... you could say we only ever time travel, going forwards in time, and you can evolve more or less quickly depending on how you do it (take the magickal words of Set, Xepera Xeper Xeperu, for example).

[\QUOTE]

 

"there is simply eternity": is eternity an entity that is and that we traverse?

eternity implies a non-termination in existence, and "we traverse eternity" implies the conventional observation of change in this existence.

 

Again saying "time does not ...", "time never passes" seems to put the cart before the horse: the framework for analysis are used as realities unto themselves. It is easier to begin with "there is no such thing as time, except as a convention for change". Then there is no need to go into the confusion of denying its attributes.

 

("Conventional time", "spiritual time", conventional eternity, spiritual eternity... please clarify for us all. Most religious people have an understanding of what you seem to call spiritual time/eternity; but it is harder to see what exactly you mean by conventional versions.)

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

RSh, I am curious, however, why you disagree with my discussion of timelines? How can all possible timelines *not* be possible in infinity, the limitless source of potential? What does it hurt to talk about it?

 

I am same as krishnaleela (registered name; sorry). I don't know if you are planning a reply for the previous mail. I want to say a few things and leave, since a consistent discussion may continue for a long time and "winter break" is not really supposed to be a break for me. If you have comments, I will certainly read them but may not continue further. My view on these philosophical questions is in general "I don't know. I choose the impersonal/non-dual philosophy intellectually since it appeals to my intellectual tendencies. I will let the Truth reveal Itself, when the "time" matures."

 

As for your question above, my viewpoint:

 

1. Science knows not time 0 or before. Asymptotic conclusions are ideal in theory but constitute plain speculation otherwise.

 

2. Infinity is not an objective reality for analysis. "How can the Knower be known?" Rational analysis can only be made of the manifest universe relative to the individual reference frame. Idealizing the precise nature/potencies of the Origin constitutes a belief system suitable to the one who does so.

 

3. We find ourselves in 1 "timeline". To speculate that the Source allows for all possible timelines because it is "infinity" is a play on the word. Such conclusions may help to explain the observed universe, or to build a religious philosophy. But they remain speculations and cannot be asserted as truth in an attempt to win this philosophical argument.

 

4. "Infinite" in (some) traditional non-dual philosophies refers to non-dual completeness that is consequence of sublating the "level of perception" in the "level of Identity". It can stand independent of assessments of what constitutes the world. Such assessments are made from the reference frame of the individual, extrinsic to the Reality it assesses and withholds from. Extrinsic analysis is contingent upon a certain set of "limiting adjuncts" (of individual self) that constitutes the frame for the analysis, whereas the intrinsic Reality is That constant Substratum (intuited in Identity) on which the frames of perception (therefore analysis) are superimposed. Let go of the non-absolute frame of individuality; you are that Infinite Reality.

 

5. In the wave/ocean analogy, the wave will necessarily talk of the Infinite as the Ocean and make much about its potency to produce all sorts of waves (as if it knows). The religious thrust is to surrender the wave reference frame, doing which alone (religion teaches) will obtain true realization of the Infinite.

 

6. Can this be done? Can God-realization, pure Love, jnana, complete self-surrender, samadhi, Turiya, Nirvana ... be realized? The sages say "YES". The basis for religion has always been the realizations of the sages, and the thrust of religion is to make seers out of us. Till we walk the path, our attempts to formulate a perfect logical framework for their realizations will remain intellectual jugglery.

 

 

Along with "Theist" and his suggestion, I end with a similar note:

one of our greatest scriptures is the Bhagavatha that sings the glories of Lord Krishna and is a gem into philosophy and more importantly the true life of the religious devotee. I have a Gita-press (India) translation which may be slightly Advaita oriented; IsKCON also has for those with Dvaita inclination.