Philosophical speculation

[Redsox 0]

Now I don't want to be "an ass", being one is not my intention here. This is a geniune question which I believe strikes at the core of vaishnava values, which keeps troubling me constantly. With that said, lets get on with this.

 

Bhagavad Gita tells us that Krishna is Omnipotent, he controls everything , Omniscient- he knows everything and Omnipresent, he is everywhere (far far away but simultaneously closer than we think). And to add to that, the Lord is also the beginning, the middle and the end of everything. My heart completely accepts all this to be true.

 

However! (and its a big however) , when this becomes acceptable then praying to the Lord seems unnecessary , not only that , I feel that because everything comes from the lord (he is the beginning) , everything sustains within the lord (the middle) and everything ends in the lord (he is the end) , we really don't have to strive (spiritually) for anything!

Chanting the hare krishna mantra seems unnecessary because all words are the Lord's names, speaking one name seems like I am limiting my view that lord is only one thing rather than account for the fact that he is everything. The funny thing is, I felt this when I was chanting hare krishna. I stopped and started chanting Allah, allah , allah, I got the same effect. I will go further to say that i felt like even if I chant "computer, computer, computer" I will get the same effect, because the lord is in the computer.

Not only that, I also asked myself who I am , because the lord is everywhere, He is the controller of everything, He is controlling me, controlling my environment, my actions, what I say , what I do, what I type right now, and all of this happens within the Lord (He is eveywhere) , so what am I? Vaishnavism tells us that we are para prakriti (the jivas) , and if thats true then---> where did this prakriti have its origin? Then we find it is the Lord himself. So if are just parts and parcels of the lord, do we even exist to be called something of its own like a jiva? The fact that we are jivas tell us that we collectively do not exist independently and only Lord alone exists and if that is true, I am simply an imagination--- but I feel myself as though very real. Advaita tells us that it is simply the mind that lets us think that we are "real" , but thats crazy , I don't have the control over my mind, the Lord does. All this is very confusing.

So my realness is dependent on the Lord's control, he makes me real, and if thats true , he is the source of my reality. He is real, I am not. So He exists , I don't, He lives like everything and me thus creating this feeling of "reality" pertaining to "me". So, this "I" which is "this entity" that is writing behind redsox clearly is a product of lord's imagination. How is this any different from Advaita?!

[gHari 0]

http://vedabase.net/bg/7/7/en

 

SrIla PrabhupAda: Yes. Our knowledge is perfect. If I say that heat is the energy of KRSNa, you cannot deny it, because it is not your energy. In your body there is some certain amount of heat. Similarly, heat is someone's energy. And who is that person? That is KRSNa. KRSNa says, "Yes, it is My energy." So my knowledge is perfect. Because I take the version of the greatest scientist, I am the greatest scientist. I may be a fool personally, but because I take knowledge from the greatest scientist, I am the greatest scientist. I have no difficulty.

Bob: Excuse me?

SrIla PrabhupAda: I have no difficulty in becoming the greatest scientist because I take the knowledge from the greatest scientist. [There is a long pause.] "This earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and ego--they are My eight separated energies."

Bob: They are separated energies?

SrIla PrabhupAda: Yes. Just like this milk. What is this milk? The separated energy of the cow. [syAmasundara and Bob, stunned, laugh in realization.] Is it not? It is the manifestation of the separated energy of the cow.

SyAmasundara: Is it like a by-product?

SrIla PrabhupAda: Yes.

Bob: So, what is the significance of this energy's being separated from KRSNa?

SrIla PrabhupAda: "Separated" means that this is made out of the body of the cow but it is not the cow. That is separation.

Bob: So, this earth and all is made out of KRSNa but it is not KRSNa?

SrIla PrabhupAda: It is not KRSNa. Or, you can say, KRSNa and not KRSNa simultaneously. That is our philosophy. One and different. You cannot say that these things are different from KRSNa, because without KRSNa they have no existence. At the same time, you cannot say, "Then let me worship water. Why KRSNa? The pantheists say that because everything is God, whatever we do is God worship. This is MAyAvAda philosophy--that because everything is made of God, therefore everything is God. But our philosophy is that everything is God but also not God.

Bob: So what on earth is God? Is there anything on earth that is God?

SrIla PrabhupAda: Yes. Because everything is made out of the energy of God. But that does not mean that by worshiping anything you are worshiping God.

Bob: So what is on earth that is not mAyA [illusion]? It is...

SrIla PrabhupAda: MAyA means "energy."

Bob: It means energy?

SrIla PrabhupAda: Yes. MAyA--and another meaning is "illusion." So foolish persons accept the energy as the energetic. That is mAyA. Just like sunshine. Sunshine enters your room. Sunshine is the energy of the sun. But because the sunshine enters your room, you cannot say that the sun

SrIla PrabhupAda: Just wire.

Bob: So if I build a statue of KRSNa, it is not KRSNa unless...

SrIla PrabhupAda: It is KRSNa. But you have to know the process of understanding that it is KRSNa. It is KRSNa.

Bob: It is not just earth and mud.

SrIla PrabhupAda: No. Earth has no separate existence without KRSNa. KRSNa says, "My energy." You cannot separate the energy from the energetic. It is not possible. You cannot separate heat from fire. But fire is different from the heat, and heat is different from the fire. You are taking heat; that does not mean you are touching fire. Fire, in spite of emanating heat, keeps its identity. Similarly, although KRSNa, by His different energies, is creating everything, He remains KRSNa. The MAyAvAdI philosophers think that if KRSNa is everything, then KRSNa's separate identity is lost. That is material thinking. For example, by drinking this milk, little by little, when I finish, there is no more milk; it has gone to my belly. KRSNa is not like that. He is omnipotent. We are utilizing His energy continually; still He is there, present. Just like a man begetting children unlimitedly, but the man is there. A crude example. It's not that because he has produced hundreds of children, he is finished. So, similarly, God or KRSNa, in spite of His unlimited number of children, is there.

pUrNasya pUrNam AdAya

pUrNam evAvaziSyate

"Because He is the complete whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance." This is KRSNa consciousness. KRSNa is never finished. KRSNa is so powerful. Therefore He is all-attractive. This is one side of the display of KRSNa's energy. Similarly, He has unlimited energies. This study of KRSNa's energy is only one side, or a portion only. So in this way, if you go on studying KRSNa, that is KRSNa consciousness. It is not a bogus thing--"maybe,perhaps not." Absolutely! It is!

SyAmasundara: And the study itself is never finished.

SrIla PrabhupAda: No. How can it be? KRSNa has unlimited energy.

 

http://vedabase.net/iso/invocation/en

[Redsox 0]

Alright, I will accept my foolishness because prabhupada says that my conclusion is that of a fool, he knows more than me, but you didn't answer my question at all and did not relieve my confusion at all.

 

I will come back later and try to make my questions clearer, when I have time, hold on.

[Beggar 0]

Yes Redsox, I think we can percieve from Srila Prabhupada's statements that your conception is at least tinged with impersonalism. When you come closer to the personal conception you will understand and accept the conclusions of the acaryas. This being said, I must admit that you have an impressive pitching rotation.

[gHari 0]

Indeed, Redsox. It is not a trivial question, and it is a source of complete humility. We may never be able to understand how Sri Krsna can create other beings that are separate from Him.

 

I once created a computer backgammon game that made me forget it was only a program. I actually became emotionally involved playing with it. Perhaps it is like this. Certainly He knows we are simply a part of Him, yet He enjoys us as separate beings relating uniquely with Him forever.

 

As far as chanting: this comes from the soul. It is not a material activity. Three things we have eternally: our self, our devotion, and Sri Krsna. This is what we relish. This is the true life, life everlasting, so simple yet so profound, so real and satisfying. Sat-cid-ananda is our birthright. Don't settle for less.

[Avinash 0]

It is important what mood we are in when we chant. If I chant Krsna, Krsna, then I think how He is the source of everything, I think about His various incarnations, His message in Gita. But when I chant computer, computer, then I just think what we can do with a computer. To give another example, suppose I chant "money, money, money". It is true that God is in money too. But will I get the same feeling when I chant "money, money" as I get when I chant "Krsna, Krsna"? I personally don't think so.

[Redsox 0]

 

Indeed, Redsox. It is not a trivial question, and it is a source of complete humility. We may never be able to understand how Sri Krsna can create other beings that are separate from Him.

If krishna felt like we would not understand his teachings ,why give us bhagavad gita? Whats the point of reading the Isoupanishad?

 

 

I once created a computer backgammon game that made me forget it was only a program. I actually became emotionally involved playing with it. Perhaps it is like this. Certainly He knows we are simply a part of Him, yet He enjoys us as separate beings relating uniquely with Him forever.

But you are not krishna, you are a simple jiva - unless you prove to me otherwise and I don't expect to see a vishwa rupa from you anytime soon. Hopefully:ponder: so your backgammon game analogy is not appropriate.

 

The reason for this is Krishna claims that everything comes from him. Your backgammon does not come from you, it comes from krishna . Not only that, your backgammon game that you create with computer coding - that computer and all that material comes from prakriti which is not you. Nothing really comes from you when you make that backgammon game.

 

When krishna makes it, he also makes it from prakriti but everything, including prakriti comes from Him. "without the energetic , there is no energy". so just like a plant in the seed, world exists in Him. This is root of my confusion, if everything exists in Him , then am I not limiting my view by saying that He is the idol I worship and not anything else? when I worship the idol and not the tree, not the ocean, not the sun, not the moon, not the stars, not the universe itself , am I not saying that he is only the idol and nothing else?

 

Prabhupada mentions that mayavadis think that krishna is impersonal, but actually my argument (maybe I am not a foolish mayavadi, could be that I am just a confused idiot) is that the only person in totality of "being" is Krishna, the rest of us are just not even people... I don't even know what to call us, maybe i am just going crazy.

 

 

As far as chanting: this comes from the soul. It is not a material activity. Three things we have eternally: our self, our devotion, and Sri Krsna. This is what we relish. This is the true life, life everlasting, so simple yet so profound, so real and satisfying. Sat-cid-ananda is our birthright. Don't settle for less.

I am not settling for less, I am asking you if there is a way out of this confusion, hoping to find an answer through a simple discussion could be just a farfetched attempt to find some peace, maybe I won't get any by discussing this here, but I am willing to try.

[Redsox 0]

 

It is important what mood we are in when we chant. If I chant Krsna, Krsna, then I think how He is the source of everything, I think about His various incarnations, His message in Gita. But when I chant computer, computer, then I just think what we can do with a computer. To give another example, suppose I chant "money, money, money". It is true that God is in money too. But will I get the same feeling when I chant "money, money" as I get when I chant "Krsna, Krsna"? I personally don't think so.

 

I wanted to chant laxmi , laxmi instead of money and money , I got the same effect. It is probably the mood, but lets say you transcend the mood and view laxmi as nondifferent from narayana. In that case, laxmi = money = Narayana. Then, when you transcend this bias toward money, would you not get the same feeling that you get when you chant krishna, krishna?

[Redsox 0]

Nevermind, I think I understand perfectly, I understand now that I can never understand Him, I will just simply surrender to Him, and go by my business. Forget I said anything.