Is Mukti A Myth?

[Amlesh 1]

 

Where was it said, the Soul is different in the beginning. Read again. It said that it is a part of Infinite Conciousness. A piece of Cotton taken out from the Barn of Cotton. The piece and Barn are now appearing different. When you throw it back to the Barn, there is no difference. This is what it meant.

 

 

Even then each piece of cotton contributes to the Barn; each piece of cotton is distinct. We are the energies of the complete whole.

 

 

Does Infinite have a form? If so, kindly expadite.

 

It does have a form; the best person to explain that is Sukadev Goswami.

He did that for Parikshit, He still does that for the sincere seekers.

But definitely the answer is there.

 

 

Truth is not anybodys Theory.

 

True;

 

 

It is attained by understanding and experience.

 

Again true;

 

The question beckons, since Truth is as old as Hill and one without a second; past experience of those who has seen truth is relevant and is definitely an eye opener for us.

 

True also about experience; i again agree that each and everyone's experience will be distinct and that's Gita's uniqueness is that its text varies in meaning according to the seeker but there is one central meaning that is the same for everyone; and that is needed to be discovered.

 

 

Matter is infact in a Jeevanmukta State. The various manifestations of Matter itself proves it is pervaded by conciousness. It just lacks ego.

 

It's true; but ego is still matter, but in the subtle form. The one which activates all branches of matter is Spirit.

[jeffster 0]

Hello Ravindran and Srikant,

In speaking of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, He has no material form. He is infinite and inconceivable. He is simultaneously smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest. If we attempt to conceptualize that His form must take up a certain amount of space, then we will miss the point. Because in His transcendental body, there exists no earth, water, fire, air or ether (space). It transcends space and our ordinary conception of form as existing within space, and being limited or circumscribed by space or distance. His form IS special, it is transcendental and it cannot be seen with our ordinary vision, with our sense perception. It can only be seen in our heart of hearts. He is, is it called acintya ? Inconceivable !!!! Likewise, in the spiritual kingdom, there is no space or distance as we ordinarily conceive of it. We cannot contain the Personality of Godhead within our grasp. He is ever beyond it, ever-expanding, unlimited, but He kindly makes Himself available to those who surrender to Him in love.

Regards,

jeffster/AMdas

[bija 0]

Thankyou Jeffster! So much is hidden within your simple words.

[jeffster 0]

Haribol, Bija !

Actually, your post # 168 is like a slam dunk for me ! I have to study it to imbibe the terrific siddhanta of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas !

Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

 

Hello Ravindran and Srikant,

In speaking of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, He has no material form. He is infinite and inconceivable. He is simultaneously smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest.

 

Dear Jeffster,

I have no problem with that copnception of god. Being inconceivable and having a definite form are contradictory. What is ment by a form at the first place ? We can think of god as having defenite conceviable attributes. If god is inconceivable then the form argument fals apart is int it?

What still a mystic calls a form of god is not literal and can only be described in paradooxical terms as you have rightly pointed out Smaller than the samallest and, simultaniously, bigger than the biggest. This is not any definite specific form .

 

I have no quarrel with this mystic's paradoxical (imposible) and metaphoric language. It points out to ther very inconceivablity of a god's form. But I have problem with the bhakta's literlal language -that there is a place called Vaikunda as described in mythologies - a definite spacial geoghaphy ( or celestography) and an antrophomorphic god , suggestive of a definite space bound visual form , living there.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[srikanthdk71 0]

 

Hello Ravindran and Srikant,

In speaking of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna, He has no material form. He is infinite and inconceivable. He is simultaneously smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest.

 

So the formless is given the name Sri Krishna.

 

 

If we attempt to conceptualize that His form must take up a certain amount of space, then we will miss the point.

 

What is the point you are trying to make?

 

 

Because in His transcendental body, there exists no earth, water, fire, air or ether (space). It transcends space and our ordinary conception of form as existing within space, and being limited or circumscribed by space or distance. His form IS special, it is transcendental and it cannot be seen with our ordinary vision, with our sense perception.

 

Do you know the meaning of Transcendental? When you say transcendental it means 'All in One Package'. All exists but as One single conciousness.

 

You also say that it cannot be seen with our ordinary vision and perceived with our senses. Isnt it blind belief and imagination at its best and dont you think you are paying for nothing?

 

 

It can only be seen in our heart of hearts. He is, is it called acintya ? Inconceivable !!!! Likewise, in the spiritual kingdom, there is no space or distance as we ordinarily conceive of it.

 

Hmm... yes. Only in our hearts a beautiful perception can be formed and yes, there is no space and distance. Why? Because everything is Him/God/Krishna/Consciousness.

 

 

We cannot contain the Personality of Godhead within our grasp. He is ever beyond it, ever-expanding, unlimited, but He kindly makes Himself available to those who surrender to Him in love.

 

It is just hype and glorification that has led to such beliefs. When you attune your-self to the Consciousness you will find its pervasiveness. That is when you will feel that "He" has made himself available.

[Radhikakulakarni 0]

To Justin,

When I say that "Everything begins with duality and ends with nonduality" here is what I mean. Everything is always in the Infinite. When a part of the Infinite consciousness identifies itself as a body or a soul, that is the beginning or birth of a soul. From then on the ego within it makes it look as if it is separate from the Infinite. But this concept of dualism is only for the soul and never can a soul or a body or anything for that matter can be considered as separate from the Infinite. Hence this ego is the cause of the belief of dualism and when it's gone, everything is one. As long as we do not lose ego completely, all that we can comprehend appears dual.

[Bart Happel 0]

 

... Even if I have not seen the whole of europe I know for certain that it is a small island surrounded by sea, hence is limited. The logic holds good that however big a thing may be, if it has a boundry it is still limited , finate- not infinite. ...

 

Europe, of course, is not an island, but your point is clear. Let’s take England as an example. England is an island surrounded by sea. But does that mean it’s limited? When you try to measure the actual length of the coastline of England, you may take a satellite picture of England and draw a line around it and say: that’s the length of the coastline of England. However, when you zoom in, you will see that you forgot to measure many irregularities of the coastline and that it is actually much longer. Moreover, your measurement must include every grain of sand that constitutes the coastline of England, and even every irregularity on the surface of every grain of sand, then every atom, proton, quark, etc. Ultimately you will find that the length of the coastline of England is in fact infinite.

 

Finite limits (such as the circumference of a circle) are properties of theoretical geometrical objects. Real world objects do not have finite limits. But does this mean they have no form?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[srikanthdk71 0]

 

Finite limits (such as the circumference of a circle) are properties of theoretical geometrical objects. Real world objects do not have finite limits. But does this mean they have no form?

 

Whats your definition of Infinity and kindly explain the form of Infinite as per you. As per my perception, the form can be a part of infinite and not the other way round. Just like the space element. Space by itself is formless. It just pervades and defines the borders of the finite. The geometric finity can be seen here. Lets take a closed bottle. Its like me telling that space is giving you the form of a closed bottle where as you tell me space has taken the form of the bottle from within the bottle. Both are correct. When the bottle breaks, the space within the bottle merges with the space outside it and the geometric truth no longer exists that the bottle was in a certain shape. In the same way, conciousness exists within and without. The ego factor is explained by Radhika in her posts which is the cause of Births and Deaths.

[srikanthdk71 0]

 

Even then each piece of cotton contributes to the Barn; each piece of cotton is distinct. We are the energies of the complete whole.

 

Dear Amlesh, is the Whole complete without you? When you are part of the Whole, what else?

 

 

It does have a form; the best person to explain that is Sukadev Goswami.

He did that for Parikshit, He still does that for the sincere seekers.

But definitely the answer is there.

 

What do you mean by sincere seekers? That he shouldnt be rational, he should belong to the Vaishnava tradition, he should be a humming bird to all the tunes that he sings, hey... come on, I repeat time and again that realization happens only to a rational mind coz only experience can convince him and not stories and fables presented colorfully.

 

 

The question beckons, since Truth is as old as Hill and one without a second; past experience of those who has seen truth is relevant and is definitely an eye opener for us.

 

To my knowledge, every individuals path is different. Sri Ramanuja differed from Sri Shankara and Sri Madhva differed from both. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, jainism, all are differently perceived truths. So, thinking differently is not a sin.

[Bart Happel 0]

 

Whats your definition of Infinity and kindly explain the form of Infinite as per you. As per my perception, the form can be a part of infinite and not the other way round. ...

 

I don't think we disagree. I only illustrated how the infinite quality of the underlying order of reality (God) is (necessarily) reflected as an infinite quality of all objects in our cosmic manifestation of reality. And at a microscopic scale, all form is infinite.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

 

Europe, of course, is not an island, but your point is clear. Let’s take England as an example. England is an island surrounded by sea. But does that mean it’s limited? When you try to measure the actual length of the coastline of England, you may take a satellite picture of England and draw a line around it and say: that’s the length of the coastline of England. However, when you zoom in, you will see that you forgot to measure many irregularities of the coastline and that it is actually much longer. Moreover, your measurement must include every grain of sand that constitutes the coastline of England, and even every irregularity on the surface of every grain of sand, then every atom, proton, quark, etc. Ultimately you will find that the length of the coastline of England is in fact infinite.

 

Finite limits (such as the circumference of a circle) are properties of theoretical geometrical objects. Real world objects do not have finite limits. But does this mean they have no form?

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

Dear Bart,

Sorry for my slip on Europe instead of England. Yes I meant England in my example. Even Europe, though is not an Island, still is a continent with its border intact. That is the point I am making.

 

By sketching the border of any irregular closed shape very very accurately to the minutest detail to ther size of a quark or even to the gemeotric dimentionless point , you dont make the contour length infinite. It can become very very large. It is still finate as long as it is a closed loop, however complex and intricate the figure may be. There is a rigorous mathematical proof to it. (Infinite points does not make the length infinite. Every finate segment of a real line contain infinite points). Only an unclosed and unending thing is truely infinite.

 

Real life entities like borders of nation islands and leafs may not be neat circles ( or ellipses, squars, triangles or any such neat and simple geometric objects that we study in elementary geometry text books) . They are intricate fractul designs is true but nontheless they are closed loops, and hense of finate lengths.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[srikanthdk71 0]

 

And at a microscopic scale, all form is infinite.

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

Infact, a nice point to ponder.

[Bart Happel 0]

 

... Real life entities like borders of nation islands and leafs may not be neat circles ( or ellipses, squars, triangles or any such neat and simple geometric objects that we study in elementary geometry text books) . They are intricate fractul designs is true but nontheless they are closed loops, and hense of finate lengths. ...

 

Dear Ravindran,

 

Agreed. Let's call this 'pseudo-infinite'.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Amlesh 1]

 

Dear Amlesh, is the Whole complete without you? When you are part of the Whole, what else?

 

I'm eternal, how can I be counted out?

 

 

What do you mean by sincere seekers? That he shouldnt be rational, he should belong to the Vaishnava tradition, he should be a humming bird to all the tunes that he sings, hey... come on, I repeat time and again that realization happens only to a rational mind coz only experience can convince him and not stories and fables presented colorfully.

 

when I started to understand the soul, I did not even knew what Vaishnava means, Shaivate means and anything else. It's not that far it's 5 years back; I've just turned 25.

 

Concerning being a humming bird, i should say no.

If we read Gita well, we'll see that His message really meant that we should accept our fellow neighbors as they are. Gita is an individual approach with God, not a group work; forcing others to learn what I've learnt is not something rational, unless the neighbor ask with a sincere mood.

 

Gita accepts well the other paths, except to the one Krishna spoke.

He chooses well before he relates this secret.

 

Conclusion: no chance to be a humming bird.

 

 

To my knowledge, every individuals path is different. Sri Ramanuja differed from Sri Shankara and Sri Madhva differed from both. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, jainism, all are differently perceived truths. So, thinking differently is not a sin.

Sri Ramanuja's conclusion was the same as Sri Madhva [bhakti]. Other paths speak about the soul but the intensity of discussion varies according to the intelligence of the hearer.

 

The good thing is that the Lord always thinks us green, we can come to Him even having some nice time is hell or heaven. So it's never too late for others who follow a particular sect.

 

This type of tolerance is not found in the other path; when once chosen it's final and those who are not following their path are doomed.

[bhaktajan 0]

A) To my knowledge, every individual's path is THE SAME (ie: state primary school sytem) --except for the "CONCLUSION" (different vocations) --all practicing the same vocabulary and disciplines.

 

OTOH,

 

All Paths are different (ie: State Roadways) --but all destinations are the same (ie: Hearth & home) --for householders (ie: sects/clan/voting block) keep their dear ones clutched to their breast only --this is the status quo (commonality of opinion) of civil truth (otherwise one becomes an outcast).

 

B) It would seem that sincere students of the impersonalist mayavadi school of philosophy must easily adapt themselves to a life of celebacy --since the zero-ness & egoless-ness & the bliss of non-existence is so tenable & attainable for them. [Here, I might have some envy of them].

[bhaktajan 0]

 

So the formless is given the name Sri Krishna.

[formless's given name is Sri Krishna. Sri Krishna's form is "unborn" (anti-matter)]

 

 

Do you know the meaning of Transcendental?

[the meaning of Transcendental is:

"beyond/outside/above & beyond Duality" in other words:

"unbornun-manifestednon-matterself-bornthe Supreme Personality of Godhead"]

 

 

You also say that it cannot be seen with our ordinary vision and perceived with our senses.

[for this question, remember the example of a "fish out of water" ~ a living being that lives only within the "grosser material atmosphere"]

 

Isnt it blind belief and imagination at its best

[How do you know who your father is? Ask your Saudi Arabian Mother? How do you know that China exists? How do you know that your taxi driver is going in the right direction --You have faith as you go along with the program. Yes, it is possible that each and every mentor you ever had in your life has cheated you and disheartened you to feel cynical toward the Wisdom of the Sages who have revealed the "conclusion of the Veda"]

 

 

and dont you think you are paying for nothing?

[Do you pay for petro? Do you pay for GMF (genetically modified food)? Do you aide & abet investments & profits of multi-national Corperate conglomerate companies that sell "single-generation" farm seeds? Do you buy comodities from Chinese slave labor? Maybe? Who knows? ]

 

 

Hmm... yes.

[so thoughtful. Full of something alright; satisfaction?]

 

Only in our hearts a beautiful perception can be formed and yes,

[Krishnamurti? Alan Watts? Osho? Christopher Colombus?]

 

there is no space and distance.

[there is "space and distance"--this is real.

It's manefest.

We 'preceive' it.

It's temporary.

It's not transcendental to

the manifest earth-water-fire-air-either-mind-intelligence-ego --whilst, the self-conscious-soul is 'transcendental' to space/time/change/names/actions/annihilation]

 

 

Why? Because everything is Him/God/Krishna/Consciousness.

[Yes. But hey buddy, God has his own pastimes that ironically you & I are not privy to nor granted entre to except by RSVP invitations]

 

 

It is just hype and glorification that has led to such beliefs.

[it is just hype and glorification that has led to your buying the style, color and BRAND NAME of underwear you have on while reading this post. I'm sure it would garner the envy of any who'd partake of your choice of bargin brand name Made-in-China commodities. (here you'd probably deny your any knowledge of where your underwear comes from --remember there are Westerners & Europeans reading this so keep your kaupins/loin-clothes confidential; just follow my logic)].

 

When you attune your-self to the Consciousness you will find its pervasiveness. That is when you will feel that "He" has made himself available.

[sorry Sailor, I just don't get the ''Cut-of-your-Jib'. "Real" is what real always was/is/shall be. "Real" is not something beyond "senses & Preceiveblilty"]

 

[Justin 0]

 

Where was it said, the Soul is different in the beginning. Read again. It said that it is a part of Infinite Conciousness. A piece of Cotton taken out from the Barn of Cotton. The piece and Barn are now appearing different. When you throw it back to the Barn, there is no difference. This is what it meant.

Since you havent tried to understand the first sentence itself, your conclusions also go for a toss, out of the door etc etc.

Does Infinite have a form? If so, kindly expadite.

Truth is not anybodys Theory. It is attained by understanding and experience. Matter is infact in a Jeevanmukta State. The various manifestations of Matter itself proves it is pervaded by conciousness. It just lacks ego.

You may want to re-read posts where it was said the soul is trying to merge with the Consciousness. The keyword is 'merge'. If that soul was indeed the Consciousness, there is no need to merge. Like you stated, the piece of cotton is different from the barn when taken out.

 

What you are talking about is not advaita though. Advaita does not say anywhere that a soul merges with the supersoul.

 

Since you say you are writing out of your own experience which is verified, I have to ask you whether you experienced ONENESS with God anytime? If so you will be the first enlightened person in the world and first liberated member in this forum that I know of. Congrats!

[Justin 0]

 

What makes you assume it has a form? Have you seen God? How did you believe? What logic did you apply?

Because the Vedas say so. Now I know you are God since you experienced oneness with God and writing in this forum based on your personal feelings of that experience. I have not experienced God yet. So you may be right.

[Justin 0]

 

To Justin,

When I say that "Everything begins with duality and ends with nonduality" here is what I mean. Everything is always in the Infinite. When a part of the Infinite consciousness identifies itself as a body or a soul, that is the beginning or birth of a soul. From then on the ego within it makes it look as if it is separate from the Infinite. But this concept of dualism is only for the soul and never can a soul or a body or anything for that matter can be considered as separate from the Infinite. Hence this ego is the cause of the belief of dualism and when it's gone, everything is one. As long as we do not lose ego completely, all that we can comprehend appears dual.

Lets take our case. So we are infinite we are God, but only that now we are under Ego and see everything as dual.

 

Do you agree that you are under Ego right now? Is this your ego writing stuff or the Infinite writing stuff in this forum? Am I the Ego writing back at you? Is this like 2 Ego's (me and you) talking about us being Infinite?

[Bart Happel 0]

 

... [formless's given name is Sri Krishna. Sri Krishna's form is "unborn" (anti-matter)] ...

 

Dear Bhaktajan,

 

I like the square brackets. It's much more structured. Can you perhaps explain a bit more about 'anti-matter' in relation to 'unborn form'?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bhaktajan 0]

The soul is 'un-born' [as its origin has been debated on these forums yet the nature of the souls are barely referred to].

 

Anti-matter is equal to the enitity called "gravity".

 

As Einstein expressed that Matter & energy & Space & Time CANNOT be seperated --so similarly the "Mother of Invention is caused by neccesity";

 

So form that is yet 'unborn' --is something we are accustommed to in the 'form' of an Artist's work.

 

An Artist may await a $$ commission before being 'inspired' to concieve of the gross Art object.

 

A painter has the Un-born potentiality innate within his person before ever anyone can see the painting on canvas.

 

The mustard seed has a tree within it in excess than most High-School kids have the skills to succeed as scholars --[mysterious?].

 

As Einstein expressed that Matter & energy & Space & Time CANNOT be seperated because Matter and the Void are connected to each other.

 

Matter and the Void have a symbiotic relationship --they are inseperable.

 

Anti-matter sounds like a type of matter --but it is actually a mathematical expression of the space occupied by matter and thus their co-dependent relationship is what physics follows behind to record and document.

 

The principle of potential latent force within inertness is also nothing new nor amazing.

 

It must all be thrown in to action by the "presence (ala time factor?)" of a "persona".

 

Ciao tutti! Che vediamo doppo,

Bhaktajan

[jeffster 0]

I think we are all tiring of this thread, as there have been no new posts for some time. The debate between monists and Vaishnavas has been going on for eons. Generally in a real debate, there is a resolution, with a real winner. In traditional India, the losing side would generally surrender and follow the teachings of the acharyas of the winning side. Now, in the modern age when no one wants to surrender to anyone else, there is no resolution, just endless word jugglery.

 

As I said repeatedly, dear Srikanth, Krishna has no material form. That does not mean that He doesn't have a form, a spiritual form. He has a sac-cid-ananda vigraha body, an eternal form of bliss and knowledge, but it is inconceivable. All your experience with forms leads you to believe that if something has a form, then it must be material. But that is not the case, even though you repeatedly insist that Krishna must be formless. Our dear Bija, in his posts #164 and # 168, gave the highest Vaishnava siddhanta. Yet even after we quote verse after verse, you keep insisting that Krishna is formless. This means only one of two things, and I want to say this as respectfully as I can to your good self, but I must say it nonetheless: you are either dull, insisting on Krishna's formlessness even when being presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary, or you may be envious. Krishna does have an impersonal feature; it is the brahmajyoti, and it is likened to the rays of the sun. You are being blinded by the brahmajyoti and you think that this conception of Divinity is supreme, but the brahmajyoti is only the rays emanating from the body of that transcendental Person. But you cannot see His personal features unless you surrender through bhakti; otherwise He will not manifest Himself in His entirety to you.

 

I am tired of this thread myself, so I will leave after this post; but following are several Gita verses for your consideration. But first I must say that I consider your statement that the glorifying of Krishna is so much hyperbole to be purely offensive. If you actually (subtly) think that you must be a superior philosopher to Him, with your concocted word jugglery, it really only demonstrates how puffed up you are. And the fact that He has been worshipped in your country for millions of years, with countless great Indian sages and demigods testifying as to His divinity and further testifying that He is superior to all other personalities demonstrates that you are in fact spiritually immature. If you insist on being equal to Him, you will be able to go no farther than the brahmajyoti; you will only perceive the eternality or the brahmananda conception, but not the ultra sweetness of personal reciprocation with Him in one of the eternal rasas.

 

Gita 7:25 - "I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency (yoga-maya); and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible."

In the index to my Gita, MacMillan version, there is a list of references under impersonalists, but I do not have time to type in all these references.

O.K. here is another verse:

Gita 7:24 - "Unintelligent men, who know Me not, think that I have assumed this form and personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is changeless and supreme."

Gita 3:32 - But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not practice them regularly, are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and doomed to ignorance and bondage."

One last verse: Gita 18:67 - "This confidential knowledge may not be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me."

In conclusion, monism is certainly a step on the transcendental path, but I would urge all the monist readers here to attempt to understand, without interpretation, the real essence of Krishna consciousness.

Regards and Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

[srikanthdk71 0]

 

[formless's given name is Sri Krishna. Sri Krishna's form is "unborn" (anti-matter)]

 

Very convincing.

 

 

[the meaning of Transcendental is:

"beyond/outside/above & beyond Duality" in other words:

"unbornun-manifestednon-matterself-bornthe Supreme Personality of Godhead"]

 

The dictionary meaning is, 'Asserting a fundamental irrationality or supernatural element in experience'. Almost the same as you said.

 

 

You also say that it cannot be seen with our ordinary vision and perceived with our senses.

[for this question, remember the example of a "fish out of water" ~ a living being that lives only within the "grosser material atmosphere"]

 

Who perceived it and with what did he perceive?

 

 

Isnt it blind belief and imagination at its best

[How do you know who your father is? Ask your Saudi Arabian Mother? How do you know that China exists? How do you know that your taxi driver is going in the right direction --You have faith as you go along with the program.

 

To know myself, its irrelevent to know who my father is or ask my Saudi Arabian Mother and about the Taxi Driver, you know where you are going and assumes that the person is taking you to your destination. You dont sit it the cab and he knows where he is taking you.

 

 

Yes, it is possible that each and every mentor you ever had in your life has cheated you and disheartened you to feel cynical toward the Wisdom of the Sages who have revealed the "conclusion of the Veda"]

 

There are people who promise you something that is outside you and say that the one outside you cannot be perceived by you and you believe it.

 

There are people who promise to show you who you are and make you understand the purpose of life. Nobody can be your mentor. You can be your own mentor or else you may get lost in tallying your experiences with that of your mentor.

 

Arent you cynical? What is the conclusion part of Vedas? Upanishads. It talks about you and yourself. It is not a purana.

 

 

and dont you think you are paying for nothing?

[Do you pay for petro? Do you pay for GMF (genetically modified food)? Do you aide & abet investments & profits of multi-national Corperate conglomerate companies that sell "single-generation" farm seeds? Do you buy comodities from Chinese slave labor? Maybe? Who knows? ]

 

Yes. I do pay for all these. But I dont pay for Nothing.

 

 

Hmm... yes.

[so thoughtful. Full of something alright; satisfaction?]

 

Only in our hearts a beautiful perception can be formed and yes,

[Krishnamurti? Alan Watts? Osho? Christopher Colombus?]

 

there is no space and distance.

[there is "space and distance"--this is real.

It's manefest.

We 'preceive' it.

It's temporary.

It's not transcendental to

the manifest earth-water-fire-air-either-mind-intelligence-ego --whilst, the self-conscious-soul is 'transcendental' to space/time/change/names/actions/annihilation]

 

 

Why? Because everything is Him/God/Krishna/Consciousness.

[Yes. But hey buddy, God has his own pastimes that ironically you & I are not privy to nor granted entre to except by RSVP invitations]

 

 

It is just hype and glorification that has led to such beliefs.

[it is just hype and glorification that has led to your buying the style, color and BRAND NAME of underwear you have on while reading this post. I'm sure it would garner the envy of any who'd partake of your choice of bargin brand name Made-in-China commodities. (here you'd probably deny your any knowledge of where your underwear comes from --remember there are Westerners & Europeans reading this so keep your kaupins/loin-clothes confidential; just follow my logic)].

 

When you attune your-self to the Consciousness you will find its pervasiveness. That is when you will feel that "He" has made himself available.

[sorry Sailor, I just don't get the ''Cut-of-your-Jib'. "Real" is what real always was/is/shall be. "Real" is not something beyond "senses & Preceiveblilty"]

 

 

Look at the above quotes. Whats your goal? Why are you trying to pull my leg? Anyway, your sarcasm will not take you anywhere.

[ARJ 0]

 

He has a sac-cid-ananda vigraha body, an eternal form of bliss and knowledge, but it is inconceivable.