Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
ken111

The play of creation

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Amlesh :

 

 

Maybe, many are still attached to the process that is leading to Self Realisation.

 

It will not lead them anywhere. They are following the concept from Christianity (on how Jesus is called Son of God and in return, the God is replaced by the woship of the Son - alien concept to Judaism, which is why Jews have rejected Christianity, Christians and Jesus).

 

This people have been together with Christians so much, that the only way they could make "connection" with Christians (so they could accept this people) are by making Sri Krishna another "Son of God" like Jesus.

 

 

He is one without a second, the same OLD absolute Truth. /QUOTE]

 

Unfortunately, I don't see it here. What I see here is threads where people debating whether Sri Krishna is better or not from Sri Rama, or Maha Vishnu is better or not from Maha Eshwara or whether this guru is right or not when compared to that guru.

 

You speak the Truth, yet your hearts seems to be unwilling to accept and follow. Sad ... :(

 

 

 

No ... Not Mutating, Evolution. Mutation means that change without purpose. Evolution means change WITH purpose.

 

If One were to study carefully the Avatars of Maha Vishnu, he could see the Evolution process which ALL life on this Planet have underwent for the past 600 Million years (and evidently, the creation of Man itself). This are not some random Mutation, but purposeful Evolution. An Intelligent Design.

 

 

 

Make effect to change, not wait for the change. The Seed of Change (like Enlightnment) comes from within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You say you understood this all along yet you continued to nit pick over the unavoidable flaw in the example of the sun and sunshine. It is that nit picking that shows me you don't really understand this.

 

 

 

 

Well until you address the point of the example of the sun and sunshine, also given by Prabhupada, I have no inclination to consider your examples. Sorry but first things first.

 

I offered this example to show how Krishna is the basis of the Brahman.

 

Please address this directly or please allow me to end this particular conversation.

 

Hare krishna

Okay Theist. "One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintya bheda-and-abheda-tattva -- simultaneous oneness and difference." (BG 7.8) God is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. In your own words, Krishna and His impersonal Brahman effulgence are simultaneously one and different. Similarly, the living beings are of equal quality to the Supreme being, but they don’t share the qualities to an infinite extent. "Qualitatively the living entity and the Supreme Lord are one, but in quantity they are different." (Madhya 6.163) The analogy often used as an explanation in this context is the relationship between the Sun and the Sunshine. (SB 4.31.16).

 

I have been thinking about this. Actually it is not such a bad analogy at all. The sun-light can indeed be considered non-different from the sun-sphere, because the sun-sphere is inferred from the sun-light. What we actually see are just photons. This may also be analogues to how we infer the cosmic manifestation from our (ignorant) conscious perception of reality.

 

My only problem is the conclusion that Krishna is 'the source or basis' of Brahman. I don’t think that’s what acintya bheda-abheda-tattva means or implies. And how can Brahman be properly described in such material terms, when Brahman is the basis of the material world and everything? I also argued (based on Prabhupada’s own general teachings), that this cannot be what Prabhupada meant to say or intended to say.

 

Now, can we please go back to the argument in post #65? I would appreciate it if you could comment on it..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you cannot see how the Sun globe is the basis of the sunshine then there is nothing left to talk about. It is such a basic thing. What is the point of talking math to someone who won't accept that 1 is the basis of all other numbers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you cannot see how the Sun globe is the basis of the sunshine then there is nothing left to talk about. It is such a basic thing. What is the point of talking math to someone who won't accept that 1 is the basis of all other numbers?

I didn’t say that the 'sun-globe' is not the basis of the sunshine! I said Krishna is not the basis of Brahman! If you are unable to refute this, then I guess that I can safely assume that I’m correct. Which is fine with me.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I didn’t say that the 'sun-globe' is not the basis of the sunshine! I said Krishna is not the basis of Brahman! If you are unable to refute this, then I guess that I can safely assume that I’m correct. Which is fine with me.. :)

 

How are you, Primate? I would like you to interpret this for me which I will quote verbatim from this book, The Teachings of Lord Caitanya, I`m now reading:

 

After hearing the direct interpretation of the Vedanta-sutra, one of the sanyasis immediately declared, O Sripada Caitanya, whatever You have explained in Your condemnation of the indirect interpretation of omkara is most useful. Only a fortunate person can accept Your interpretation as the right one. Actually, everyone of us now knows that the interpretation given by Sankara are all artificial and imaginary, but because we belong to Sankacaraya`s sect we take it for granted that his interpretation is the right one. We shall be very glad to hear from You further explain the Vedanta-sutra by direct interpretation."

 

Being so requested, Lord Caitanya explained each and every verse of Vedanta -sutra according to the direct interpretation. He also explained Brahman, indicating that Brahman means the greatest, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Brahman indicates that the greatest is full with six opulences: the reservoir of all wealth, all fame, all strength, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation.

 

When Lord Krsna was personally present on earth, He exhibited these six opulences in full. No one was richer than Lord Krsna, no one was more learned than Him, no one more beautiful, no one stronger, no one more famous and no one more renounced. Therefore, the Supreme Personality of Krsna is the Supreme Brahman. This is confirmed by Arjuna in Bhagavad-gita(10.12). Param brahma param dhama: " You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode." He is the shelter of the Absolute Truth(para-tattva) because He is param brahma. There is nothing material in His opulences and exhibitions of wealth, fame, strength, beauty, knowledge and renunciation. All the Vedic verses and hymns indicate that everything about Him is spiritual and transcendental. Whenever the word Brahman appears in the Vedas, it should be understood, the Supreme Personality, is indicated. An intelligent person at once replaces the word Brahman with the name Krsna.

 

To accept the Supreme as impersonal is to deny the manifestation of His spiritual energies.When someone simply accepts the impersonal exhibition of spiritual energy to the exclusion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he does not accept the Absolute Truth in full. To accept the Supreme Personality in full is to accept SPIRITUAL VARIEGATEDNESS which is transcendental to the material modes of nature. By failing to indicate the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the impersonalists are left with an incomplete conception.

 

 

Primate, spiritual variegatedness doesn`t mean spiritual oneness, right?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think you can disturb me.. I’m just curious about your scholarly opinion..

I am not a scholar so I don't approach God as if I were. I look for the most simple and direct why to understand something.

 

You are also not a scholar so this method may be helpful for you.

 

In your previous post you accepted that the sun was the basis of the sunlight. Well the sun represents Krishna and the sunlight represents the brahman effulgence.

 

Perhaps now you can see why I refuse to go away from this example. It is the simplest and most direct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not a scholar so I don't approach God as if I were. I look for the most simple and direct why to understand something.

 

You are also not a scholar so this method may be helpful for you.

 

In your previous post you accepted that the sun was the basis of the sunlight. Well the sun represents Krishna and the sunlight represents the brahman effulgence.

 

Perhaps now you can see why I refuse to go away from this example. It is the simplest and most direct.

Yes. But it is not the Truth..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. But it is not the Truth..

 

Last week you called yourself an agnostic and now you are declaring what is the nature of the absolute truth. What happened? Struck by lightening maybe?

 

Anyway you are welcome to your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How are you, Primate? I would like you to interpret this for me which I will quote verbatim from this book, The Teachings of Lord Caitanya, I`m now reading:

 

After hearing the direct interpretation of the Vedanta-sutra, one of the sanyasis immediately declared, O Sripada Caitanya, whatever You have explained in Your condemnation of the indirect interpretation of omkara is most useful. Only a fortunate person can accept Your interpretation as the right one. Actually, everyone of us now knows that the interpretation given by Sankara are all artificial and imaginary, but because we belong to Sankacaraya`s sect we take it for granted that his interpretation is the right one. We shall be very glad to hear from You further explain the Vedanta-sutra by direct interpretation."

 

Being so requested, Lord Caitanya explained each and every verse of Vedanta -sutra according to the direct interpretation. He also explained Brahman, indicating that Brahman means the greatest, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Brahman indicates that the greatest is full with six opulences: the reservoir of all wealth, all fame, all strength, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation.

 

When Lord Krsna was personally present on earth, He exhibited these six opulences in full. No one was richer than Lord Krsna, no one was more learned than Him, no one more beautiful, no one stronger, no one more famous and no one more renounced. Therefore, the Supreme Personality of Krsna is the Supreme Brahman. This is confirmed by Arjuna in Bhagavad-gita(10.12). Param brahma param dhama: " You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode." He is the shelter of the Absolute Truth(para-tattva) because He is param brahma. There is nothing material in His opulences and exhibitions of wealth, fame, strength, beauty, knowledge and renunciation. All the Vedic verses and hymns indicate that everything about Him is spiritual and transcendental. Whenever the word Brahman appears in the Vedas, it should be understood, the Supreme Personality, is indicated. An intelligent person at once replaces the word Brahman with the name Krsna.

 

To accept the Supreme as impersonal is to deny the manifestation of His spiritual energies.When someone simply accepts the impersonal exhibition of spiritual energy to the exclusion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he does not accept the Absolute Truth in full. To accept the Supreme Personality in full is to accept SPIRITUAL VARIEGATEDNESS which is transcendental to the material modes of nature. By failing to indicate the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the impersonalists are left with an incomplete conception.

 

 

Primate, spiritual variegatedness doesn`t mean spiritual oneness, right?:)

Spiritual variegatedness means that everything is animate.. (SB 3.15.18, Purport) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Last week you called yourself an agnostic and now you are declaring what is the nature of the absolute truth. What happened? Struck by lightening maybe?

 

Anyway you are welcome to your opinion.

I’m not declaring anything.. I’m trying to understand the truth (as an agnostic). And I simply asked for your opinion about some ideas that I have..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. But it is not the Truth..

 

This is a declaration of fact. You yourself have no basis to make this statement by your own honest admission. better to remain open to the possibility that Prabhupada is right and you are wrong. Not blindly accept what Prabhupada said but remain open.

 

Problem is since you are also brahman your position is that you existence as brahman is also independent and not based on anything or anyone.

 

But the truth is there is a God who is the source of everything and everyone. All rest upon Him as pearls are strung on a thread. God is called the Cause of all causes. This means He has no cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Last week you called yourself an agnostic and now you are declaring what is the nature of the absolute truth. What happened? Struck by lightening maybe?

.

 

May be he was visited by Aliens.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is a declaration of fact. You yourself have no basis to make this statement by your own honest admission. better to remain open to the possibility that Prabhupada is right and you are wrong. Not blindly accept what Prabhupada said but remain open.

 

Problem is since you are also brahman your position is that you existence as brahman is also independent and not based on anything or anyone.

 

But the truth is there is a God who is the source of everything and everyone. All rest upon Him as pearls are strung on a thread. God is called the Cause of all causes. This means He has no cause.

Well, I have a logical basis or argument, which is stated in my post #65 and some other posts in this thread. But I agree that one cannot be absolutely sure whether something is absolutely true or not. Hereby I correct my earlier statement to: Any sun-metaphor of reality is unlikely to be absolutely true. And, of course, anything that has a cause, cannot be God..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, I have a logical basis or argument, which is stated in my post #65 and some other posts in this thread. But I agree that one cannot be absolutely sure whether something is absolutely true or not. Hereby I correct my earlier statement to: Any sun-metaphor of reality is unlikely to be absolutely true. And, of course, anything that has a cause, cannot be God..

 

OK this is good. And please remember that the sun metaphor was not presented as perfect rather I admited no material metaphor can ever describe transcendance perfectly.

 

At best it can be an indicator. Some indicators will be better then others of course but all fall short.

 

Here is a question for you.

Don't you think that if there is a God then everything else material or spiritual must be based and sustained on His person and will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, I have a logical basis or argument, which is stated in my post #65 and some other posts in this thread. But I agree that one cannot be absolutely sure whether something is absolutely true or not. Hereby I correct my earlier statement to: Any sun-metaphor of reality is unlikely to be absolutely true. And, of course, anything that has a cause, cannot be God..

 

 

How about this sun-moon metaphor, Primate, of mine. The light we see on the moon on earth is but a reflection of the light coming from the sun. We might have this idea that moonlight is the brahmajyoti and the moon Brahman. This is why Srila Prabhupad stated that Krsna (the Sun ) is the basis ( moonlight) of impersonal Brahman (the moon). Sri Caitanya`s acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva confirms this analogy.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ain't you people Offtopic here? We supposed to be discussing Creation and not whether Theist or Primate wrong or right

Better than creating hatred among hindus against mlechas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

Here is a question for you.

Don't you think that if there is a God then everything else material or spiritual must be based and sustained on His person and will?

Yes. Moreover, Brahman/Bhagavan is everything. Everything is a manifestation of God. I'm not sure if the terms 'based on' or 'sustained by' are ultimately applicable. These seem to imply duality and causality, which are, again, material concepts. However, I agree that this is the way in which the relation between God and the material manifestation is sometimes 'indicated' in Vedic literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about this sun-moon metaphor, Primate, of mine. The light we see on the moon on earth is but a reflection of the light coming from the sun. We might have this idea that moonlight is the brahmajyoti and the moon Brahman. This is why Srila Prabhupad stated that Krsna (the Sun ) is the basis ( moonlight) of impersonal Brahman (the moon). Sri Caitanya`s acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva confirms this analogy.;)

Please, Melvin, no more material analogies! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but ain't you people Offtopic here? We supposed to be discussing Creation and not whether Theist or Primate wrong or right.

In order to understand creation, it first has to be established who or what is the creator and what is the created. The creator is the cause of all causes, which is itself causeless. Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Therefore, neither can be said to be the cause or the creation of any of the others. Moreover, everything material and spiritual is Brahman/Bhagavan. Then what's left to be created? It must be concluded that the Absolute Truth (or God) is both creator and creation simultaneously: acintya bheda-abheda. Thus, the creation is causeless.

 

Then what is causality? Causality is a characteristic of the material illusion in which everything appears to have a material cause. In reality, however, God is the cause of all causes. Logically this means that causality doesn't exist (we now know from quantum physics that this is true). There is only one cause, which means that nothing is the cause of anything else, which ultimately means that everything is one.

 

The creation or the cosmic manifestation, is our conscious illusion of independent material existence and difference. In reality, however, nothing exists independently and everything is one in Brahman/Bhagavan..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In order to understand creation, it first has to be established who or what is the creator and what is the created. The creator is the cause of all causes, which is itself causeless. Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Therefore, neither can be said to be the cause or the creation of any of the others. Moreover, everything material and spiritual is Brahman/Bhagavan. Then what's left to be created? It must be concluded that the Absolute Truth (or God) is both creator and creation simultaneously: acintya bheda-abheda. Thus, the creation is causeless.

 

Then what is causality? Causality is a characteristic of the material illusion in which everything appears to have a material cause. In reality, however, God is the cause of all causes. Logically this means that causality doesn't exist (we now know from quantum physics that this is true). There is only one cause, which means that nothing is the cause of anything else, which ultimately means that everything is one.

 

The creation or the cosmic manifestation, is our conscious illusion of independent material existence and difference. In reality, however, nothing exists independently and everything is one in Brahman/Bhagavan..

 

Sounds like you already decided how Creation had occurred.

 

However, no matter how well a person's explaination is, you need to understand that your theory IS a theory. There is no way you could proof that this is true. Unless you witness the Birth of the Universe yourself.

 

If you ask me, I will follow Gautama Buddha's advice on this one. He stated that it doesn't matter how the Universe formed or how it will end. All that matters is achieving Enlightnment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...