what is the main thing about vedic philosophy

[REASWARAN 0]

You persist in the delusion that God is on the plane as we are, acting, reacting, getting offended (!)

 

Have it you way. You continue in the search for your God who is a super being. I shall continue with my search.

 

End of this debate.

[Guest guest]

In the beginning this world was only brahman, and it knew only itself (atman), thinking: 'I am brahman.' As a result, it became the Whole. Among the gods, likewise, whosoever realized this, only they became the Whole. It was the same also among the seers and among humans. Upon seeing this very point, the seer Vamadeva proclaimed; 'I was Manu, and I was the sun.' This is true even now. If a man knows 'I am brahman' in this way, he becomes this whole world. Not even the gods are able to prevent it, for he becomes their very self (atman). So when a man venerates another deity, thinking, 'He is one, and I am another', he does not understand. As livestock is useful to a man, so each man proves useful to the gods. The loss of even a single head of livestock is painful; how much more if many are lost. The gods, therefore, are not pleased at the prospect of men coming to understand this.

 

Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 1.4.10

[REASWARAN 0]

Very True. I was trying to explain without reference to any quotes from the scriptures. Thank you.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"In the beginning this world was only brahman"

yes.. but the beginning of this world comes from the spiritual world that is various, personal and complete.. not impersonal

 

In the Bhagavad-gita (15.7) Lord Krishna declares;

"The living entities in this conditioned world are My parts and parcels and they are eternal."

 

In the Gopala-tapani Upanishad it is said:

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead has entered all living entities. The cowherd boy Krishna is the Supersoul hidden in all living beings."

 

Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.1)

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead and the individual spirit soul are like two friendly birds sitting on the same tree."

 

 

 

 

 

from brahma samhita(http://www.indiadivine.org/brahma-samhita.htm):

 

"Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes"

 

"The Lord of Gokula is the transcendental Supreme Godhead, the own Self of eternal ecstasies. He is the superior of all superiors and is busily engaged in the enjoyments of the transcendental realm and has no association with His mundane potency"

 

"The same jiiva is eternal and is for eternity and without a beginning joined to the Supreme Lord by the tie of an eternal kinship. He is transcendental spiritual potency"

 

"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is adept in playing on His flute, with blooming eyes like lotus petals with head decked with peacock's feather, with the figure of beauty tinged with the hue of blue clouds, and His unique loveliness charming millions of Cupids"

 

"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is inaccessible to the Vedas, but obtainable by pure unalloyed devotion of the soul, who is without a second, who is not subject to decay, is without a beginning, whose form is endless, who is the beginning, and the eternal purusa; yet He is a person possessing the beauty of blooming youth"

 

"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads , being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth."

 

 

 

etc

etc

etc

 

hare krishna

 

 

 

 

 

[REASWARAN 0]

The true import of the statement I have referenced above has to be correctly understood. The pronoun "He" is used due to the inadequacies of human language-our mode of communication. Perhaps "Impersonal" also does not do justice to the Lord. This is one of the reasons we are not able to conceive him properly since conception is constrained by our world of experiences. Whatever you have quoted therefore does not take away from the line of argumement I have advanced.