Moon disc

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

>

> So, if I perceive that the moon is a flat disc in the sky, this has

> reality?

>

> what is unreal is the perception that the moon as a disc is the

total reality. But, the appearance of the moon as a disc is not

unreal - it is true, but it is not the complete truth - the complete

truth is it is a 3-D object - similarly, when the Lord appears as

human, the demons think this is it - he is also made of flesh and

bones - but, this is not complete understanding because the Lord's

form is transcendental

>

 

The correct answer is as follows. If I see moon in sky, and

wrongfully conclude that it is 2 dimensional, then this is wrong. It

is actually 3 dimensional. Although 2 dimensions exist within three,

if I *conclude* that moon is a 2D object, then that would be wrong.

It is not that moon is 2-D for some and 3-D for others - it is 3-D,

period.

 

Similarly, if demons see Krishna's human form, and conclude based on

this that His form is material like all other human forms, then this

conclusion is false. It is not that Krishna has a material form which

has to exist for them to see it. Rather, it is their conclusion that

the form is material which is wrong.

 

Your position is simply not logical. You have argued that because

demons wrongfully conclude that Krishna's form is material, then

therefore He must have had a material form to display to them.

 

Again, I wish to point out that your theories are not based on

Gaudiiya Vaishnava conclusions. You have nowhere proven that the

idea "Krishna has a material form by which demons can see Him" is:

 

1) authenticated by shaastra

2) authenticated by any Vaishnava Vedaantin, or

3) authenticated by Gaudiiya Vaishnavas

 

I say this after skimming through the PDF file you uploaded.

 

I don't see that there is any point to continuing this discussion. It

is not clear what standard of proof you need to give up your

theories, especially since many of the assumptions upon which you

base your theories are themselves unproven (i.e. "Krishna's spiritual

form would immediately captivate anyone, so demons could not have

seen it."). Your standard of epistemology is strangely skewed in this

regard - you want proof that Krishna did not show a material form to

demons. This is like me saying "I can accept a guru who wears blue

jeans and has orange hair, because there is no Vedic injunction

against gurus with blue jeans and orange hair." Also, it does not

help things that you and Rajgopal are confusing sense perception with

comprehension - these are actually two different things. Finally, you

are confusing my points with the idea that sensory input is false (a

cardinal Advaita view). In fact, I have never argued that sensory

input is false, only that certain misunderstandings based on limited

ability to properly process sensory input are false. Similarly, in

attributing mayavadi ideas to me, you nevertheless persist in your

view that Lord has a material form, which is itself a component of

mayavada. Not that you seem terribly concerned with it, however.

Indeed, you have suggested that Lord having only spiritual form is

not a Gaudiiya Vaishnava view, when everything Prabhupada has said on

this point argues against you. You have also misquoted pramaanas at

least once, showing to me that you are more interested in your

conclusion than in what the evidence actually says.

 

What can I do if you persist in neglecting the obvious? Hence, I see

no point to this discussion and am not terribly interested in

continuing it. I don't see any real evidence that you are trying to

understand the actual facts. As I said before, it seems that you are

continuing to push forward certain personal assumptions as if they

are obvious facts, and trying to reconcile your conclusions with

those assumptions. As you cannot seem to escape from the weight of

these assumptions, I see no way to change your mind on any of this.

Hence, I am uninterested in participating in this discussion any

further. Perhaps I am simply not up to the task.

 

Regards,

 

K