Is Mukti A Myth?

[jeffster]

Hello again, all. This is an amazing thread and difficult to absorb it all !!

Srikanth, in your post #264, you state:

""The question remains "Was Krishna referring to his gross body when he says I? Krishna doesn't have a gross body. As stated previously, His body is described as sac cid ananda vigraha, an eternal body of bliss and knowledge. He doesn't have veins as an ordinary earthly body does.

So here is this amazing person, appearing as 1) universal form, 2) all pervasive as Brahman, 3) localized in the heart of every jiva as Paramatma, and 4) appearing in person as Bhagavan. Then He even enters His own creation and plays a role ! In the Bhagavatam, 10th canto (Krishna Book), in the wrestling match, it is described that everyone saw Krishna according to the depth of their vision, but very few realized that He was actually God. Sa mahatma sudurlabah, such a great soul is very rare.

Thanks, Kimfelix, for your reference to Gita 10:15 and clarification of Gita 10:8.

Regards and pranams,

jeffster/AMdas

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

Justin,

 

The term ‘oneness’ can only have meaning in relation to non-oneness or duality. If there was no perceived duality in our cosmic manifestation, the term oneness would not exist in the dictionary. The point is that this duality is only perceptual, it’s an illusion. In reality the universe is one (God).

 

So why would one preach to ‘others’? It may be seen like curing a disease in your body. Your body is one, but personal knowledge of the disease, or curing just a single cell of the body, won’t stop the disease. The medicine must be transported to all cells of the body to cure the disease.

 

Kind regards, Bart

You are expressing there is only God and nothing else, but God cares about curing a disease in his body or cells. You are making a distinction within God.

First, you are implying (without you knowing that you are contradicting yourself) that God is made up of different parts. You are differentiating between parts of his body. God cannot be differentiated between cells in his body. Perhaps you may be even thinking he has a brain separate than his diseased cells! Both mAyavAda and tattvavAda accept that God is non-different to himself i.e. he is homogeneous i.e. same all over i.e. cannot be differentiated between his brain and legs i.e. cannot say the cells in one part of his body are finite whereas He is Infinite. If you take a part of Infinity and Perfection, that part also will still be Infinite and Perfect.

Second, a being which has a disease or imperfections within itself cannot be God in the first place. No Vedic philosophy or Quantum theories would concur with your idea of either monism, or even your idea of dualism.

[bija]

 

The formalization of a theory can be viewed as a material object, written down on a piece of paper or published on the internet. But that’s just a material means to convey the idea. posted by bart

 

Ok. I accept defeat. Now, you implement this formula and spread the glories of God.

[bija]

We have talked about absolute monism and dualism. Here is what we have not put clearly in print yet:

 

inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference.

 

 

 

 

Part IV -Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Sampradaya

A Doctrine Of Acintya-Bhedabheda - click here

I. Some Characteristic Features

a) The relation infinite-finite, God-man, Absolute - this world is a fundamental philosophical problem. Some emphasize the transcendent aspect of the infinite, while others its immanent aspect. Some emphasize difference, whereas others emphasize its identity.

b) Shankara tries to solve the problem of the relation between the infinite and the finite, or the Absolute and this world, by cancelling one of the terms in the relation.

To him, the finite is a result of upadhis. Since the upadhis are of the nature of illusion and don’t exist at all, there can be no problem of relation between that which exists and which does not exist.

But, even considering the finite as non-existent, it persists in the form of its appearance, which cannot be denied. Then the problem of the relation finite-infinite reappears in the form of the relation appearance-Reality.

c) Exclusive emphasis on the concept of identity and immanence cannot solve the problem of relation between God and the world because leads to a virtual denial of the world as illusion. Similarly the problem is not solved by applying the concept of exclusive difference and transcendence because this bifurcates the reality in two and creates un nubridgeable gulf between God and the world.

d) An ideal synthesis of identity and difference must be the cherished goal of philosophy. But such synthesis is not possible or conceivable through human logic.

e) The clue to the solution of the problem, according to the school of Shri Chaitanya, therefore, lies in the inconceivable power (acintya-shakti) of God, by which the concepts of identity and difference are transcended and reconciled ina higher synthesis.

f) As Paramatma He is the immanent regulator and observer of the actions of the finite souls, and the unifier of all existing things; as Bhagavan He is the blissful Supreme Personality of Godhead, beyond and above this material world.

(Bg 9.4-5 support this view).

g) Not is impossible for Brahman on account of His acintya-shakti. It is possible to Him to be both different from the world and identical with it, to create the world out of Himself and remain out of it.

h) acintya bhedabheda is implied also to the concept of shakti which is a basic concept in Shri Chaitanya’s philosophy. shakti is different from the object in which it inheres, because it cannot be conceived as identical with it; but simultaneously, it is identical with the object, because it cannot be conceived as different from it. Therefore the relationship between Brahman and Its shaktis is acintya bhedabheda, ‘inconceivable simultaneous identity and difference’.

i) If there was absolute identity between Brahman and the jivas, and Brahman and the world, the faults and imperfections of the jivas and the world would be the faults and imperfections of Brahman.

(To keep Brahman free from these faults, it would be necessary to regard the jivas and the world as illusory, as Shankara did. But, in the absence of any other real thing, Brahman will have to be regarded as the seat of illusion. Thus, Brahman would still not be fautless. Besides, the belief in absolute identity will falsify the shruti texts which clearly distinguish the jivas and the world from Brahman.)

j) If Brahman and Its shaktis are regarded absolutely different, as Madhva did, that would give rise to dualism and would contradict the principle of oness stressed in the shastras (tattvam yad jnanam advayam).

k) The relation between God and His shaktis is said to be inconceivable because cannot be adequately described in terms of the relation between ‘the part and the whole’, or ‘substance and attribute’, or even in terms of the relation between an ordinary object and its shakti. For, in the case of God, the part is not merely a part and the shakti is not merely a shakti.The part and the whole, the shakti and the shaktiman (the possessor of shakti), interpenetrate and form an undivided whole.

l) God is essentially advaya jnana-tattva, though not a ‘pure identity’. He appears in many forms and yet He is One; His lila, name and form are at once different and non-diferent. Even the different parts of His body are different and non-different, for each part can perform the functions of the other parts and of the whole. The part is, thus, actually identical with the whole, though still a part, and as such different from the whole.

m) The concept of ‘acintya’ (inconceivable) in the Shri Chaitanya school is distinct from the concept of ‘anirvacaniya’ (indescribable) in the Advaita-vedanta of Shankara.

‘Anirvacaniya’ is applicable to maya and its products, which can neither be described as real nor as unreal; it does not apply to Brahman , Who is described as real. But the category of ‘acintya’ applies to the relation between shakti and shaktiman either in the transcendental realm or even in this world. It applies to Brahman, His associates (parikaras), and abodes (dhamas), as well as to jiva-shakti and maya-shakti.

n) ‘Anirvacaniya’ is a negative concept, while ‘acintya’ is a positive concept. ‘Anirvacaniya’ signifies the coming together of the opposite concepts of ‘reality’ and ‘unreality’ which cancel each other to produce illusion. ‘Acintya’ signifies the marriage of the opposite concepts of ‘difference’ and ‘non-difference’ leading to a higher and a fuller unity.

II. Distinguishing Factors of the Gaudiya Vaishnavism.1

* There are basically two distinguishing factors that separate the Gaudiya school from other Vaishnava schools. Firstly, you have the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda - the inconceivable difference and non-difference between God and His energies. This was, according the Gaudiyas, the original Vedic doctrine.

* After being distorted by Buddha and then Adi Shankaracarya, it was reinstated, at least partially, by Ramanuja, who taught Vishishtadvaita. Shankara had claimed oneness, that the living energy - God’s energy - was one with God. But Ramanuja detected that there was a difference as well. He agreed with the oneness aspect, but he added a special clause - ‘the living being is obviously different as well.’

* Then came Madhvacarya, who preached pure Dvaita, or ‘dualism.’ This school teaches that there is absolute difference between God and his energies. But this teaching did not account for the similarities. God and His energies both exist, for exemple, so in their quality of existence they are indeed similar. It cannot, therefore, be said that they are absolutely different.

* Shankara preached one extreme. Madhva preached the other. Shri Chaitanya appeared with the perfect balance.

* But the most distinctive feature of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, especially as opposed to other Vaishnava schools, is the very developed conception of madhura-rati, or relationship with God in the conjugal mood. This includes laying stress on bhakti, or ‘devotion’, more so than one can detect it in other Vaishnava schools. And bhakti is most developed when understood in terms of bhakti-rasa, or relationship with God in a personal and loving way. There are five basic relationships shanta, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, and madhurya, and also there are seven secondary relationships.

* In all of the world’s religious literature, one will not find such an elaborate explanation of God and His relationship with the living beings. Therefore, to go further, the special contribution of the Gaudiyas is this very developed conception of madhurya-rasa - how one can emulate the highest devotee in the spiritual world, the maidservant, the gopi, and attain the most intimate position in the kingdom of God. It is a developed theological science.

* In the beginning there is vaidhi-bhakti - following the rules and regulations. Then, while continuing to follow the rules and regulations, one learns from the guru how to model one’s life after an inhabitant of Vraja. The inner meditation. This is called raganuga-bhakti, or ‘spontaneous devotion’, or, rather, it is ‘following an eternal associate who has spontaneous devotion’.

* In any case, it is quite an advanced theological system. One can read all of the Gaudiya literature on the subject: Govinda-lilamrita, Chaitanya-Caritamrita, Ujjvala-nilamani, Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. There are so many. After a thorough study of these books, one can conclude: In order to best undestand madhurya-rasa, the ideal of Rada and her love for Krishna must be introduced.

* The culmination of the Gaudiya Vaishnava experience is the service of Shri Radha. Exactly how this is done is revealed in the esoterica of the tradition. Shri Chaitanya has stated that as a young man yearns for his sweetheart, in the same manner, the human soul must yearn for Krishna. Radharani’s position is the highest and the devotee seeks to follow in her madhurya-bhava.

* First, one must approach an acomplished master, rendering service and learning the science of spirituality. Then, very gradually, one can advance to these other levels. On the highest level one must love God in intimate union, which is called sambhoga, and, on an even higher level, one must learn to love God in separation, which is called vipralambha - this allows one to truly appreciate union.

* Shrimati Radharani experiences both. She is the example - the very emblem - of these two ultimate experiences in God realization. Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, too, in the mood of Radharani, was experiencing these exalted states of spiritual attainment. The scientific procedure with which to accomplish this ultimate goal of life is the great secret of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

III. Some Particular Points of the Gaudiya Philosophy and Religion

not Found in Other Vaishnava Sects:

1) Shrimad-Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on Vedanta-sutra, and it is the Supreme pramana. Because the principal Upanishads and Vedanta-sutra do not deal explicitly with the Bhagavan aspect of the Absolute truth, and particularly with Lord Krishna, they are not given so much importance.

2) ‘Krishnas tu Bhagavan svayam’ is the definite axiom for the Gaudiyas.

3) The Supreme Brahman is the supreme shaktiman and possesses three shaktis: antaranga, bahiranga and tatastha. The antaranga-shakti has three divisions in it: sandhini, samvit and hladini shaktis.

4) The inter-relationship between Para-Brahman, individual souls and this world is explained solely in terms of the acintya-shakti of the Lord. Para-Brahman is inconceivably and simultaneously one and different from His shakti. This concept is extended and applied to many different aspects of this system. Therefore, the Gaudiya philosophy is known as acintya-bhedabheda-vada.

5) For the Gaudiyas, bhakti is the bhajana or seva - loving service to the Lord, not merely upasana or meditation. In fact no sadhana can achieve its perfection (moksha) without bhakti to the Supreme Lord.

6) Complete self surrender is not a sepatate process from bhakti; rather it is its basic principle.

7) Prema and not moksha is the supreme purushartha.

8) A Vaishnava has a status superior to any varna or ashrama.

9) Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is directly the combined forms of Shri Shri Radha and Krishna. He is the Kali-yuga avatara and the bestower of Krishna-prema in the form of gopi-bhava or madhurya-rasa.

10) Worship of the Lord in His aishvarya aspect according to the principles of vaidhi-bhakti, leads the devotee to liberation in Vaikuntha, Dvarka or Mathura. But the Lord in His madhurya aspect in Goloka is attained only by those following raga-marga.

11) Ekatmya or sayuja-mukti cannot be acchived by only jnana, or meditation, or else. Moksha is attainable only through bhakti, by surrendering to the Supreme Lord, not otherwise.

12) There exists twelve rasas or mellows in relationship with the Lord, seven are secondary and five principal. Out of these five, sakhya, vatsalya and madhurya-rasa are found, in their pure and complete manifestation, only in Goloka Vrindavana. In Mathura, Dvaraka and Ayodhya-dhama these three rasas are also found but in a mixed state, not pure.

13) No incarnation other than Shri Krishna gives liberation to the demons when He kills them.

14) Only the Gaudiyas affirm the superexcellence of the loving sentiment in the mood of seperation (viraha or vipralamba).

15) Parakiya-rasa is the special feature in the dealings between Krishna and the gopis.

y.s.

[bija]

 

 

 

Physics to Metaphysics

 

 

 

The Vedic Paradigm

 

 

 

By Swami B. B. Vishnu

 

For India's great realizers, the primary evidence in support of their theses is revealed scripture (sastra), such as the Vedanta-sutras. This evidence is considered to originate beyond the limits of human reasoning. Yet, especially for Westerners, as an introduction to the virtues of scriptural evidence, it may be prudent to first discuss the concept of a transcendental personal Godhead in the context of modern science and quantum mechanics in particular.

Following the transition from Newtonian classical physics to quantum mechanics, several scientists have explored the possibility of a connection between physics and transcendence. This may be due to the more abstract nature of quantum mechanics as opposed to classical physics. For example, classical physics attempts to describe the physical reality in concrete, easily understandable terms, while quantum mechanics deals in probabilities and wave functions. Quantum mechanics, however, is much more rigorous in its attempt to describe reality and explains phenomena that classical physics fails to account for. The "quantum leap" has given several physicists the hope that the transcendentalist's experience of consciousness can also be explained by the quantum mechanical theory. Although the quantum theory does not account for consciousness, it has become popular to attempt to bridge the gap between the transcendentalist's experience and the quantum mechanic world view. Some people have loosely called this the "new physics."

The rational spiritually-minded community cheered the appearance of Fritjof Capra's The Tao of Physics and Gary Zukav's Dancing Wu Li Masters. Later, David Bohm's The Implicate Order was similarly praised. Although there is good reason to applaud their work and the work of others like them, their theories, scientifically speaking, do not quite bridge the gap between physics and transcendence. However, these scientists have to some extent become "believers" and that is a major breakthrough. Furthermore, the theories have turned many educated persons in the spiritual direction.

Of all the recent attempts to show the "oneness" in what physicists and transcendentalists speak of, Bohm's implicate order theory is the most worthy of consideration. In comparison, Capra's "realization" that the dance of Shiva and the movement of atomic particles is one and the same- although profoundly beautiful -- falls more in the realm of poetry than science.

Of course any attempt to find harmony between the scientific world view and the mystic's vision will be incomplete unless we adjust the scientific world view through an interface with the many realities it fails to account for (subtle bodies, consciousness, etc.). Taking that liberty, as Bohm has, Richard L. Thompson, Dr. of Mathematics and author of the book Mechanistic and Non-mechanistic Science, has postulated a new theory of "creation through sound" using what he calls The Vedic Paradigm.

Thompson advocates the philosophy of achintya bhedabheda, a transcendental conception which, interestingly enough, fits well with the example of the hologram (often used to illustrate Bohm's implicate order theory). This transcendental conception is different than the one Bohm advocates. Thompson attempts to show in his upcoming book, End of Physics, how some of the holes in Bohm's theory can be filled using an alternative view of transcendence, namely acintya bedhabedha.

Simply stated acintya bedhabedha means that reality is ultimately, inconceivably one and different at the same time. Bohm is an adherent of advaita vedanta or non-dualism. Non-dualists percieve reality as one homogenious substance. In their view all forms of variety and individuality are products of illusion. Acintya bedhabedha, holds that the world of material variety is illusory but not altogether false. It insists that there is a transcendental variety and spiritual individuality that lies beyond illusion. Acintya bedhabedha is a theistic conception and advaita vedanta is monistic or atheistic.

Thompson is a practicing scientist who has been pursuing transcendental disciplines for the last thirteen years. This kind of combination is rare. It is hard to find someone who is thoroughly familiar with science as well as with spirituality. In order to appreciate his theory of creation by sound it will be helpful to first briefly explain Bohm's theory of the implicate order and then proceed to further elaborate on the philosophy of acintya bedhabedha. Such explanations will serve as a peface to the discussion of creation, all of which shed new light on the nature of reality, helping to harmonize physics and metaphysics.

THE IMPLICATE ORDER

Bohm's explanation of reality involves an "implicate" and "explicate" order, with vague references to love, compassion, and other similar attributes that may lie beyond both the implicate and explicate. The implicate order is an ultimate physical substrate which underlies our present perception of reality. The reality that we perceive is what Bohm calls the explicate order. All order and variety, according to Bohm, are stored at all times in the implicate order in an enfolded or unmanifested state. Information continually unfolds or becomes manifest from the implicate order as the explicate order of our experience.

Of course any attempt to find harmony between the scientific world view and the mystic's vision will be incomplete unless we adjust the scientific world view through an interface with the many realities it fails to account for.

Bohm uses the example of the hologram to help explain his theory. A hologram is a photographic plate on which information is recorded as a series of density variations. Because holography is a method of lensless photography, the photographic plate appears as a meaningless pattern of swirls. When a coherent beam of light -- typically the laser -- interacts with the plate, the resultant emerging light is highly ordered and is perceived as an image in three dimensions. The image has depth and solidity, and by looking at it from different angles, one will see different sides of the image. Any part of the hologram will reproduce the whole image (although with less resolution). Bohm would say that the three-dimensional form of the image is enfolded or stored in the pattern of density variations on the hologram.

A further understanding of the nature of Bohm's implicate order is somewhat more difficult to grasp. In the transition from the classical description of physical objects to a quantum mechanical description, one is forced to use mutually incompatible descriptions. That is, to understand the behavior of electrons, it is necessary to describe them as point-like particles and extended waves. This concept of complementarity, devised in the 1920's by the physicist Niels Bohr, leads naturally to the thought that electrons, or their ultimate substrate, may not actually be fully describable in mathematical terms. Thus the ultimate physical reality may be an undefinable "something" which is only partially describable but not fully, because some of the partial descriptions will inevitably contradict each other. This is Bohm's idea regarding the nature of his implicate order.

Although Bohm accepts the reality of a whole containing distinguishable parts, he maintains that ultimately, reality at its most fundamental level is devoid of variety or individuality. Bohm believes that individuality is a temporal or illusory state of perception. According to his theory, although the parts appear to be distinct from the whole, in fact, because they "enfold" or include the whole, they are identical with the whole.

The intuitive basis behind this idea of wholeness is that when information is enfolded into a physical system, it tends to become distributed more or less uniformly throughout the system.

The hologram provides an easily understandable example. If portions of a hologram are blocked off, the resultant image remains basically the same. This, perhaps metaphorically, helps to illustrate the concept that the whole is present in each of its parts. Consider then a continuum in which all patterns ever manifested in any part of the continuum are represented equally in all parts. Loosely speaking, then one could say that the whole of the continuum in both space and time is present in any small part of the continuum. If we invoke the precedent of quantum mechanical indefinability, we could leap to the idea of a unified entity encompassing all space and time in which each part contains the whole and thus is identical to it. Because wholes are made up of parts, such an entity could not be fully described mathematically, although mathematical descriptions could be applied to the parts

THOMPSON'S OBSERVATIONS

Although Bohm's theory of the implicate order is partially based on the standard methodology of physics, it is also apparent that it involves ideas that are not found in traditional science. Most of these ideas are clearly the influence of a preconceived notion of non-dualism.

Bohm's theory is sorely in need of a logical source of compassion which provides inspiration enabling finite beings to know the infinte. Ironically while Bohm emphatically states that it is not possible for unaided human thought to rise above the realm of manifest matter (explicate order) he proceeds to carry on a lengthy discussion about the unmanifest (implicate order). Although he speaks of compassion it is only in a vague reference to an abstract attribute. The logical necessity for an entity possesed of compassion is avoided by Bohm (although he almost admits the need). He retreats from this idea because the standard notions of a personal God are dualistic and thus undermine the sense that reality at the most fundamental plane is unified.

Bohm's idea that the parts of the implicate order actually include the whole is not fully supported by his physical examples alone. Indeed this is impossible to demonstrate mathematically. The part of the hologram is not fully representative of the whole. The part suffers from lack of resolution. It is qualitatively one but quantitatively different.

Bohm's account for the corruption in human society is also a short coming in an otherwise profound theory. The theory alleges that evil arises from the explicate order -- which is a contradiction of the basis of the theory which states that everything in the explicate order unfolds from the implicate order. This means that evil and human society at large or something at least resembling it must be originally present in the implicate order. But what would lead us to believe that an undifferentiated entity would store anything even remotely resmbling human society? Or how could there be evil in or beyond the implicate order which is the source of love and compassion?

Bohm states that the totality of all things is timeless and unitary and therefore incapable of being changed. Later on he proposes that through collective human endeavor the state of arrairs can be changed. This is similar to the contradiction of advaita vedanta in which ultimate oneness is thought to be attained even though it is beyond time and forever uninfluenced by our actions.

These are some of the scientific and philosophical problems with the theory of the implicate order pointed out by Thompson. They are resolved by Thompson by replacing advaita vedanta with achintya bedhabedha.

ACHINTYA BHEDABHEDA

The history of philosophy bears evidence that neither the concepts of oneness (non-dualism) or difference (dualism) are adequate to fully describe the nature of being. Exclusive emphasis on oneness leads to the denial of the world and our very sense of self as an individual -- viewing them as illusion. Exclusive emphasis on difference divides reality, creating an unbridgeable gap between man and God. Both concepts at the same time seem necessary inasmuch as identity is a necessary demand of our reason while difference is an undeniable fact of our experience. Therefore a synthesis of the two can be seen as the goal of philosophy........ click here to read on....

[bija]

 

The way I see that Bart, to call all things a model or theory is this...that then everything is an object. All things become objects. This is diametrically opposite to subjective encounter with a Super-subjective plane.

 

The object is for gratification. The conscious Being, is alive with consciousness and definately not an object. by bija

 

Just as the eye cannot see the mind but can be in connection with it if the mind chooses to think about it, so similarly the finite can know about the infinite only by the grace of the infinite.

It may be helpful to draw upon a reference from Vedic literature. Actually, the example of the hologram is similar to an explanation of the basis of reality recorded in the Brahma Samhita. There we find a verse in which, ironically, Godhead has been described as personal and individual and Who, at the same time one with and different from His energies.

He is an undifferentiated entity as there is no distinction between potency and possessor thereof. In His work of creation of millions of worlds, His potency remains inseparable. All the universes exist in Him and He is present in His fullness in every one of the atoms that are scattered throughout the universe at one and the same time. Such is the primeval Lord whom I adore. (Brahma Samhita 5.35)

In the material conception of form, the whole can be reduced to a mere juxtaposition of the parts. This makes the form secondary. In this verse the material conception of form is transcended. The supreme entity is fully present in all of the parts which make up the total reality and thus the supreme is one unified principle underlying all variegated manifestations. Yet He is personal and in this feature different from his parts or energies at the same time. The Brahma Samhita goes on to say that each of the parts of the Godhead's form are equal to each other and to the whole form as well. At the same time each of the parts remains a part. This is fundamental to the philosophical outlook of achintya bhedabheda. It allows for the eternal individuality of all things without the loss of oneness or harmony. It also allows for the possibility that man, even while possessed of limited mind and senses, can come to know about the nature of transcendence. The infinite, being so, can and does reveal Himself to the finite. Just as the eye can not see the mind but can be in connection with it if the mind chooses to think about it, so similarly the finite can know about the infinite by the grace of the infinite. The concept of non-dualism however allows for neither of these things. swami bb vishnu

The goal is not to see God.... it is not to attempt to see God as an object. Instead we should aspire for God to see us...when He sees us then we have entered the Super-subjective plane of existence. A land of love, beauty, and charm...where no sense gratification exists. We have transcended our limited concerns...for the higher reality. A land of service mood.

 

How is this possible? Bhakti.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Srikanth, in your post #264, you state:

""The question remains "Was Krishna referring to his gross body when he says I? Krishna doesn't have a gross body.As stated previously, His body is described as sac cid ananda vigraha, an eternal body of bliss and knowledge. He doesn't have veins as an ordinary earthly body does.

 

Jeffster, I think you are confused between Vishnu and Krishna (thanks to SP). During Satyuga,tretayuga, nobody ever heard of the word Krishna. In Dvapara however, it is believed that Lord Vishnu came in his original form (as Krishna possessed the Sudarshana Chakra). It is also clear that even if the Lord decend on this earth he is subject to the Prakriti Dharma of this Prithivi (law of nature or natural law) ie., he has to go through the cycle of Birth and Death. This cycle did not spare even Rama or Krishna. You must be aware that Krishna meets his death when a hunter (linked to Vali of Tretayuga) kills him. That was a brief description of Krishna as gross.

 

Now, coming to the Sat-Chit-Ananda aspect. That Sat-Chit-Ananda is the very natural nature of the Atman within you and me. Futher you say it is Vigraha, eternal body of Bliss and Knowledge etc etc. Any realized soul who possess the art of releasing his energy not from the mind is termed here. Infact Sri Krishna is one of them.

 

The Gross Body of Sri Krishna who was in the Dvapara had the very same body that you and me have with veins etc. In the Vaishnava perspective, when the Brahman is given the form of Pundarika, it is said to be a form of Bliss Eternal.

 

 

So here is this amazing person, appearing as 1) universal form, 2) all pervasive as Brahman, 3) localized in the heart of every jiva as Paramatma, and 4) appearing in person as Bhagavan. Then He even enters His own creation and plays a role !

 

Bhagavan Vishnu again. Why do you call yourself a a Vaishnavite and not Krishnite? You believe that Vishnu took all avatars including that of Krishna and not the otherway round.

[kaisersose]

 

Ravindran, but all those verses which non-dualists claim as supporting non-dualism has been refuted by some great Vaishnava saints.

 

Not really. They gave alternate theories which never really came anywhere close to popularity as the original. Your statement makes it sound like Advaita has been refuted and taken care of, which is nowhere close to the truth.

 

 

The scriptures can never be the authority for the non-dualists since:

 

A. They have rejected about 90% of them as attatvavedaka and taken only those that they "feel" convey oneness. But even those 10% has been refuted in no uncertain terms by Acharyas like Ramanuja and Madhva. Prabhupada uses the 'R' word against the deluded non-dualists.

 

Not true again. Instead of making bald and incorrect claims on Advaita, please provide references. You are evidently very ignorant of the real picture. So far I have not seen you provide a *single* legitimate crticism of Advaita. You have simple been quoting "defeat" by esteemed Vaishnava Gurus. That means nothing and anyone who has basic knowledge of history should know it is blatantly false.

 

Prabhupada used the R word very freely. which in my opinion, reflects badly on him. And Btw, I have said it before and will say it again. Prabhupada did not know the the first thing about Advaita & therefore, his opinions on the topic are completely worthless.

 

Btw, I have been using the "D" word for deluded Hare Krishnas. The difference is, I know the basics of Hare Krishna philosophy and so I am on better ground.

 

 

B. The scriptures exist only when they are in ignorance or in ego. It disappears when they 'become/merge/are' God. Whatever they understand from the scriptures is also understood from their ego since is their ego that interprets those scriptures.

 

No one becomes God or merges with God. Yet another ignorant statement.

 

Why dont you take some time off and read the the basics of Advaita before making incorrect postings? You are only embarassing yourself with your current display of ignorance. Or you could defend your assertions by quoting valid Advaita sources, but we both know you cannot do that as you never read any Advaita works ever. Of course, in true Hare Krishna fashion, that does not stop you from shooting off your mouth on the topic.

 

I still find it amazing to see Hare Krishnas confidently make incorrect assertions on Advaita without bothering to read a single line of the doctrine.

 

Cheers

[kaisersose]

 

Jeffster, I think you are confused between Vishnu and Krishna (thanks to SP). During Satyuga,tretayuga, nobody ever heard of the word Krishna. In Dvapara however, it is believed that Lord Vishnu came in his original form (as Krishna possessed the Sudarshana Chakra).

 

The original form claim is dubious. I do not know if other Vaishnava groups make that claim. Krishna like all humans, was an infant, a toddler, a kid, adolescent, young adult, etc. Which of these was the alleged "original form"?

 

This is like the Christian claim that God created man in his own form. Which form might that be? Again the question of infant, toddler, young adult, middle aged adult, old adult arises. Besides, we have distinct races on earth where we look very different from one another. Which race resembles God? Has to be only one. One could say God looks like Jackie Chan or like Chris Tucker, but not both at the same time.

 

And finally, all 6 billion people on the planet have distinct facial features. Which of them has been created in the image of God?

 

 

It is also clear that even if the Lord decend on this earth he is subject to the Prakriti Dharma of this Prithivi (law of nature or natural law) ie., he has to go through the cycle of Birth and Death. This cycle did not spare even Rama or Krishna. You must be aware that Krishna meets his death when a hunter (linked to Vali of Tretayuga) kills him. That was a brief description of Krishna as gross.

 

I know that Tattvavada would disagree. Their position is none of the avatars had material bodies.

 

Cheers

[Bart Happel]

@ Bija

 

The key word is: ‘origin’. God is one and undividable, and simultaneously God is ‘the origin’ of everything in our cosmic manifestation. ‘Simultaneous oneness and difference’ may then be understood as follows. Because God is the origin of everything and God is one, everything is one; and because everything that we perceive ‘originates from’ God, everything we perceive is different from God.

 

It’s like a television picture. The entire picture we see is described or projected by a single (fast moving) electron-beam on the television screen. The picture is, however, not the electron-beam itself, but the picture originates from the electron-beam. We may see separate visible forms in the picture, but it’s all an illusion created by a single beam of electrons.

 

The problem is, where are we (the consciously perceiving souls) in the picture? In the above example, we are passively watching the television screen, physically separated from the television set itself. In reality, however, we perceive ourselves as integral parts of the picture, or the projection. And since the picture is created (projected) by the electron-beam, we must in fact be integral parts of the dynamics of the electron-beam.

 

To take this analogy one step further, suppose the electron-beam is consciousness, then we may be conscious parts of the dynamics of this one consciousness, experiencing our own individual picture or projection of reality. Then there is even no longer a need for a television screen; our cosmic manifestation may simply be the product of our (partial) consciousness.

 

Now, in the chaotic model of reality, the original singular consciousness is not a beam of electrons but a single oscillating point in a ‘state-space’. And perceived reality is not a television screen, but a ‘stroboscopic phase-projection’ of this chaotic oscillation. Such projections display self-similar (fractal) structures, in which parts of the whole are similar to the whole but different from the whole. Such parts, can be seen as the conscious cosmic manifestation of local complex dynamical regions (souls) within the conscious oscillation as a whole.

 

So, simultaneous oneness and difference can be conceived, at least in principle. The only thing that remains inconceivable is how this universal oscillation can actually be consiousness.

 

 

 

@ HeeHee

 

I used the example of curing a disease in the body, by curing every single cell in the body, because we usually think of our body as one, i.e., a single unified whole. But you are right, individual cells in the body are separate parts of the body in our cosmic manifestation. However, the chaotic system analogy of reality that I explained above, indicates that this is an illusion, just as all conscious perception and all perceived duality is an illusion and everything is in fact one (consciousness).

 

A key feature of any chaotic system is called ‘self-organization’. This means that everything in the cosmic manifestation (phase-projection) is an intricately interrelated organized dynamical whole. In this view, the process of curing every single cell in the body is just our consciously perceived manifestation of a self-organized healing process. Likewise, preaching to ‘others’ is just the perceived manifestation of a self-organized process of the propagation of religious insight or knowledge. Such processes may seem ‘causal’, i.e., action-reaction like, but that’s all an illusion because duality is an illusion. In the reality that underlies our conscious perception, there are no separate acting and reacting parts or entities.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bhaktajan]

Is Mukti a Myth?

[Justin]

 

Is Mukti a Myth?

Yes it is a myth for a non-dualist. There is no one to experience mukti if that were to happen!

[bhaktajan]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by bhaktajan

Is Mukti a Myth?

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Yes it is a myth for a non-dualist.

There is no one to experience mukti if that were to happen!

 

[so, depending on the limits of one's self-education the Myth may (or may not) be absolutely clearly True.

 

Dualism, Monoism, atheism, Pantheism all exist side-by-side. They all are inclusive of each other --the question is 'What is absolute, when all else is desolved?'

 

These terms ie, 'non-dualist' is way too vague and ephemeral to capture the notion of consciousness.

 

Consciousness should first be address before delving into the calculus of zero.

 

{"CALCULUS" = The branch of mathematics, usually studied after algebra, that provides a natural method for describing gradual change.;

 

the branch of mathematics that is concerned with:

a) limits and with

b) differentiation and

c) integration of functions;

 

the branch of mathematics that studies continuously changing quantities.

Calculus is characterized by the use of infinite processes, involving passage to a limit—the notion of tending toward, or approaching, an ultimate value.

The English physicist Isaac Newton and the German mathematician G. W. Leibniz, working independently, developed the calculus during the 17th cent.

The calculus and its basic tools of differentiation and integration serve as the foundation for the larger branch of mathematics known as analysis.

The methods of calculus are essential to modern physics and to most other branches of modern science and engineering.}

 

Why did I show the above definition?

 

]

[Bart Happel]

 

Is Mukti a Myth?

According to the 'chaos model', it's (of course) not a myth.

 

And a chaotic system can't be analyzed by any calculus. That's the nature of chaos. Although any chaotic process displays a complex inherent order, it cannot be ‘solved’ analytically. We can only simulate it on a computer and study its properties (like a computer model of the weather on earth).

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Justin]

 

Why did I show the above definition?

 

]

 

Beats me Sire! my small brain does not understand what calculus has to do with consciousness!

[Bart Happel]

 

 

 

Physics to Metaphysics

 

The Vedic Paradigm

By Swami B. B. Vishnu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... Bohm's idea that the parts of the implicate order actually include the whole is not fully supported by his physical examples alone. Indeed this is impossible to demonstrate mathematically. The part of the hologram is not fully representative of the whole. The part suffers from lack of resolution. It is qualitatively one but quantitatively different. ...

 

 

This is not true. Ravindran can provide you the logical prove that part actually can contain the whole in infinite structures (a hologram is not an infinite structure). And I can provide you with a computational model of reality that also proves that part can contain the whole.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bhaktajan]

According to the 'chaos model', it's (of course) not a myth.

 

A chaotic system can't be analyzed by any calculus.

That's the nature of chaos.

[False--see your own reference to all sorts of higher mathematics below--for clrification of your own thoughts.

 

Also, if it can not be 'expressed mathematically' than consciousness (via a Human Mentor) will suffice, Yes?

 

Also, Automated traffic lights seem to handle chaotic vehical traffic in an OK way--seems that Human error still allows for road accidents.

 

I postulate that If drivers were more 'conscientious' more auto mobile wrecks would be avoided. Except a Auto-Races ... where we all love spectacular bang-ups.]

 

 

Although any chaotic process displays a complex inherent order,

it cannot be ‘solved’ analytically.

[Try traffic signal technology, yet?

Also, What is there to solve?

Baby birthing is complex--what's to solve?

War & Famine?

News-reporters vs. pragmatic means of making a living?

Tabloid reader fetishes vs. Illiteracy?]

 

We can only simulate it on a computer and study its properties (like a computer model of the weather on earth).

[study Chaos? We report Chaos on color displays on the evening News? Is that comprehensible by ordinary patrons of Jumbo Airline Machines?]

[bhaktajan]

 

This is not true. Ravindran can provide you the logical prove that part actually can contain the whole in infinite structures (a hologram is not an infinite structure). And I can provide you with a computational model of reality that also proves that part can contain the whole.

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

I am very doubtful that this is correct.

 

Water is H2O.

The ocean is water.

H20 is not an Ocean.

[bija]

 

The part suffers from lack of resolution.By Swami B. B. Vishnu

 

 

This is not true. Ravindran can provide you the logical prove that part actually can contain the whole in infinite structures (a hologram is not an infinite structure). And I can provide you with a computational model of reality that also proves that part can contain the whole.

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

In your computer model Bart, would the part exist with completeness quantitavely, if the whole did not exist? What to say of quality? It is dependant isn't it?

 

In a spiritualist model, when the part realizes its true nature it becomes one with the quantative whole through realization (higher awareness). That is the super-subjective realm...then its quality shines forth in harmony with the whole. One yet inconceivaby different....in communion. Rasa!

 

 

By higher awareness the part realizes the play of the big picture and leaves behind its seperated interest, which was the cause of disharmony. But saying that, inconceivably that disharmony also exists on a relative level before awareness of full function develops.

 

Interestingly enough a thread called 'is mukti a myth' has turned into a scientific theory debate. Here is my viewpoint for your pleasure on how to realize full awareness of functionality and experience rasa as a consciously aware entity:

 

 

Krsna Book Chapter 14 (commentary on srimad bhagavatam canto 10)

http://mybloop.com/go/U7utpy

....In the Brahma-samhitä it is stated that the body of the Lord is all-spiritual;

there is no difference between the Lord’s body and His self.

Each limb of His body can perform the actions of all the others. The

Lord can see with His hands, He can hear with His eyes, He can accept

offerings with His legs, and He can create with His mouth.

Brahmä continued, “Your appearance as a cowherd child is for the

benefit of the devotees, and although I have committed an offense at

Your lotus feet by stealing away Your boys and calves, I can understand

that You have bestowed Your mercy upon me. That is Your

transcendental quality: You are very affectionate toward Your devotees.

But in spite of Your great affection for me, I cannot estimate the

potency of Your bodily activities. It is to be understood that when I,

Lord Brahmä, the supreme personality of this universe, cannot estimate

the childlike body of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then what to

speak of others? And if I cannot estimate the spiritual potency of Your

childlike body, then what can I understand about Your transcendental

pastimes? Therefore, as it is said in the Bhagavad-gétä, anyone who can

understand a little of the transcendental pastimes, appearance and

disappearance of the Lord becomes immediately eligible to enter into the

kingdom of God after quitting the material body. This statement is also

confirmed in the Vedas, where it is stated: Simply by understanding the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, one can overcome the chain of

repeated birth and death. I therefore recommend that people should not

try to understand You by their speculative knowledge.

“The best process of understanding You is to submissively give up the

speculative process and try to hear about You, either from Yourself as

You have given statements in the Bhagavad-gétä and many similar Vedic

scriptures, or from a realized devotee who has taken shelter at Your lotus

feet. One has to hear from a devotee without speculation. One does not

even need to change his worldly position; he simply has to hear Your

message. Although You are not understandable by the material senses,

simply by hearing about You one can gradually conquer the nescience of

misunderstanding. By Your own grace only, You become revealed to a

devotee. You are unconquerable by any other means. Speculative

knowledge without any trace of devotional service is simply a useless

waste of time in the search for You. Devotional service is so important

that even a little attempt can raise one to the highest perfectional

platform. One should not, therefore, neglect this auspicious process of

devotional service and take to the speculative method. By the

speculative method one may gain partial knowledge of Your cosmic

manifestation, but it is not possible to understand You, the origin of

everything. The attempt of persons who are interested only in

speculative knowledge is simply wasted labor, like the labor of a person

who attempts to gain something by beating an empty husk of rice paddy.

A little quantity of paddy can be husked by the grinding wheel, and one

can gain some grains of rice, but if the skin of the paddy has already

been beaten by the grinding wheel, there is no further gain in beating

even a huge quantity of the husk. It is simply useless labor.

“My dear Lord, there are many instances in the history of human society

where a person, after failing to achieve the transcendental platform,

engaged himself in devotional service with his body, mind and words

and thus attained the highest perfectional state of entering into Your

abode. The processes of understanding You by speculation or mystic

meditation are all useless without devotional service. One should

therefore engage himself in Your devotional service even in his worldly

activities, and one should always keep himself near You by the process of

hearing and chanting Your transcendental glories. Simply by being

attached to hearing and chanting Your glories, one can attain the

highest perfectional stage of entering into Your kingdom. If a person,

therefore, always keeps in touch with You by hearing and chanting Your

glories and offers the results of his work for Your satisfaction only, he

very easily and happily attains entrance into Your supreme abode. You

are realizable by persons who have cleansed their hearts of all

contamination. This cleansing of the heart is made possible by chanting

and hearing the glories of Your Lordship.”

The Lord is all-pervading. As it is stated by Lord Krsna in the Bhagavadgétä,

“Everything is sustained by Me, but at the same time I am not in

everything.” Since the Lord is all-pervading, there is nothing existing

without His knowledge. The all-pervasive nature of the Supreme

Personality of Godhead can never be within the limited knowledge of a

living entity; therefore, a person who has attained steadiness of the mind

by fixing the mind on the lotus feet of the Lord is able to understand the

Supreme Lord to some extent. It is the business of the mind to wander

over varied subject matter for sense gratification. Therefore only a

person who always engages the senses in the service of the Lord can

control the mind and be fixed at the lotus feet of the Lord. This

concentration of the mind upon the lotus feet of the Lord is called

samädhi. Until one reaches the stage of samädhi, or trance, he cannot

understand the nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There

may be some philosophers or scientists who can study the cosmic nature

from atom to atom; they may be so advanced that they can count the

atomic composition of the cosmic atmosphere or all the planets and stars

in the sky, or even the shining molecular parts of the sun or other stars

and luminaries in the sky. But it is not possible to count the qualities of

the Supreme Personality of Godhead.....

 

[Bart Happel]

Dear Bija & Bhaktajan,

 

We are getting to the core of this now. The answer has to do with ‘time’. Reality is always faster than our consciousness. If we ask a question, then the answer is already there. Therefore, reality is infinite. And if reality is infinite, then part of reality can contain the whole of reality (Edit: in time).

 

I need some time, to think of a good analogy..

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bija]

 

We are getting to the core of this now. The answer has to do with ‘time’. Reality is always faster than our consciousness. If we ask a question, then the answer is already there. Therefore, reality is infinite. And if reality is infinite, then part of reality can contain the whole of reality.

 

I need some time, to think of a good analogy..

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

aaahhh! God speaks to man Bart? How is that possible? That sounds very harmonious. We are getting somewhere.

 

Bohm in his model cannot count for the personal dimension in the absolute paradigm. Where do all these gifts come from that are inherent in us. Love, compassion, humor....unfoldment etc?

[Bart Happel]

 

aaahhh! God speaks to man Bart? How is that possible? That sounds very harmonious.

 

Bohm in his model cannot count for the personal dimension in the absolute paradigm. Where do all these gifts come from that are inherent in us. Love, compassion, humor....unfoldment etc?

 

Ehh.. From God?

[bija]

 

Krsna Book Chapter 14 (commentary on srimad bhagavatam canto 10)

http://mybloop.com/go/U7utpy

....As described in the beginning of the Vedänta-sütra, the Supreme Person

is the origin of all qualities. He is generally called nirguna. Nirguna

means “whose qualities are beyond estimation.” Guna means “quality,”

and nir means “beyond estimation.” But impersonalists interpret this

word nirguna as “having no quality.” Because they are unable to estimate

the qualities of the Lord in transcendental realization, they conclude

that the Supreme Lord has no qualities. But that is actually not the

position. The real position is that He is the original source of all

qualities. All qualities are emanating constantly from Him. How,

therefore, can a limited person count the qualities of the Lord? One may

estimate the qualities of the Lord for one moment, but the next moment

the qualities are increased; so it is not possible to make an estimation of

the transcendental qualities of the Lord. He is therefore called nirguna,

one whose qualities cannot be estimated....

[Bart Happel]

 

Krsna Book Chapter 14 (commentary on srimad bhagavatam canto 10)

http://mybloop.com/go/U7utpy

....As described in the beginning of the Vedänta-sütra, the Supreme Person

is the origin of all qualities. He is generally called nirguna. Nirguna

means “whose qualities are beyond estimation.” Guna means “quality,”

and nir means “beyond estimation.” But impersonalists interpret this

word nirguna as “having no quality.” Because they are unable to estimate

the qualities of the Lord in transcendental realization, they conclude

that the Supreme Lord has no qualities. But that is actually not the

position. The real position is that He is the original source of all

qualities. All qualities are emanating constantly from Him. How,

therefore, can a limited person count the qualities of the Lord? One may

estimate the qualities of the Lord for one moment, but the next moment

the qualities are increased; so it is not possible to make an estimation of

the transcendental qualities of the Lord. He is therefore called nirguna,

one whose qualities cannot be estimated....

 

 

Agreed.

[bija]

Yes you are a devotee:).

 

After posting these last few posts, I was sitting doing jaap as the sun was coming up. And was meditating on this inconceivable truth in discussion.

 

I could see the brahman effulgence in my hearts vision, shining from the body of the Lord. The effulgence was full of sparks, of divine consciousness, each relishing transcendental life.

 

My heart drifted to ponder the Supreme Personality, from whom various qualities were manifesting, in the hearts of the devotees (sparks of personality). I pondered, Who are you? Who are you really?

 

Then the meditation entered deeper, of the possibility of a spiritual realm, the original abode...and I questioned, can it be true? A land of diversity, beauty, charm...where this great Personality resides in all perfection. My heart accepted.

 

Thank you Bart for inspiring and being a part of this mornings sadhana. Another person I would like to thank is Ramana dasi. The other day after talking with her, my jaap meditation was enlightened deeper. Thank you Dasi.

 

y.s.