Is Mukti A Myth?

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

‘Dualism or dvaita’ on the other hand, denotes 2 (or more) separate entities or forces that exist at the same time. In particular: God and (ignorant) souls.

 

There are a lot of misconceptions about Dvaita or dualism, with foremost being that it is understood from a monistic point of view, which deems it very little value to the meaning it conveys. The non-dual school does not convey a dialectical dualism. The Dvaita as defined by a non-dualist is just an antonym for monism and does not have any other meaning other than to equate it to duality. Like your quote in the above just conveys the meaning, but nothing else. That is possibly because monists know very little of what the dualistic school of thought propounds. The Dvaita as explained by the Dvaita school of thought, or tattvavAda, is enormous in its epistemological and ontological prowess. This isn't the mundane Dvaita or dualism that is used (or abused) by the non-dual school. In addition to your quote above the epistemology covers relationships between God, souls, and matter. Not just God and souls alone.

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

Science is a monistic enterprise. Here we agree............ If so, ‘universal monism’ will be scientifically proven to be true.

 

I believe that the best way to know the physical world is through science. With that said, I am looking forward to you for simple answers to these simple questions. Please bear with me because I cannot understand the quantum language and get entangled with the play of words :-)

 

1) What does this 'science' study -- consciousness or matter?

 

2) Do the scientists say both consciousness and matter are the same?

 

3) How do they account for the mind and intellect? Is that part of the material universe or conscious universe?

 

4) Does this 'scientific' theory account for creation? Or does it say nothing is created?

 

5) Does this theory say matter is consciousness or vice versa?

 

6) Does this theory say consciousness creates matter, or does it say matter creates both matter and consciousness?

 

7) Currently science (not quantum theory) says that the cosmos began billion years ago in an incredibly and unimaginable hot and dense state. The first life appeared and progressed through a series of evolution. Does your 'science' support this?

 

8) How does the monistic 'scientists' account this theory as monism when he/she is looking at it studying this field? Or are they saying they are also one (merged with or part of or whatever terminology you may use) with whatever they are studying?

 

9) You say universal monism can be proven to be true. That is quite a strong statement. According to monism, there is only God (above time, space, attributeless, non-active entity). You still believe your 'science' will prove God!!!?

 

10) Does this monistic science prove age old beliefs like karma, relationships between the souls, matter and God?

 

11) Are these 'scientists' you are talking about religious monistic 'believers' or is the community comprised of atheists too?

 

12) How do these monistic scientists know everything contained in this universe is that Supreme Being who is beyond time and space? We haven't even explored planet Mars thoroughly, but go on to assume myriad things about the solar system in the name of monistic science!

[Sephiroth]

 

Dear Srikanth, and Sephiroth,

Sephiroth, is taking the mystic's position. Since the ultimate reality is not cognizable by mind and not describable by words, all that we say become meaningless. "Those who talk do not know, thouse who know do not talk".

 

And Sephiritoth, if one really practice the mystic's principle then one cannot say anything. One must keep silent. the discussion forum will have no posting. This is why mystics themselves have broken the rule of silence and spoke their experience in volumes and volumes.So why accuse Srikant for attempting a discussion?

 

The misunderstanding between you is just verbal, not substantial.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

No misunderstanding, just misinterpretations.

 

Mystics have not broken the Rule of Silence. You see, in Mystiscm, the basic principle is "Everything that happened had happened for a good reason, everything which is happening IS for a good reason and everything which will happen WILL happen for a good reason" (Bhavagad Gita).

 

Therefore, a Mystic have no need to explain to others why something happens in such way or why someone is suffering accordingly. Therefore, the Rule of Silence should apply here.

 

However, Mystics trying to explain Spiritualism could be considered like a teacher trying to teach their students about something. Never mind Spiritualism, let try something simple like Maths. A teacher can teach how to calculate, multiply, divide etc with numbers, however, if a student have no interest or take time and effect to experiement what been taught, the teacher's effects will be wasted.

 

Personally, I believe that everyone needs to take a mystical approach if they are to achieve Moksha. There is no other way. Praying and going to temple alone will not be sufficient if the soul is asleep and the heart and the mind plays monkey-games.

[srikanthdk71]

 

No misunderstanding, just misinterpretations.

 

Mystics have not broken the Rule of Silence. You see, in Mystiscm, the basic principle is "Everything that happened had happened for a good reason, everything which is happening IS for a good reason and everything which will happen WILL happen for a good reason" (Bhavagad Gita).

 

Therefore, a Mystic have no need to explain to others why something happens in such way or why someone is suffering accordingly. Therefore, the Rule of Silence should apply here.

 

However, Mystics trying to explain Spiritualism could be considered like a teacher trying to teach their students about something. Never mind Spiritualism, let try something simple like Maths. A teacher can teach how to calculate, multiply, divide etc with numbers, however, if a student have no interest or take time and effect to experiement what been taught, the teacher's effects will be wasted.

 

Personally, I believe that everyone needs to take a mystical approach if they are to achieve Moksha. There is no other way. Praying and going to temple alone will not be sufficient if the soul is asleep and the heart and the mind plays monkey-games.

 

Dear Sephiroth, you are indeed talking the same language as I did in my Post#14 and Post#66. Thats the reason why Ravindranji truely pointed to leave our egos and open up.

[jeffster]

Sorry, but I must disagree with Radhika's statement " it forsakes its thoughts and its ego and leaves the causal to merge with the Infinite." Or rather I must disagree only with the last part of the statement - "and leaves the causal to merge with the Infinite." Again, this is the classic monist stance, always wanting to "merge with the Infinite." For a Vaishnava, this is not our goal. This, to us, is tantamount to spiritual suicide. Again, I had to look at Gita for clarification and found it in 18:55:

"bhatya mam abhijanati

yavan yas casmi tattvatah

tato mam tattvato jnatva

visate tad-anantaram"

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupad's translation into English is:

" One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God." I think everyone here will agree with the translation of the first sentence, although some here may disagree with the translation of the 2nd sentence. I am not learned in Sanskrit to translate it any better, nor would I jump over the head of my Gurudev in an attempt to do so. But the purport here is very illuminating and following is the 2nd paragraph of it -

" One who is fully conversant with the Krishna science becomes eligible to enter into the spiritual kingdom, the abode of Krishna. Becoming Brahman does not mean that one loses his identity. Devotional service is there, and as long as devotional service exists, there must be God, the devotee, and the process of devotional service. Such knowledge is never vanquished, even after liberation. Liberation involves getting free from the concept of material life; in spiritual life the same distinction is there, the same individuality is there, but in pure Krishna consciousness. One should not misunderstand that the word "visate,enters into Me," supports the monist theory that one becomes homogenous with the impersonal Brahman. No.

"Visate" means that one can enter into the abode of the Supreme Lord in his individuality to engage in His association and render service unto Him. For instance, a green bird enters a green tree not to become one with the tree but to enjoy the fruits of the tree. Impersonalists generally give the example of a river flowing into the ocean and merging. This may be a source of happiness for the impersonalist, but the personalist keeps his personal individuality like an aquatic in the ocean. We find so many living entities within the ocean, if we go deep. Surface acquaintance with the ocean is not sufficient; one must have complete knowledge of the aquatics living in the ocean depths."

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

[bija]

 

For instance, a green bird enters a green tree not to become one with the tree but to enjoy the fruits of the tree. quoted by jeffster

Yeah, from a distance all that is seen is the green tree. Same as the mountain from a distance, but when we see it close it is full of diversity. The complete summum bonum is truly a remarkable whole.

 

In regards to the final goal, we will either make a standpoint that it is formless and full of peace, or full of variegatedness and full of spiritual dealings.

[jeffster]

Yes, Bija, so true, and didn't Prabhupad and Srila Sridhara Maharaj suggest that monists sometimes fall out of Brahman because there's no juice, no reciprocation there, it is pure, but a bit on the dry side, so to speak, so they fall out and come back. And Prabhupad would suggest "Until they perfect their knowledge of Krishna." Krishna says He can only be understood as He is through bhakti, not through karma, jnana or yoga.

Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

No misunderstanding, just misinterpretations.

 

Mystics have not broken the Rule of Silence. You see, in Mystiscm, the basic principle is "Everything that happened had happened for a good reason, everything which is happening IS for a good reason and everything which will happen WILL happen for a good reason" (Bhavagad Gita).

 

Therefore, a Mystic have no need to explain to others why something happens in such way or why someone is suffering accordingly. Therefore, the Rule of Silence should apply here.

 

However, Mystics trying to explain Spiritualism could be considered like a teacher trying to teach their students about something. Never mind Spiritualism, let try something simple like Maths. A teacher can teach how to calculate, multiply, divide etc with numbers, however, if a student have no interest or take time and effect to experiement what been taught, the teacher's effects will be wasted.

 

Personally, I believe that everyone needs to take a mystical approach if they are to achieve Moksha. There is no other way. Praying and going to temple alone will not be sufficient if the soul is asleep and the heart and the mind plays monkey-games.

 

Dear Sephiroth,

I have no quarrels with anything you said so far. And if I have understood Srikant correctly, he would not have any either. In fact he would agree with you ditto, with the substantive part of your post. It is just your language is provocative (no offence meant) and your opponents in debate , could react to that and you in turn to that and the real substantive aspect goes astray . In this process you and Srikant (and me too) who are so similar in ideas would be lost in busy fighting who otherwise could beautifully contribute and compliment each other. I see that possibility.

May be there are real difference between you me and Srikant in finer aspect, or may be in some major way, even. But so far this genuine difference if any has not surfaced and hence my contention there is no cause for a quarrel right now.

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[bija]

Yes jeffster.

 

I think a fundamental difference is this, the jnani negates all existence, as can be seen in Radhika's post. All material existence is eventually seen as foolishness, selfish ego and desires for exploitation, so much so all that is seen in the world is finally fully disatisfying. Whereas for the bhakta all existence is seen as an opportunity to serve Krsna, because it is Krsna's energy, there is no need to negate it.

 

 

The soul is attached to the physical world with various intentions of material gain, name and fame. Once it is free

from all attachments, it becomes free from the hassles of the physical body. But still, as long as the soul has feelings of good, bad,emotions etc., it will still be in the astral body. (This means and explains that the various forms of gods and goddesses we speak of are all astral). Once the soul leaves all feelings and emotions, it has only thoughts i.e. it has a causal body only. In such a state the soul has powers to create objects and universes of its own. If it feels good of creating endless things, it remains in the causal body. But once it realizes that all this is like child's play, it forsakes its thoughts and its ego and leaves the causal to merge with the Infinite. As it has no ego, it does not distinguish itself as a soul and is

one with the Infinite which state is called mukti. by radhika

Everything in this world, from the grossest matter to the finest subtle planes is seen as false - truth is not this, truth is not that etc. So in the end all experience is negated and the truth is found in an infinite formlessness.

 

Whereas the devotee does not see this world as false, she does not negate, but instead uses application. 'Oh all this is Krsna's energy made for His pleasure, let me apply all these things in His service'. So in the outcome a life of negation is rejected, and so is the desire for liberation. Knowledge is not the goal either, but naturally awakens in the devotee because of the service mood which pleases Krsna.

 

So the sadhaka who is not yet perfected, will gradually learn to apply all things in service. Even in a discussion like this, to talk about Krsna. Speaking, sleeping, cooking, washing etc...full application. Anything, that is not in relation to Krsna is rejected as maya, that which is not. The plane of negation is rejected because all action and thought is for Krsna's pleasure, the highest form of selfless action. Liberation is not craved for because the devotee feels unlimited bliss wherever she is in service. Knowledge is accepted as a gift, because it shows the devotee what Krsna is. Eventually the service mood becomes so simple that knowledge is not necessary also. Infact at some point the devotee does not care whether Krsna is God or not! The devotee just 'simply loves Krsna', as can be seen in Vraj.

 

There seems to be a fundamental difference in the cultivation stage between these two groups of sadhakas, jnani and bhakta.

[jeffster]

Yes, Bija, nicely put. All I would add is that bhakti often appears sentimental to the untrained eye, because, after all, the bhakta externally only appears to be "speaking, sleeping, cooking, washing, etc..." But the bhakta is attempting to do all these seemingly ordinary things with full dedication to Krishna. Gita 18:56 states: "Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by my grace." There are other similar verses, perhaps I will search for them.

Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

[bija]

 

Yes, Bija, nicely put. All I would add is that bhakti often appears sentimental to the untrained eye, because, after all, the bhakta externally only appears to be "speaking, sleeping, cooking, washing, etc..." But the bhakta is attempting to do all these seemingly ordinary things with full dedication to Krishna. Gita 18:56 states: "Though engaged in all kinds of activities, My devotee, under My protection, reaches the eternal and imperishable abode by my grace." There are other similar verses, perhaps I will search for them.

Pranams, jeffster/AMdas

 

Please do search more Jeffster, that is a wonderful realization from scripture you just shared. Thx.

[srikanthdk71]

 

All I would add is that bhakti often appears sentimental to the untrained eye, because, after all, the bhakta externally only appears to be "speaking, sleeping, cooking, washing, etc..." But the bhakta is attempting to do all these seemingly ordinary things with full dedication to Krishna.

 

Yes, Bhakti not appears sentimental but may look as the height of helplessness maybe incase of Prahlada or in case of a Draupadi, in Gajendra Moksha. But real Bhakti was seen in people like Mira, a Kanankadasa, a Tulsidas, who showed Bhakti for no reason. It was reasonless and pure. They didnt gain, they just offered their love.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear bija, and jeffster,

 

A bhakta and Jnani are not different in their final outcome, though they choose to reach it through different paths. A bhakta and Jani ultimately see god (Or brahman) in every thing and everywhere. (Pragalladh saw Narayana in dust and in piller).

 

In Soundarya Lahari, the religious song of the Goddess, there is one song which describes a realised jnani's state: " (For a realised one ) The speach become mantra, the walking becomes pradakshana, Sleeping becomes prostration , Gestures become mudras. " In short every thing - the entire life - become worship in the case of a realised jnani because the jani is in god consciousness - sees god everywhere and in every thing. Hence special place like temple, special mantras and special ritual signs like mudras are not nessary for such a one.

Not any different from the description of a Bhakta - cooking, eating and so on -described by Bija. isn't it?

 

In the final state Bhakti and Jnana are one.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[bija]

Yes Ravindran your statement is correct.

 

What is the essence within knowledge that inspires such worship as you have mentioned here?

 

I would say it is bhakti, that all these processes will manifest deep realization if bhakti is permeating. The fruit of various yoga's is activated because some form of bhakti is within the process. Even if it is only devotion to the ritual, or even the Buddhists devotion to Lord Buddha etc.

 

Also in regards to the two paths Gita says this:

 

TEXT 1

arjuna uvāca

 

 

evaṁ satata-yuktā ye

bhaktās tvāṁ paryupāsate

ye cāpy akṣaram avyaktaṁ

teṣāṁ ke yoga-vittamāḥ

TRANSLATION

Arjuna inquired: Which is considered to be more perfect: those who are properly engaged in Your devotional service, or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

TEXT 2

śrī-bhagavān uvāca

mayy āveśya mano ye māṁ

nitya-yuktā upāsate

śraddhayā parayopetās

te me yuktatamā matāḥ

TRANSLATION

The Blessed Lord said: He whose mind is fixed on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith, is considered by Me to be most perfect.

PURPORT

In answer to Arjuna’s question, Kṛṣṇa clearly says that he who concentrates upon His personal form and who worships Him with faith and devotion is to be considered most perfect in yoga. For one in such Kṛṣṇa consciousness there are no material activities because everything is done by Kṛṣṇa. A pure devotee is constantly engaged—sometimes he chants, sometimes he hears or reads books about Kṛṣṇa, or sometimes he cooks prasādam or goes to the marketplace to purchase something for Kṛṣṇa, or sometimes he washes the temple or the dishes—whatever he does, he does not let a single moment pass without devoting his activities to Kṛṣṇa Such action is in full samādhi.

TEXTS 3–4

ye tv akṣaram anirdeśyam

avyaktaṁ paryupāsate

sarvatra-gam acintyaṁ ca

kūṭa-stham acalaṁ dhruvam

sanniyamyendriya-grāmaṁ

sarvatra sama-buddhayaḥ

te prāpnuvanti mām eva

sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ

TRANSLATION

But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, fixed, and immovable—the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth—by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

PURPORT

Those who do not directly worship the Supreme Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, but who attempt to achieve the same goal by an indirect process, also ultimately achieve the supreme goal, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, as is stated, “After many births the man of wisdom seeks refuge in Me, knowing Vāsudeva is all.” When a person comes to full knowledge after many births, he surrenders unto Lord Kṛṣṇa. If one approaches the Godhead by the method mentioned in this verse, he has to control the senses, render service to everyone and engage in the welfare of all beings. It is inferred that one has to approach Lord Kṛṣṇa, otherwise there is no perfect realization. Often there is much penance involved before one fully surrenders unto Him.

In order to perceive the Supersoul within the individual soul, one has to cease the sensual activities of seeing, hearing, tasting, working, etc. Then one comes to understand that the Supreme Soul is present everywhere. Realizing this, one envies no living entity—he sees no difference between man and animal because he sees soul only, not the outer covering. But for the common man, this method of impersonal realization is very difficult.

TEXT 5

kleśo ’dhikataras teṣām

avyaktāsakta-cetasām

avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaṁ

dehavadbhir avāpyate

TRANSLATION

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

PURPORT

The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord are called jñāna-yogīs, and persons who are in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service to the Lord, are called bhakti-yogīs. Now, here the difference between jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed. The process of jñāna-yoga, although ultimately bringing one to the same goal, is very troublesome, whereas the path of bhakti-yoga, the process of being in direct service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is easier and is natural for the embodied soul. The individual soul is embodied since time immemorial. It is very difficult for him to simply theoretically understand that he is not the body. Therefore, the bhakti-yogī accepts the Deity of Kṛṣṇa as worshipable because there is some bodily conception fixed in the mind, which can thus be applied. Of course, worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His form within the temple is not idol worship. There is evidence in the Vedic literature that worship may be saguṇa and nirguṇa—of the Supreme possessing or not possessing attributes. Worship of the Deity in the temple is saguṇa worship, for the Lord is represented by material qualities. But the form of the Lord, though represented by material qualities such as stone, wood, or oil paint, is not actually material. That is the absolute nature of the Supreme Lord.

A crude example may be given here. We may find some mailboxes on the street, and if we post our letters in those boxes, they will naturally go to their destination without difficulty. But any old box, or an imitation, which we may find somewhere, which is not authorized by the post office, will not do the work. Similarly, God has an authorized representation in the Deity form, which is called arca-vigraha. This arca-vigraha is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord. God will accept service through that form. The Lord is omnipotent and all-powerful; therefore, by His incarnation as arca-vigraha, He can accept the services of the devotee, just to make it convenient for the man in conditioned life.

So, for a devotee, there is no difficulty in approaching the Supreme immediately and directly, but for those who are following the impersonal way to spiritual realization, the path is difficult. They have to understand the unmanifested representation of the Supreme through such Vedic literatures as the Upaniṣads, and they have to learn the language, understand the nonperceptual feelings, and they have to realize all these processes. This is not very easy for a common man. A person in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, engaged in devotional service, simply by the guidance of the bona fide spiritual master, simply by offering regulative obeisances unto the Deity, simply by hearing the glories of the Lord, and simply by eating the remnants of foodstuffs offered to the Lord, realizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead very easily. There is no doubt that the impersonalists are unnecessarily taking a troublesome path with the risk of not realizing the Absolute Truth at the ultimate end. But the personalist, without any risk, trouble, or difficulty, approaches the Supreme Personality directly. A similar passage appears in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. It is stated there that if one has to ultimately surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead (This surrendering process is called bhakti.), but instead takes the trouble to understand what is Brahman and what is not Brahman and spends his whole life in that way, the result is simply troublesome. Therefore it is advised here that one should not take up this troublesome path of self-realization because there is uncertainty in the ultimate result.

A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may accomplish the realization of the eternal and knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in the process of jñāna-yoga, may come to the point of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the time of realization. Every living soul is partially independant, and one should know for certain that this unmanifested realization is against the nature of his spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this process. For every individual living entity the process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, which entails full engagement in devotional service, is the best way. If one wants to ignore this devotional service, there is the danger of turning to atheism. Thus this process of centering attention on the unmanifested, the inconceivable, which is beyond the approach of the senses, as already expressed in this verse, should never be encouraged at any time, especially in this age. It is not advised by Lord Kṛṣṇa.

TEXTS 6–7

ye tu sarvāṇi karmāṇi

mayi sannyasya mat-parāḥ

ananyenaiva yogena

māṁ dhyāyanta upāsate

teṣām ahaṁ samuddhartā

mṛtyu-saṁsāra-sāgarāt

bhavāmi na cirāt pārtha

mayy āveśita-cetasām

TRANSLATION

For one who worships Me, giving up all his activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, who has fixed his mind upon Me, O son of Pṛthā, for him I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

PURPORT

It is explicitly stated here that the devotees are very fortunate to be delivered very soon from material existence by the Lord. In pure devotional service one comes to the realization that God is great and that the individual soul is subordinate to Him. His duty is to render service to the Lord—if not, then he will render service to māyā.

As stated before, the Supreme Lord can only be appreciated by devotional service. Therefore, one should be fully devoted. One should fix his mind fully on Kṛṣṇa in order to achieve Him. One should work only for Kṛṣṇa. It does not matter in what kind of work one engages, but that work should be done only for Kṛṣṇa. That is the standard of devotional service. The devotee does not desire any achievement other than pleasing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. His life’s mission is to please Kṛṣṇa, and he can sacrifice everything for Kṛṣṇa’s satisfaction, just as Arjuna did in the Battle of Kurukṣetra. The process is very simple: one can devote himself in his occupation and engage at the same time in chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare. Such transcendental chanting attracts the devotee to the Personality of Godhead.

The Supreme Lord herein promises that He will without delay deliver a pure devotee thus engaged from the ocean of material existence. Those who are advanced in yoga practice can willfully transfer the soul to whatever planet they like by the yoga process, and others take the opportunity in various ways, but as far as the devotee is concerned, it is clearly stated here that the Lord Himself takes him. He does not need to wait to become very experienced in order to transfer himself to the spiritual sky.

In the Varāha Purāṇa this verse appears:

nayāmi paramaṁ sthānam arcirādi-gatiṁ vinā

garuḍa-skandham āropya yatheccham anivāritaḥ

The purport of this verse is that a devotee does not need to practice aṣṭāṅga-yoga in order to transfer his soul to the spiritual planets. The responsibility is taken by the Supreme Lord Himself. He clearly states here that He Himself becomes the deliverer. A child is completely cared for by his parents, and thus his position is secure. Similarly, a devotee does not need to endeavor to transfer himself by yoga practice to other planets. Rather, the Supreme Lord, by His great mercy, comes at once, riding on His bird carrier Garuḍa, and at once delivers the devotee from this material existence. Although a man who has fallen in the ocean may struggle very hard and may be very expert in swimming, he cannot save himself. But if someone comes and picks him up from the water, then he is easily rescued. Similarly, the Lord picks up the devotee from this material existence. One simply has to practice the easy process of Kṛṣṇa consciousness and fully engage himself in devotional service. Any intelligent man should always prefer the process of devotional service to all other paths. In the Nārāyaṇīya this is confirmed as follows:

yā vai sādhana-sampatti-puruṣārtha-catuṣṭaye

tayā vinā tad-āpnoti naro nārāyaṇāśrayaḥ

The purport of this verse is that one should not engage in the different processes of fruitive activity or cultivate knowledge by the mental speculative process. One who is devoted to the Supreme Personality can attain all the benefits derived from other yogic processes, speculation, rituals, sacrifices, charities, etc. That is the specific benediction of devotional service.

Simply by chanting the holy name of Kṛṣṇa—Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare—a devotee of the Lord can approach the supreme destination easily and happily, but this destination cannot be approached by any other process of religion.

The conclusion of Bhagavad-gītā is stated in the Eighteenth Chapter:

sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja

ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ.

One should give up all other processes of self-realization and simply execute devotional service in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. That will enable one to reach the highest perfection of life. There is no need for one to consider the sinful actions of his past life because the Supreme Lord fully takes charge of him. Therefore one should not futilely try to deliver himself in spiritual realization. Let everyone take shelter of the supreme omnipotent Godhead Kṛṣṇa. That is the highest perfection of life.

Bg12.8

TEXT 8

mayy eva mana ādhatsva

mayi buddhiṁ niveśaya

nivasiṣyasi mayy eva

ata ūrdhvaṁ na saṁśayaḥ

TRANSLATION

Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.

PURPORT

One who is engaged in Lord Kṛṣṇa’s devotional service lives in a direct relationship with the Supreme Lord, so there is no doubt that his position is transcendental from the very beginning. A devotee does not live on the material plane—he lives in Kṛṣṇa. The holy name of the Lord and the Lord are nondifferent; therefore when a devotee chants Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa and His internal potency are dancing on the tongue of the devotee. When he offers Kṛṣṇa food, Kṛṣṇa directly accepts these eatables, and the devotee becomes Kṛṣṇa-ized by eating the remnants. One who does not engage in such service cannot understand how this is so, although this is a process recommended in the Gītā and in other Vedic literatures.

 

Now, one with good intelligence will question why Sri Krsna has mentioned these things. What is it that makes the path of jnana troubleseome and the path of bhakti sublime?

 

We need to look internally at the bhajan? I have mentioned the bhajan of a bhakti-yogin in previous posts that you have read. This is why jeffster mentioned externally people may see no difference between mundane activity and devotional service.

 

Ofcourse Ravindran we have jnana mixed with bhakti don't we?. But the goal of Gaudiya Vaisnavism is unalloyed bhakti...jnana will leave the internal bhajan at some point.

 

Srila Prabhupada says this in the purport to verse eight:

 

 

One who is engaged in Lord Kṛṣṇa’s devotional service lives in a direct relationship with the Supreme Lord, so there is no doubt that his position is transcendental from the very beginning.

Now, one who accepts Sri Krsna's words with great faith is realized at the onset. Even with the simple faith of accepting the Holy Name and the Lord as One. Or cooking a meal, offering it in love, and taking the remnants. The internal bhajan has already begun, and in Sri Krsna's words is exalted.

 

 

Bg9.26

TRANSLATION If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit a water, I will accept it.

 

Even if the devotee is not offering a pure offering of selfless love, Sri Guru will take the offering on the surrendered devotees behalf.

[Radhikakulakarni]

 

Sorry, but I must disagree with Radhika's statement " it forsakes its thoughts and its ego and leaves the causal to merge with the Infinite." Or rather I must disagree only with the last part of the statement - "and leaves the causal to merge with the Infinite." Again, this is the classic monist stance, always wanting to "merge with the Infinite." For a Vaishnava, this is not our goal. This, to us, is tantamount to spiritual suicide. Again, I had to look at Gita for clarification and found it in 18:55:

"bhatya mam abhijanati

yavan yas casmi tattvatah

tato mam tattvato jnatva

visate tad-anantaram"

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupad's translation into English is:

" One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God." I think everyone here will agree with the translation of the first sentence, although some here may disagree with the translation of the 2nd sentence. I am not learned in Sanskrit to translate it any better, nor would I jump over the head of my Gurudev in an attempt to do so. But the purport here is very illuminating and following is the 2nd paragraph of it -

" One who is fully conversant with the Krishna science becomes eligible to enter into the spiritual kingdom, the abode of Krishna. Becoming Brahman does not mean that one loses his identity. Devotional service is there, and as long as devotional service exists, there must be God, the devotee, and the process of devotional service. Such knowledge is never vanquished, even after liberation. Liberation involves getting free from the concept of material life; in spiritual life the same distinction is there, the same individuality is there, but in pure Krishna consciousness. One should not misunderstand that the word "visate,enters into Me," supports the monist theory that one becomes homogenous with the impersonal Brahman. No.

"Visate" means that one can enter into the abode of the Supreme Lord in his individuality to engage in His association and render service unto Him. For instance, a green bird enters a green tree not to become one with the tree but to enjoy the fruits of the tree. Impersonalists generally give the example of a river flowing into the ocean and merging. This may be a source of happiness for the impersonalist, but the personalist keeps his personal individuality like an aquatic in the ocean. We find so many living entities within the ocean, if we go deep. Surface acquaintance with the ocean is not sufficient; one must have complete knowledge of the aquatics living in the ocean depths."

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

 

Whether a soul wants to merge with the Infinite or would rather like to stay in Vishnu Loka is left to it. But when your goal is to merge with the Infinite, it is possible. When the soul feels content in being with one of the aspects of the Infinite(Lord Vishnu being the Preserver), it is possible to attain it and stay in Vishnu Loka. But as long as you perceive Lord Vishnu as a form as described in the holy books, it is only the astral form of the infinite preserving capacity that you behold. But when you talk of Infinity, let me say it includes everyone and everything. All that we can possibly think of is a part of the Infinite.

[Radhikakulakarni]

 

Do you become the Infinite? or are you the Infinite itself?

 

Realize there is a huge difference between the 2 questions. You 'becoming' an Infinite is dual, but you being the Infinite is non-dual.

 

For example, if the rope has to become a serpent, it is 'becoming', but if the rope is already a serpent but in ignorance it does not 'become' the serpent. There is a difference in the way it is written or said.

 

How do you know that the Infinite does not have any form?

 

Does matter have any consciousness?

 

So the Supreme consciousness creates other conscious entities and matter and then merges it back to itself? From where does it create?

 

So the Supreme Consciousness divides itself into different souls who are ignorant?

 

1.The answer to your first question is "Everything begins with duality and ends with non-duality". Therefore, when a soul is formed as a part of Infinite consciousness, it is dual i.e. the part is not the same as the whole. But when it attains mukti, it ceases to identify itself as a soul and is perfectly tuned to the Supreme will and consciousness and is therefore the infinite.

 

2.If you can see, I have written that the Infinite does not have any particular form. This means that everything and anything is a part of the Infinite, even if it is formless or has a form. Be it anything: everybody, materials, plants, planets, cosmos, you, me, anybody and space between anything, all are a part of the Infinite.

 

3. As for matter, though it does not have a consciousness of its own(i.e it does not possess ego), the Supreme Consciousness pervades it.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

This Refers to post 165 of Radhika.

That in fact is the right way to comprehend form and infinity. Any form by very definition is limited. A form cannot be limitless in space. It starts some where and ends somewhere in space in order to assume a form. If this limitation does not take place, if a thing is infinately extended in space in all directions, it is indeed formless.

 

K.Ravindran

[bija]

 

http://mybloop.com/go/H6EW3d

The Absolute Truth:

 

1. Prominence of the personal feature of the absolute truth

 

From the statement of the shrutis the oneness of the absolute

truth is established. This is expressed in the Chandogya

Upanisad (6.2.1): ekam evridvitîyam–“The absolute truth is one

without a second.” Another statement of the shrutis establishes

that the absolute truth is nirvishesa or devoid of material

form, attributes, and qualities. This is expressed in the Brharan

yaka Upanisad (4.4.19): neha nanraisti kihcana–“Other than

the one non-dual absolute truth, advaya-brahma, there is no

existence of any separate forms.” Yet another statement of the

shrutis establishes that the absolute is savishesa or possessing

eternal attributes and qualities. This is expressed in

Chandogya Upanisad (3.14.1): sarvam khalv idam brahma–

“This entire creation is the form of the absolute truth.”

Therefore, according to the shrutis, the absolute truth is

simultaneously savishesa and nirvishesa. The nirvishesa feature,

however, is imperceptible. The mere non-possession of material

qualities and attributes does not define what is the absolute,

and thus it remains but a vague notion. But the savishesa feature

directly ascertains what is the absolute by describing His transcendental

name, form, qualities, activities, associates, and

abode. Because of the intangibility of the nirvishesa feature and

because of the eternal tangibility of the savishesa feature, it is the

savishesa feature which is prominent and superior.

 

2. Four features of the absolute truth

 

In his Bhagavat-sandarbha (Anuccheda 16.16), Shrîmad Jîva

Gosvamî, our acarya on such philosophical conclusions, has

stated that by the influence of His inherent inconceivable

potency, svabhavikî acintya-shakti, the one absolute truth eternally

exists in four features: (1) svarupa–His original form,

(2) tad-rupa-vaibhava–His personal splendour, which includes

His abode, eternal associates, and expansions such as Lord

Narayana, (3) jîvas–the living entities, and (4) pradhana–the

unmanifest state of the three modes of material nature.

He compares these four features to the four aspects of the

sun: (1) suryantar mandala sthita teja–the effulgence situated

in the interior of the sun planet, (2) mandala–the sun globe,

(3) rasmi-paramanu–the atomic particles of sunlight emanating

from the sun, and (4) pratibimba-rashmi–the reflected rays of

the sun. Although the sun is one, it exists in these four forms.

 

3. The absolute truth as shakti and sarva-shaktiman

 

The absolute truth described above is further explained

here. Bhagavan Shri Krishna, who is replete with six opulences,

is the absolute truth. He is sarva-shaktiman or one who possesses

all potencies. In the Brahma-sutra it is said:–shakti-shaktimator

abheda˙–“There is no difference between shakti, or the Lord’s

potency, and shaktiman, or He who possesses all potency.”

According to this statement shakti and shaktiman are non-different.

But that one transcendental potency known as para-shakti

is perceivable in different forms–parasya shaktir vividhaiva shruyate

(Shvetashvatara Upanisad 6.8)

From this Vedic mantra it is proved that the Lord’s inconceivable

potency known as acintya-shakti is adept in carrying

out that which is unfeasible. In the material world we cannot

conceive of anything which is one and different simultaneously.

If shakti and shaktimrin are one, how can they be different?

Yet if the Lord’s potency is one in all respects, how can it

manifest in different forms as above stated? This inconceivable

power is known as aghatana-ghatana patîyasî. In other

words the Lord’s acintya-shakti makes possible even that which

is impossible. Therefore the eternal difference between shakti

and shaktiman is also inevitable. The kevaladvaita-vadis or

unqualified monists advocate that the absolute truth known

as Brahman is impersonal, formless, and divested of potencies.

The conclusion established above proves that this opinion

is contrary to scripture and reasoning.

 

The Lord’s potencies:

1. Antaranga-shakti

The one para-shakti or superior potency, described above, is

manifest in three forms: (1) antaranga-shakti–the Lord’s internal

potency, (2) tatastha-shakti–the marginal potency, and

(3) bahiranga-shakti–the external potency. By the Lord’s

antaranga-svarupa-shakti, the supreme absolute truth in His

complete and original feature eternally exists as Bhagavan

who is devoid of all faults, supremely auspicious, and the basis

of all transcendental qualities.

In addition to this the Lord’s feature known as tadrupa-

vaibhava, which refers to His transcendental abode,

Vaikuntha dhama, His eternal associates, and the variegated

manifestations of Lord Narayana, is eternally established by

the same all-accommodating internal potency for the accomplishment

of His transcendental pastimes.

2. Tatastha-shakti

The same absolute truth, when endowed with the tatastha-shakti

or marginal potency, exists as the innumerable, infinitesimal,

conscious living entities, who are vibhinnamsha-svarupa

or separated expansions of the Lord. Just as innumerable tiny

molecular particles of light continuously shimmer in the rays

of the sun, the numberless, infinitesimal jîvas exist like atomic

particles of spirit in the rays of the Lord’s marginal potency.

The tiny molecular particles within the rays of sunshine

have no independent existence from the sun, nor can they

ever be equated with the sun. Similarly, the infinitesimal, conscious

jîvas have no separate existence from the Lord, neither

can they ever be addressed as the Lord, nor become the Lord.

3. Bahirangri-shakti

Again, the supreme absolute truth, Bhagavan, has manifested

this entire material world, the display of His external

splendour, by His inferior potency known as bahirangri-maya-shakti.

This material world is a transformation of the Lord’s

maya-shakti or pradhana, which refers to the sum total of material

existence. Just as the reflected rays of the sun create a colorful

rainbow, the Lord’s maya-shakti or pradhana manifests this

fascinating material world. The material world is a shadow of

the spiritual world which is manifested by the Lord’s internal

potency. As such, the material world is also not separate from

the absolute truth.

 

4. Acintya-bhedabheda-tattva

 

Simultaneous oneness and difference

of the Lord and His potencies

From the above discussion, it is proved that the living

entities (jîvas), the material world (jada-jagata), and the Lord’s

personal splendour as regards His Vaikuntha existence (tadrupa-

vaibhava) are inconceivably one and different from His

original spiritual form (bhagavat-svarupa). The anucit-jîvas, on

account of being dependent on the Lord, are His separated

parts and parcels—in this is found their non-distinction from

the Lord (abheda). However, due to an absence of knowledge

of the Supreme Lord, they are preoccupied with the material

energy—in this lies their difference (bheda).

[Justin]

 

1.The answer to your first question is "Everything begins with duality and ends with non-duality". Therefore, when a soul is formed as a part of Infinite consciousness, it is dual i.e. the part is not the same as the whole. But when it attains mukti, it ceases to identify itself as a soul and is perfectly tuned to the Supreme will and consciousness and is therefore the infinite.

Let me understand what you are writing. "The soul is different in the begining. But as it attains mukti, it merges with God and becomes ONE." So anyone can 'become' God is your opinion. They are not God in the first place until they attain mukti.

 

There goes 'Aham Brahmasmi' for a toss. 'tat tvam asi' is also out of the door by now along with the other 3 mahavakyas.

 

The only problem with the above is that no vedantic school of thought supports your theory. Is this your personal opinion? If not do you have any references?

 

2.If you can see, I have written that the Infinite does not have any particular form. This means that everything and anything is a part of the Infinite, even if it is formless or has a form. Be it anything: everybody, materials, plants, planets, cosmos, you, me, anybody and space between anything, all are a part of the Infinite.

All the things you mentioned above have a form. So how can you conclude the Infinite does not have a form?

 

3. As for matter, though it does not have a consciousness of its own(i.e it does not possess ego), the Supreme Consciousness pervades it.

But then your theory says that matter and supreme consciousness are ONE. Now you are saying matter does not have consciousness of its own. Does matter also has a chance to attain mukti by which it then merges with the supreme consciousness? Whatver happened to the theory of Oneness when it comes to matter!

[Justin]

 

If this limitation does not take place, if a thing is infinately extended in space in all directions, it is indeed formless.

 

Lets take a finite entity like the European union. Have you seen Europe? How much can you recall seeing it? Just a little bit of what you have seen, right. There is still a LOT you haven't seen. We can only describe Europe to a small extent but not everything. Similarly we can comprehend the Infinite in its Infinite forms to a small extent only. We cannot assume it does not have a form after knowing it is in so many different forms.

 

There is no logic in saying that since it is Infinite, it is formless. Another obvious unscientific mistake you are making is using the keyword 'space'. The Infinite is not extended in space but it is in all forms and pervades everything and being in the universe and still retains its perfectness despite the imperfect nature of the world. The Vedas themselves say this Infinite has millions of forms.

[kaisersose]

 

There is no logic in saying that since it is Infinite, it is formless.

 

Huh?

 

Ok...whatever works for you.

 

Cheers

[Bart Happel]

Dear HeeHee,

 

In answer to your post (#152), let me first clarify that within the scientific community there is no consensus about what ‘consciousness’ is. Actually most scientists to date adhere to the view that consciousness is an artifact (or a byproduct) of the material complexity of our brains. A scientific monistic theory of reality may then be conveniently wholly materialistic, i.e., concerning itself with matter or energy only. It is believed that consciousness emerges automatically from material complexity and as such it doesn’t have to be explained by any theory.

 

Ultimately, however, in a truly monistic scientific theory of reality, everything that exists must be explained by a single, irreducible force or theoretical principle. Since, as yet, science hasn’t identified such a force or principle, we may theoretically call it anything we like, be it: matter, energy, consciousness or spirit. If such a theoretical force or principle proves to exist, it will describe all of the cosmic manifestation, including consciousness, and therefore we might as well call it consciousness.

 

Now, to your questions:

 

1) What does this 'science' study -- consciousness or matter?

 

The entire cosmic manifestation and its underlying principle is the object of Science. That is all of reality, including science itself.

 

2) Do the scientists say both consciousness and matter are the same?

 

A current scientific consensus is that matter and energy are the same. However, as I explained in my introduction, in a monistic scientific theory it can ultimately be said that energy = matter = consciousness = spirit. It’s all the same.

 

3) How do they account for the mind and intellect? Is that part of the material universe or conscious universe?

 

Currently the working of mind and intellect, or more generally the brain, is one of the big open questions in science. Science simply has no idea at all. In a monistic theory, however, all is part of this single force or principle. If we call this force consciousness, then mind and brain exist within the conscious universe.

 

4) Does this 'scientific' theory account for creation? Or does it say nothing is created?

 

The concept of ‘creation’ implies the notion of ‘time’. Something can be called created at a specific point in time, when it didn’t exist at any earlier point in time. If time exists, creation may be accounted for as a dynamical property of the theory. If time doesn’t exist, then there is no beginning or end, consequently nothing can be created. So we must wait and see if this monistic theory incorporates time. My guess is that it will.

 

5) Does this theory say matter is consciousness or vice versa?

 

Again, I refer to my introduction. So the answer is: both conjectures are equivalent. In a monistic theory matter and consciousness must be the same.

 

6) Does this theory say consciousness creates matter, or does it say matter creates both matter and consciousness?

 

Currently science sees energy as more fundamental than matter, i.e., energy creates matter. Since in a monistic theory or model of reality the postulated unitary force or principle (e.g., consciousness) must necessarily be most fundamental or basic, material structures in the cosmic manifestation must be created by consciousness.

 

7) Currently science (not quantum theory) says that the cosmos began billion years ago in an incredibly and unimaginable hot and dense state. The first life appeared and progressed through a series of evolution. Does your 'science' support this?

 

If with "your science" you mean the possible (monistic) model that I discussed in the thread http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/448303-does-free-will-exist.html, then the answer is yes. This is explained in post #37 of that thread.

 

8) How does the monistic 'scientists' account this theory as monism when he/she is looking at it studying this field? Or are they saying they are also one (merged with or part of or whatever terminology you may use) with whatever they are studying?

 

In a monistic theory, scientists must necessarily be one with the object (reality) that they are studying. This may already be evident in current quantum physical experiments, where the observer appears to influence the outcome of experiments, just by observing or measuring the quantum state of the physical system under investigation.

 

9) You say universal monism can be proven to be true. That is quite a strong statement. According to monism, there is only God (above time, space, attributeless, non-active entity). You still believe your 'science' will prove God!!!?

 

Well, the envisioned monistic theory must be a ‘complete’ model of reality. And because a monistic model cannot be any simpler per definition, it must be seen as a model of God, or the origin of everything. Whether such a model proves anything remains to be seen. I would say, if it explains everything that exists in our cosmic manifestation of reality, and complies with all religious knowledge and experiences we have, and when it predicts enough completely new phenomena that can be verified by our senses or experience, then yes, such a model may prove God, at least according to any scientific standards that we have of what counts as scientific proof. However, any scientific model is per definition a simplification of reality and therefore different from reality. So ‘absolute proof’ can’t exist in science (Edit: only logical proof).

 

10) Does this monistic science prove age old beliefs like karma, relationships between the souls, matter and God?

 

A monistic theory will be in accord with current classical physical laws such as the ‘conservation of energy’. It should describe a complex dynamical equilibrium in which the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. Karma may be a form of energy or consciousness, that is locally dissipated and absorbed but the total amount of karma will globally remain constant. However, this is just my guess. I wouldn’t know what karma is in such a model. Intricate relationships between souls, matter and God necessarily follow from the postulated underlying oneness of the universe.

 

11) Are these 'scientists' you are talking about religious monistic 'believers' or is

the community comprised of atheists too?

 

Scientists come of course in all sorts and flavors. Some are deeply religious and some are atheists. An agnostic attitude is probably the most scientific state of mind right now, but that might change.

 

12) How do these monistic scientists know everything contained in this universe is that Supreme Being who is beyond time and space? We haven't even explored planet Mars thoroughly, but go on to assume myriad things about the solar system in the name of monistic science!

 

Currently science doesn’t know that. However, when the monistic ideal of science is ever achieved, this will necessarily follow from the single force or principle postulated by the theory of everything, that underlies and describes the entire universe.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[srikanthdk71]

 

Let me understand what you are writing. "The soul is different in the begining. But as it attains mukti, it merges with God and becomes ONE." So anyone can 'become' God is your opinion. They are not God in the first place until they attain mukti.

 

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.

 

 

There goes 'Aham Brahmasmi' for a toss. 'tat tvam asi' is also out of the door by now along with the other 3 mahavakyas.

 

The only problem with the above is that no vedantic school of thought supports your theory. Is this your personal opinion? If not do you have any references?

 

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

 

 

All the things you mentioned above have a form. So how can you conclude the Infinite does not have a form?

 

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

 

 

But then your theory says that matter and supreme consciousness are ONE. Now you are saying matter does not have consciousness of its own. Does matter also has a chance to attain mukti by which it then merges with the supreme consciousness? Whatver happened to the theory of Oneness when it comes to matter!

 

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.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Lets take a finite entity like the European union. Have you seen Europe? How much can you recall seeing it? Just a little bit of what you have seen, right. There is still a LOT you haven't seen. We can only describe Europe to a small extent but not everything. Similarly we can comprehend the Infinite in its Infinite forms to a small extent only. We cannot assume it does not have a form after knowing it is in so many different forms.

 

What makes you assume it has a form? Have you seen God? How did you believe? What logic did you apply? You may say that what we know is less, the more you come to know, you will know his eyes, limbs etc etc. The formless cannot be perceived. True. The various Kriyas(actions) of that Conciousness was explained Keeping in mind the same conciousness is within us also. Hence, the best form was explained from the perspective of us humans coz 'Man can Think in the Best possible way'. What about animals, birds.... nothing can explain. It goes on.

 

 

There is no logic in saying that since it is Infinite, it is formless. Another obvious unscientific mistake you are making is using the keyword 'space'. The Infinite is not extended in space but it is in all forms and pervades everything and being in the universe and still retains its perfectness despite the imperfect nature of the world. The Vedas themselves say this Infinite has millions of forms.

 

Where do I come from? Bangalore. Where is Bangalore? Karnataka. Where is Karnataka? India. Where is India? Asia. Where is Asia? World/Earth. Where is Earth? Solar System. Where is Solar System? Milky Way. Where is Milky Way? Hmm.... now the last answer is SPACE. Where is Space? Man cannot think beyond it. That was indeed unscientific but Logically practical.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

Lets take a finite entity like the European union. Have you seen Europe? How much can you recall seeing it? Just a little bit of what you have seen, right. There is still a LOT you haven't seen. We can only describe Europe to a small extent but not everything. Similarly we can comprehend the Infinite in its Infinite forms to a small extent only. We cannot assume it does not have a form after knowing it is in so many different forms.

 

There is no logic in saying that since it is Infinite, it is formless. Another obvious unscientific mistake you are making is using the keyword 'space'. The Infinite is not extended in space but it is in all forms and pervades everything and being in the universe and still retains its perfectness despite the imperfect nature of the world. The Vedas themselves say this Infinite has millions of forms.

 

Dear Justin,

 

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.

 

If you dismiss space from your conception of form there is no meaning of form in a visual sense. Then you cannot argue god has a head, eyes hands and is lying in a snake bed etc. (If you mean that as gods form. Perhaps you may not be believing that , as you seems to agree with me that any spacial form is finate). You then should decscribe gods form in completely devoid of spacial form. If you clarify what is this form according to you - what attributes you think belongs to what you call form - then perhaps we can discuss it further.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran