primate Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Transcendental does not mean inconceivable.It means spiritual. Krishna can be understood if he chooses to let you understand. Otherwise, by your own mind you cannot know him. But you said: "Krishna is the God of God". You didn’t say: Krishna is the God of all demigods, which may be true, but isn’t the issue. What we are trying to understand here is Brahman in relation to God/Krishna and/or vice versa. You also said "Brahman is the nature of God". Do you perhaps mean that God/Krishna is Saguna Brahman, which is understandable, and Nirguna Brahman is the (unknowable) nature of God/Krishna? If this whole system is God, then Krishna may be termed "the (personal) God of God". And within God, Balarama and the whole subsequent Vaisnavist pantheon as well as humans exist.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srikanthdk71 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 No. You exist in God's consciousness. No. We exist as(not in) God's consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srikanthdk71 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 What we are trying to understand here is Brahman in relation to God/Krishna and/or vice versa. Brahman is Bliss Eternal. Krishna/Gods/Demigods are forms for us mortals who dont understand or try to approve the formless. The mind asks for a form and there it is. Krishna,Vishnu,Shiva, Lakshmi,Parvati so on and so forth. Do you think parvathi is any less than shiva or a lakshmi any less than a vishnu. If we think yes, then we are wasting time. This is what i hope you are trying to understand (Brahman in relation to God). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Originally Posted by primateWhat we are trying to understand here is Brahman in relation to God/Krishna and/or vice versa. [stop describing Krishna is way other than those spelt out in sastra itself! Brahman = the Void! Hey, kid, stop being afraid of the dark! The innate qualities of Brahman are part of that which is transcendent to material nature. You also said "Brahman is the nature of God". [brahman = the Void! -- this is elementary to students of the Gita! The nature of Brahman is that it is not manifested into anything 'materially-manefested'] Do you perhaps mean that God/Krishna is Saguna Brahman, which is understandable, and Nirguna Brahman is the (unknowable) nature of God/Krishna? ["Nirguna Brahman is the (unknowable)??" ~ Nirguna is what it says: "WITHOUT QUALITIES" Why speculate? 'Brahman' is a subject matter for those born in a Brahmanda that was populated by Lord Brahma. Brahman is 'everything else' in contrast to the phantasmagoria of the 'manifest' aggregate elements of the material world.] If this whole system is God, then Krishna may be termed "the (personal) God of God". [Krishna is 'adi purusha' = the first person. This first person possessed the seed that generated all other manifestations --in pursuant to "personal pastimes".] And within God, Balarama and the whole subsequent Vaisnavist pantheon as well as humans exist.. [This statement angers me because ... the Vedas all affirm God as a personal 'person' par excellance. You posit: "If this... If this ...If this" Why quess? The knowledge upon which you conjecture is spelt-out already. VYASA has spoken and written it down for your edification. If VYASA has spoken and written it --why do you partition it to 'The Vaishnava' Point -of-View? VYASA has spoken and written it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read and quote what he has explained.] primate will you soon enlist to study a proper/bonefide "bhakti-sastri" study course? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Obviously, you have read some in the books of Srila Prabhupada, but as well it is obvious that you need to study a LOT more.It appears that you need to be studying more and spending less time on the internet posting in large colored fonts. The 64 volumes of Srimad Bhagavatam which I borrowed from my childhood friend, Gaurasundara das, are not here anymore. What I have left is the book entitled The Teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Krsna is the God of All not the God of God ---------- Can Krsna be God to Himself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Originally Posted by primate What we are trying to understand here is Brahman in relation to God/Krishna and/or vice versa. [stop describing Krishna is way other than those spelt out in sastra itself! Brahman = the Void! Hey, kid, stop being afraid of the dark! The innate qualities of Brahman are part of that which is transcendent to material nature.] You also said "Brahman is the nature of God". [brahman = the Void! -- this is elementary to students of the Gita! The nature of Brahman is that it is not manifested into anything 'materially-manefested'] Well, then possibly the nature of God or Krishna is (the) void. I have no problem with that at all. Anyway, I think there may be some truth in Sonic Yogi’s suggestion that Brahman is the nature of God. Do you perhaps mean that God/Krishna is Saguna Brahman, which is understandable, and Nirguna Brahman is the (unknowable) nature of God/Krishna? ["Nirguna Brahman is the (unknowable)??" ~ Nirguna is what it says: "WITHOUT QUALITIES" Why speculate? 'Brahman' is a subject matter for those born in a Brahmanda that was populated by Lord Brahma. Brahman is 'everything else' in contrast to the phantasmagoria of the 'manifest' aggregate elements of the material world.] So your notion of (the) void still seems to have room for a Nirguna - and a Saguna aspect of Brahman. Maybe it’s not completely void after all, just without qualities (unknowable?). Personally I think Brahman is a conscious singularity, which is spatially void. If this whole system is God, then Krishna may be termed "the (personal) God of God". [Krishna is 'adi purusha' = the first person. This first person possessed the seed that generated all other manifestations --in pursuant to "personal pastimes".] Agreed.. ... And within God, Balarama and the whole subsequent Vaisnavist pantheon as well as humans exist.. [This statement angers me because ... the Vedas all affirm God as a personal 'person' par excellance. You posit: "If this... If this ...If this" Why quess? The knowledge upon which you conjecture is spelt-out already. VYASA has spoken and written it down for your edification. If VYASA has spoken and written it --why do you partition it to 'The Vaishnava' Point -of-View? VYASA has spoken and written it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read and quote what he has explained.] Well, I didn’t want to anger anybody. I apologize. I responded to Sonic Yogi saying in one post: "Krishna is the God of God", which I think is an interesting idea. Yet, in subsequent posts, he explained this statement by describing Krishna as God of al demigods, which I think is irrelevant to the discussion.. And if the knowledge in the Vedas is all that clear, then why do different religious points of view or, for that matter, different religions exist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 No. We exist as(not in) God's consciousness. Isn't that almost equivalent? The difference is that 'existence as God's consciousness', could imply that we are God. And 'existence in God's consciouss' implies that we are a part of God.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 the nature of God or Krishna is that He is the First Person, with his own name, fame, form, personailty, paraphenalia, entourage and pastimes that transpire in an atmosphere that is not material --like those that we spirits in the material world, with are limited senses are accustom to. A "Nirguna - and a Saguna" aspect is a mis-statement. Brahman is Nirguna --that is all. [all of creation is otherwise a manifestation of material nature's 'Guna-influence']. Saguna is an intellectural name for Krsihna's [God himself] non-materail status. The term Saguna is too impersonal an analysis. It is like the Doctor saying to the nurse, "Please move the human organism to the operation Room". When I speak of the void --I do not intend for the Buddhist concept to be invoked. The Void (brahman) is a "______" that is part of the Trinity of God's sphere of expansion(s). IMO, There is no dis-connect [from God-consciousness] implied by me, when I invoke the definition of brahman as a void. There is paramatma & Bhagavan & the devatas & service to others & the obligation to preform one's own dharma & there is also the motivation & provisions to enjoy. The impersonal reference to Brahman should invoke Lord Brahma --ergo, the other progenitors of the population of the celetial mangament staff residing in places that do not resemble our neighborhoods. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I don't get mad --I scheme to get a plate of Krishna-maha-prashadam in your hands [or something of the equivilent] --or at least I pine to do so. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: different religions exist? I count three [albeit along with denominations and sects and languages and insight and value system and histories]: Hindu Vedas. Judeo-Christian Bible. Muslim Koran. Other so-called paths are DIFFERENT because free-will many times conflicts with filial-devotions & dedication to traditions as past down & the associated karma of the Tribe that is award a newborn due to what the newborn had cultivated in their last life times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Brahman is Bliss Eternal. Krishna/Gods/Demigods are forms for us mortals who dont understand or try to approve the formless. The mind asks for a form and there it is. Krishna,Vishnu,Shiva, Lakshmi,Parvati so on and so forth. Do you think parvathi is any less than shiva or a lakshmi any less than a vishnu. If we think yes, then we are wasting time. This is what i hope you are trying to understand (Brahman in relation to God). Yes, I try to understand the relation between Brahman and God or Krishna. You say that our human consciousness or mind or brain is this relation, because we want to see forms and patterns in everything. I’m not so sure. Is it possible to see form in something formless? Can all material forms be just the product of our mind? I think that there must be a reality behind everything we consciously perceive. Even if our (material) world is an illusory projection or transformation of reality, all form must have a real origin or representation in reality. And if form exists, then I guess God may also have a (trancendental) form.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Yes, I try to understand the relation between Brahman and God or Krishna. You say that our human consciousness or mind or brain is this relation, because we want to see forms and patterns in everything. I’m not so sure. Is it possible to see form in something formless? Can all material forms be just the product of our mind? I think that there must be a reality behind everything we consciously perceive. Even if our (material) world is an illusory projection or transformation of reality, all form must have a real origin or representation in reality. And if form exists, then I guess God may also have a (trancendental) form.. God, of course, has a transcendental form and His name is Krsna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 The 64 volumes of Srimad Bhagavatam which I borrowed from my childhood friend, Gaurasundara das, are not here anymore. What I have left is the book entitled The Teachings of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Krsna is the God of All not the God of God ---------- Can Krsna be God to Himself? You can read all the books online free. here: http://vedabase.net/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 You can read all the books online free.here: http://vedabase.net/ Is your web site able to explain the origin of the swine flu virus? -------------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 Is your web site able to explain the origin of the swine flu virus?-------------------------------- It's not my web site. It is there because the BBT has authorized it. It has some errors, typos and mistakes so sometimes I have to turn to the books if something doesn't sound right. I have found quite a few errors, mainly missing sentences and sometimes missing paragraphs. But, for convenience it is ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 30, 2009 Report Share Posted April 30, 2009 It's not my web site.It is there because the BBT has authorized it. It has some errors, typos and mistakes so sometimes I have to turn to the books if something doesn't sound right. I have found quite a few errors, mainly missing sentences and sometimes missing paragraphs. But, for convenience it is ok. If it`s not a website, then what is it? A data base? A station or science lab where one gets instructions on how to create a viral program? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 If it`s not a website, then what is it? A data base? A station or science lab where one gets instructions on how to create a viral program? It is a web site, but it is not MY web site as you said it was MY web site. I have nothing to do with the web site. I just use it. I didn't make the web site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 It is a web site, but it is not MY web site as you said it was MY web site.I have nothing to do with the web site. I just use it. I didn't make the web site. It`s a website created by www.krishna.com. I used to discuss spiritual topics in her forum. But they just don`t have the heart to hear what I have to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 It`s a website created by www.krishna.com. I used to discuss spiritual topics in her forum. But they just don`t have the heart to hear what I have to say. smart better not hear from dr jekyll and mr hyde Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 smartbetter not hear from dr jekyll and mr hyde I`m just being myself(mysoul) not ego. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 `m just being myself(mysoul) not ego. im sorry sir but i was just joking. But you foooled me into thinking melvin and melvin1 were two diffferent people.i thought for sometime that melvin is some brother of melvin1. you posting with 2 different username and opposite views on the same day. made things look like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 im sorry sir but i was just joking.But you foooled me into thinking melvin and melvin1 were two diffferent people.i thought for sometime that melvin is some brother of melvin1. you posting with 2 different username and opposite views on the same day. made things look like that Sant, my friend, you don`t have to apologize. Why I had 2 accounts ( melvin & Melvin1) which appeared alternately at the same time on same day is a long story. It`s better left untold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think i know now.there could have been somebody elses view that u or him was typing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think i know now.there could have been somebody elses view that u or him was typing. Haha. You`re fishing for answers. It`s a secret I can`t tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Ok dont tell i was just thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Ok dont tell i was just thinking. Sant, I have to call it a day. It`s almost ten o` clock in the evening. I been here since this morning. ( Trying to rectify the broken bits and pieces). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Know the Supreme Almighty (the one and only sustainer and maintainer of the entire unlimited universe) Just Visit at: astrosage.webs.com<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.