Brahman – The absolute God of Hindus ? Confused?

[primate]

So, in conclusion: Brahman is the basis of all consciousness. No conscious entity can be the basis of Brahman. All individual consciousness, is a part or a specific conscious sub-set or projection or function or quality of Brahman. Nevertheless, the whole Brahman, is a conscious entity himself, called Vishnu, Krishna or God..

[bhaktajan]

Now Sir P,

 

Try Teaching that to primary & secondary students, then woman, then laborers & then intellegent conceited people --and then get back to us with your success rate update(s).

[ranjeetmore]

 

So, in conclusion: Brahman is the basis of all consciousness. No conscious entity can be the basis of Brahman. All individual consciousness, is a part or a specific conscious sub-set or projection or function or quality of Brahman. Nevertheless, the whole Brahman, is a conscious entity himself, called Vishnu, Krishna or God..

 

Whole Brahm is Sri KRsna.

 

 

But individual consciousness is a part/conscious sub set of Whole Brahm?

 

No.This cannot be.The geeta states that Cit vastu cannot be CUT/SEVERED/DRIED/SEPERATED OR CREATED.

 

Individual consciousness is a projection of Brahm ?

Yes.This can be accepted,considering Both Brahm and Jeevatma to be two DIFFERENT personalities eternally and hence the projection(not creation).

 

Individual consciousness is a function of Brahm ??

Since it is observed that each and every jeevatma has independent WILL,the Individual consciousness CANNOT be called a function of Brahm.

 

Individual consciousness is a quality of Brahm ??

The Vedas state that the Quality of Brahm is Sat.Chit.Ananda.

But so is the Jeevatma Sat.Chit.Ananda.

 

So Jeevatma and Brahm are said to qualitatively one and not the way you say it.

[Narasingh]

 

So, in conclusion: Brahman is the basis of all consciousness. No conscious entity can be the basis of Brahman. All individual consciousness, is a part or a specific conscious sub-set or projection or function or quality of Brahman. Nevertheless, the whole Brahman, is a conscious entity himself, called Vishnu, Krishna or God..

When you say, "No conscious entity can be the basis of Brahman" are you including Bhagavan as a conscious entity?

 

I would say that there can be only one conscious entity who can be the basis of Brahman, and that would be Bhagavan.

[primate]

 

Whole Brahm is Sri KRsna.

 

 

But individual consciousness is a part/conscious sub set of Whole Brahm?

 

No.This cannot be.The geeta states that Cit vastu cannot be CUT/SEVERED/DRIED/SEPERATED OR CREATED.

 

Individual consciousness is a projection of Brahm ?

Yes.This can be accepted,considering Both Brahm and Jeevatma to be two DIFFERENT personalities eternally and hence the projection(not creation).

 

Individual consciousness is a function of Brahm ??

Since it is observed that each and every jeevatma has independent WILL,the Individual consciousness CANNOT be called a function of Brahm.

 

Individual consciousness is a quality of Brahm ??

The Vedas state that the Quality of Brahm is Sat.Chit.Ananda.

But so is the Jeevatma Sat.Chit.Ananda.

 

So Jeevatma and Brahm are said to qualitatively one and not the way you say it.

I discussed a quantum chaos theory of reality, in which the 'whole' of reality is viewed as a chaotic (complex nonlinear) conscious oscillation. In such a model, Brahman would be the one oscillating atomic conscious entity. So you see, that Brahman cannot be "cut separated or created". He is original and atomic; smaller than the smallest. Nevertheless, his conscious oscillation forms/creates the whole of (conscious) reality; larger than the largest.

 

In the model, Brahman is continuously conscious of his oscillation, and his complete or perfect consciousness is a person (Krishna). Individual (human) consciousness is also personal, but we are just an incomplete, discontinues sub-set or projection of Brahman’s original consciousness. Therefore, we are qualitatively the same as Brahman/Krishna, but quantitatively different..

[ranjeetmore]

What does 'oscillating atomic conscious entity' mean ??

[primate]

 

What does 'oscillating atomic conscious entity' mean ??

Well, in chaos theory this singular 'oscillating atomic entity' would be the chaotic system itself. I simply added a 'conscious quality' to it, to explain all of our conscious reality..

[Guest Melvin1]

 

Well, in chaos theory this singular 'oscillating atomic entity' would be the chaotic system itself. I simply added a 'conscious quality' to it, to explain all of our conscious reality..

 

First of all, we should know the properties of a chaotic system. That it`s deterministic which means that every event or action is the inevitable result of preceding events and actions. Thus in principle at least, every event or action can be completely predicted in advance or in retrospect.

 

That the laws of the material universe could be understood meaningfully only by expressing physical properties as quantified measurements that is in numerical terms not just in words. That in expressing measurements appropriate for a given system, whether it be the Solar system, a falling object on earth or ocean current- the values of the measurement at a given starting time are called initial conditions.

 

Since chaos theory is deterministic(Newton`s law) they imply that for a given system, the same initial conditions will always produce identically the same outcome. Mathematically from the initial conditions in predetermined fashion like a movie that can be run forward or backwards in time.

 

One of the fundamental principles in experimental science is that no real measurements is infinitely precise but instead must include a degree of uncertainty. This uncertainty which is present in any real measurement arises from the fact that any unimaginable measuring device- even if designed and used perfectly- can record its measurement only with finite precision. That uncertainty in the dynamical outcome of chaos theory does not arise from any randomness since it`s deterministic but rather lack of the infinite accuracy in the initial conditions.

 

The hallmark of chaos theory is that even the smallest unimaginable discrepancy between two sets of initial conditions would always result in huge discrepancy at later or earlier times( Lorenz model of atmospheric currents).

 

In short, the presence of a chaotic system in nature seems to place a limit on our ability to apply deterministic physical laws to predict motions with any degree of certainty. That it`s discovery seems to imply that randomness lurks at the core of any deterministic model of the universe.

 

Recently, some scientists have come to believe that the presence of chaos in physics is what gives the universe its " arrow in time ', the irreversible flow from the past to the future.

[shiva]

 

I discussed a quantum chaos theory of reality, in which the 'whole' of reality is viewed as a chaotic (complex nonlinear) conscious oscillation. In such a model, Brahman would be the one oscillating atomic conscious entity. So you see, that Brahman cannot be "cut separated or created". He is original and atomic; smaller than the smallest. Nevertheless, his conscious oscillation forms/creates the whole of (conscious) reality; larger than the largest.

 

In the model, Brahman is continuously conscious of his oscillation, and his complete or perfect consciousness is a person (Krishna). Individual (human) consciousness is also personal, but we are just an incomplete, discontinues sub-set or projection of Brahman’s original consciousness. Therefore, we are qualitatively the same as Brahman/Krishna, but quantitatively different..

 

Using Chaos Theory to describe Brahman doesn't work because Chaos Theory is based upon determinism and physical or material or illusory causality, whereas Brahman is not subject to determinism or physical or material causality due to it's being the primeval underlying causal agent of all causes aka the cause of all causes, and possessing absolute and total free will Brahman is not subject to determinism. Chaos theory can possibly have some similarities to the relationship between a jiva and Brahman, but not in the usual understanding of Chaos Theory where actions and reactions do not have an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent controlling agent overseeing and controlling everything in existence.

[Sonic Yogi]

Fractal patterns are a particular manifestation of chaos theory, which arose out of a growth in scientific interest in irregular phenomena together with a new style of mathematics. The particular type of 'ordered' chaos referred to in chaos theory is a dynamic phenomenon, occurring when the state of a system, defined by a variable or a set of variables, changes with time.

The track of this change is guided by probability; small changes in the variables determining the state of the system at any temporal point result in large changes occurring in the system as it progresses along the arrow of time. This gives rise to an 'ordered' chaotic pattern of system behaviour, ie. it is different to entropy, which indicates the tendency of a system to disorder.

Chaos theory provides a useful framework within which notions of consciousness as an active agent in determining probable outcomes of events in the real world can be illuminated. If consciousness itself can affect the outcome of physical events, even on the micro scale, such minute changes will ultimately breed substantial mutations on the macro scale.

Human history too can be conceived of as a self-organizing chaotic system, its progression of events unpredictable yet ordered, phenomena at each moment giving the total system fresh feedback from which to take the next leap into the future. To explicate the notion of feedback giving rise to patterns of ordered chaos (i.e. fractal patterns), a principle borrowed from mathematics, that of iteration, can be fitted to conceptions of human activity.

According to the iterating principle, when the values fed into an equation are themselves the results of that equation's previous calculation, an infinitely variegated yet ordered and self-similar pattern emerges. In terms of human endeavour this iterative process becomes one of recursion, the notion of returning to a position to enable a kind of post-modern reflexivity; in theorising human sciences for example, this would mean the ability of a theory, as it were, 'to look at itself, yet again, in a new light, for the first time'.

Using this recursive principle, in returning to an ancient, Aristotelian cosmology we can re-examine it through the mechanism of a remarkable new lens with which contemporary computer technology has provided us. The glowing electronic blooms of fractal sets which bud on today's computer screens provide a metaphorical analog for the interwoven patterns of our post-modern reality.

These intricate, organic patterns unfurl a dimension where the margins between mathematics and nature coalesce in a cognitive space which has the power to transport us beyond the rationalist realm of language. The visual vigour of fractal sets seems to generate many a flow of ideas to irrigate the fields of new thought harvested by today's Digital Renaissance at the frontiers of technological evolution. According to one of the founding fathers of fractal theory, Benoit Mandelbrot,

 

 

Being able to play with pictures interactively on computers has provided a deep well for mathematical discoveries. Many fractals have already had an important cultural impact and have already been accepted as works of a new form of art. Some are representations while others are totally unreal and abstract. It has come as a surprise to both mathematicians and artists to see this kind of cultural interaction. (Mandelbrot, 1993).

So as a result of computerised depiction, what chaos theorist Ian Stewart calls 'visual imagination', one of the most commanding attributes of the human mind, is brought to bear. This capacity enhances the creative capacity of mind as a dynamic system, for as Stewart says, 'In the world of chaos, a picture is worth a million numbers'. The element of visual imagination potentised by technology is crucial to the development of our mental functioning; and this maturation in turn is crucial to our abilities to manipulate the information environment into which technological advancement is thrusting our species (as Timothy Leary, postulated in the early 1990s).

The Information Age has brought us to the brink of a new frontier -- that is the mind itself, and what we need now are new tools to further our evolution: new ways of thinking, new ways of using our minds and the imaginative power which animates our ability to mould reality to our collective will.

The significance of such novel mentations lies largely in their creative potential. Gregory Chaitin (1992) in discussing the impact of chaos theory on arithmetic, gives the example of the mathematician David Hilbert as mistakenly assuming that 'mathematical truth was black or white, that something was either true or false'. But Hilbert failed to perceive

 

 

something that was so basic to his thinking that he did not even formulate it as a question.... That was the idea that every mathematical problem has a solution. Clear, simple mathematical questions do not always have clear answers (Chaitin, 1992)

Today's technologies and cutting-edge epistemologies provide us with new ways of seeing and knowing, ways potentialised by principles of interactivity, non-linearity and visual symbolism which enhance mental power through uni-cameral perception, intuition and creativity. These new perceptions, potentialised by the combination of technological facilitators, enable us to enter a new age of creative 'magic'. As Mandelbrot says,

 

To the layman, fractal art seems to be magical. Much of the underlying equations would have been regarded as part of being pure mathematics, without any application to the real world, had its visual nature not been seen. (Mandelbrot, 1992)

The graphical representation of fractals has lent new depth to our insights, or ways of conceiving the world. It has given us a distinct vision of the patterned nature of seemingly random events, the fundamental patterning of dynamic systems. This is of course not a new idea in itself; David Hume noted that mere sequence does not reveal causality, and Marshal McLuhan records that when electricity made things happen instantaneously, it ended the appearance of sequence. In achieving this, the organic and patterned nature of phenomena became apparent, and causality was open to scrutiny.

McCluhan gives the example of movies, where sequence disappears and 'creative configuration and structure' emerges. The visionary nature of this insight lies in its temporal base -- at the time of his writing (1964), the patterned functioning of autopoietic systems, as explicated through computer-generated graphics, was not known; but McLuhan saw the organic, holistic (what he termed 'mythic') nature of human functioning in a time where 'instantaneous' knowledge acquired through pattern perception is more closely aligned with pre-modern intuitive, oral traditions such as occurs in Eastern concepts of rationality. For example, EM Forster's novel A Passage to India presents at one point the experience of 'the total and inclusive field of resonance that is India' (McLuhan, 1964; p16).

There is thus for McLuhan a significance in concentric form, which mimics the form of oral culture in its redundancy, its repetition of the initial statement of problem and resolution; this requires insight in order to perceive it, as it is the 'endless intersection of planes', which in media creates meaning through intertextuality -- no medium has its meaning or existence alone, but only in constant interplay with other media'. This is an essentially postmodern view of how meaning is created in modern media; in McLuhan's view, meaning is not reducible to the constituent elements within media, but rather achieves significance through the dynamics of whole systems.

McCluhan quotes Kenneth Boulding as saying 'The meaning of a message is the change which it produces in the image,' taking this to indicate the switch from the study of meaning to the study of effect in the electronic age, the effect being the totality of the situation rather than its specifics. The effects of 'instantaneous' media on social patterning affects the way change takes place in society.

Sandra Braman (1994) differentiates two distinct processes of change, 'genetic' and 'epigenetic'; the former takes place in a linear manner through the passage of time, while the latter is a process of "horizontal evolution" which takes place simultaneously in time, unfolding through concurrent interactions among systems.

Both of these are 'recursive processes' which occur in 'self-amplifying causal loops', so explaining evolution as 'a process of multiplication of possibilities in which humans participate through their representations of evolving systems'. This echoes McLuhan's concept of instantaneous knowledge, which also relates to specific modes of causality which Braman identifies as 'isolationist', ie. 'non-causal and synchronistic' and 'morphogenetic'. Isolationist systems are self-referential and 'open to positive feedback and the creation of new forms as well as negative feedback and closed realities'.

Braman distinguishes morphogenetic systems by their characteristic 'self-conscious process of change', defining them as 'heterogeneous, symbiotic and non-hierarchical'. Because of the essentially interrelated nature of morphogenetic social systems,

 

 

decisions made by individuals or by collective entities affect the evolution of the system and everyone in it. Thus all individual actions have a collective aspect that is synergistic in impact, irrespective of individual intention (Braman, 1994).

The morphogenetic system thus provides the kind of cultural matrix within which McLuhan's instantaneous media function, an area where intertextuality and concentric form achieve a field of resonance to affect the evolution of the total system. Such dynamic systems can also achieve what Braman terms 'co-evolution', which takes place through an intertextual swapping of energy and information. Braman notes that these systems are also subject to the influence of self-amplifying causal loops, which can have the effect of inducing significant changes on the large scale resulting from actions on the small scale.

Given the above implications of chaos theory, it may be possible to alter the gestalt of human thought on planet Earth by relatively small interventions, rather than wholesale revolutions on the scale envisaged by the revolutionaries of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. If we are able to create a global environment of tolerance of difference or of Otherness, and put into action positive social strategies which can alter the balance of human activity on the planet to foster emancipation and conviviality rather than destructiveness and greed, then it is not necessary to create homogenous socio-political structures which negate regional, ethnic, cultural and other differences.

In other words, the metanarratives of modernism can be transformed into a multitude of micronarratives, which nevertheless cohere into an harmonious and co-operative whole. These small narratives take place firstly at the level of the individual, then the group, community and upwards to other macro-levels of nations, corporations and their expressions in 'meta-entities' such as the United Nations and international agreements (e.g. GAT -- the Global Tariffs and Trade agreement).

In order to achieve a harmonious co-evolution requires above all an underlying attitude which potentiates the decentralisation of power structures on regional, national and international levels. Such decentralisation of control could allow the kind of ethnic fragmentation which has occurred in Yugoslavia and Rwanda without the violent intolerance and strife which has hitherto accompanied such divisions.

This attitude would be fostered primarily in the cultural sphere, for it is through this sphere that people are able to communicate with one another through liminal mechanisms (such as music, raves, trance parties etc.), beyond the confines of fragmented thought which limits our everyday conceptions.

If one aims at fostering such an attitude, one of the primary interventions which can be made is in the field of cyberspace, ie. through accessible media such as television (or radio) and computer communications, which link individual human consciousness into a global consciousness. If such small-scale interventions can take place in a harmonious fashion with other social, political, economic and ideological strategies, the possibility exists that they can affect the outcome of the global system; because all these areas are based on information, it follows that information is the tool of change.

Moreover, it is through creativity that a multiplicity of successful strategies can be found to address particular problem areas, in order to alter the probable outcome of these dynamic information systems. Despite the problem of mediated information vs. reality, information is a means of communication, and it is through evolving our means of communication -- ie. language -- that we can connect with and come to understand the others (animals and humans) with whom we share this planet.

[shiva]

 

Fractal patterns are a particular manifestation of chaos theory, which arose out of a growth in scientific interest in irregular phenomena together with a new style of mathematics. The particular type of 'ordered' chaos referred to in chaos theory is a dynamic phenomenon, occurring when the state of a system, defined by a variable or a set of variables, changes with time.

The track of this change is guided by probability; small changes in the variables determining the state of the system at any temporal point result in large changes occurring in the system as it progresses along the arrow of time. This gives rise to an 'ordered' chaotic pattern of system behaviour, ie. it is different to entropy, which indicates the tendency of a system to disorder.

Chaos theory provides a useful framework within which notions of consciousness as an active agent in determining probable outcomes of events in the real world can be illuminated. If consciousness itself can affect the outcome of physical events, even on the micro scale, such minute changes will ultimately breed substantial mutations on the macro scale.

Human history too can be conceived of as a self-organizing chaotic system, its progression of events unpredictable yet ordered, phenomena at each moment giving the total system fresh feedback from which to take the next leap into the future. To explicate the notion of feedback giving rise to patterns of ordered chaos (i.e. fractal patterns), a principle borrowed from mathematics, that of iteration, can be fitted to conceptions of human activity.

According to the iterating principle, when the values fed into an equation are themselves the results of that equation's previous calculation, an infinitely variegated yet ordered and self-similar pattern emerges. In terms of human endeavour this iterative process becomes one of recursion, the notion of returning to a position to enable a kind of post-modern reflexivity; in theorising human sciences for example, this would mean the ability of a theory, as it were, 'to look at itself, yet again, in a new light, for the first time'.

Using this recursive principle, in returning to an ancient, Aristotelian cosmology we can re-examine it through the mechanism of a remarkable new lens with which contemporary computer technology has provided us. The glowing electronic blooms of fractal sets which bud on today's computer screens provide a metaphorical analog for the interwoven patterns of our post-modern reality.

These intricate, organic patterns unfurl a dimension where the margins between mathematics and nature coalesce in a cognitive space which has the power to transport us beyond the rationalist realm of language. The visual vigour of fractal sets seems to generate many a flow of ideas to irrigate the fields of new thought harvested by today's Digital Renaissance at the frontiers of technological evolution. According to one of the founding fathers of fractal theory, Benoit Mandelbrot....

 

Whoever wrote the above from http://theparty.netraver.org.za/chaos.html , is ignorant of how our world actually works, which is a basic problem of chaos theory. Chaos theory is bogus because everything that happens is under the control of one super powerful all pervading all powerful intellect. Krishna controls everything, but some people who don't believe in or understand the absolute truth (Krishna controlling everything) but see patterns in nature that shouldn't be there without a controlling principle, come up with theories like Chaos Theory to try to explain how those patterns exist without an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent conscious controller.

 

Have you seen the movie The Matrix? In the movie the matrix is a virtual reality world which is exactly like our experience of our world...BUT, that reality is an illusion, everyone in the matrix is in a sleep lie condition, their bodies exist in controlled nest-like shelves, millions of them in some warehouse where their bodies are being fed by tubes and they are unaware of where they actually are or what reality actually it. A computer is controlling the system where their bodies are being taken care of, while they sleep, but their minds exist in a dreamlike virtual world created by the computer, like the holodeck in Star Trek. They think that the virtual dream world created by the computer is the real world, they are unaware that their real physical bodies are in a warehouse being kept alive by a computer with feeding tubes, and that everything they think is real is a computer generated virtual reality. Our existence is similar to that in that our world is a virtual reality, it is an illusion of chaos, but in reality everything is comprised of and controlled by God, just like everything in the matrix is comprised of pixels within a computer and controlled by the computer.

 

Without this knowledge people believe in various theories of why there is an appearance of patterns or design in our world. Chaos theory tries to explain reality without enough information of how our world actually functions, therefore it is completely useless as an explanatory schema because it relies on the conception that the physical reality is causal, when the truth is that physical reality is a virtual reality within and controlled by a super-conscious cosmic computer.

[Guest Melvin1]

Was the September 11, 2001 reality of what happened to the World Trade Center in New York, USA, a virtual reality to begin with? Or was it an experiment to prove that the Butterfly Effect in chaos theory indeed works?

[primate]

 

Using Chaos Theory to describe Brahman doesn't work because Chaos Theory is based upon determinism and physical or material or illusory causality, whereas Brahman is not subject to determinism or physical or material causality due to it's being the primeval underlying causal agent of all causes aka the cause of all causes, and possessing absolute and total free will Brahman is not subject to determinism. Chaos theory can possibly have some similarities to the relationship between a jiva and Brahman, but not in the usual understanding of Chaos Theory where actions and reactions do not have an omniscient omnipresent omnipotent controlling agent overseeing and controlling everything in existence.

I agree that deterministic chaos at best suggests a possible scenario in which a conscious singularity or god produces all individual consciousness. In this sense, god would be the cause of all causes and the basis of everything. The theory of chaos indicates how a relatively simple deterministic system might be sufficient to explain all complexity in reality as we know it, and as it is portrayed in quantum physics and general relativity, as well as in Vedic literature.

 

Of course, chaos theory doesn’t say anything about god or consciousness. So, ultimately, something even more subtle than deterministic chaos must underlie all of reality. Hence, the term 'conscious chaos'. And if conscious chaos is not completely deterministic (as you suggest), then god could indeed be the controller of everything. Moreover, if conscious chaos is 'like' deterministic chaos (as I suggest), then god might take advantage of the characteristic properties of chaos, such as self-organization and critical dependence on initial conditions, allowing him to control the largely autonomous macroscopic evolution of reality by means of infinitesimal microscopic interventions. He would be the ultimate magician..

[Guest Melvin1]

 

I agree that deterministic chaos at best suggests a possible scenario in which a conscious singularity or god produces all individual consciousness. In this sense, god(Krsna) would be the cause of all causes and the basis of everything. The theory of chaos indicates how a relatively simple deterministic system might be sufficient to explain all complexity in reality as we know it, and as it is portrayed in quantum physics and general relativity, as well as in Vedic literature.

 

Of course, chaos theory doesn’t say anything about (Krsna) god or consciousness. So, ultimately, something even more subtle than deterministic chaos must underlie all of reality. Hence, the term 'conscious chaos'. And if conscious chaos is not completely deterministic (as you suggest), then (Krsna) god could indeed be the controller of everything. Moreover, if conscious chaos is 'like' deterministic chaos (as I suggest), then (Krsna)god might take advantage of the characteristic properties of chaos, such as self-organization and critical dependence on initial conditions, allowing him to control the largely autonomous macroscopic evolution of reality by means of infinitesimal microscopic interventions. He( Krsna) would be the ultimate magician..

 

Primate, please permit me to insert the word Krsna in your reply to Shiva. & everything that`s conscious in chaos would really make sense if we did that.

[primate]

 

...

Without this knowledge people believe in various theories of why there is an appearance of patterns or design in our world. Chaos theory tries to explain reality without enough information of how our world actually functions, therefore it is completely useless as an explanatory schema because it relies on the conception that the physical reality is causal, when the truth is that physical reality is a virtual reality within and controlled by a super-conscious cosmic computer.

 

Perhaps you confuse some general notion of chaos with the notion of mathematical - or deterministic chaos. The idea that the weather is a chaotic system, is an example of the first type of chaos. The fact that a simple mathematical formula or physical principle can produce infinite structure is an example of the latter type of chaos. Such different notions of chaos are also being confused in Sonic Yogi’s post.

 

The first type of chaos can perhaps be termed 'causal chaos'. Chaotic weather is supposed to emerge from the actions and reactions of uncountable molecules trapped within the earth’s atmosphere, and the whole system is driven by the heat of the sun. This may be called chaos, but I don’t see much order or structure in short term weather patterns and, apart from regularly changing seasons, long term weather patterns look very erratic. They look not unlike stock market charts, and the behaviour of global markets is another example of causal chaos, driven by financial transactions. But, again, I don’t see infinite order and structure in global economic processes.

 

In contrast to such causal chaos (the messy kind), mathematical chaos is non-causal in principle. Infinite fractal order can emerge from the simple iteration of a single mathematical formula (e.g., the Mandelbrot set). And the particular chaotic system that I have in mind, would be like the physical system of a continuously oscillating particle in space. Such chaotic oscillations are known from computer simulations in particle physics. For example, the trajectory of a particle in a theoretical three-particle system, is chaotic.

 

Now, when such a particle is conscious, it could be conscious of its chaotic trajectory, as well as of all the infinite fractal structure present within all possible discontinuous phase-projections of its chaotic trajectory. At any moment, the particle or entity resides at exactly one location in space. However, in computer simulations, we can plot a (discontinuous) sub-set of all its locations at regular intervals, to produce a phase-projection in which the complex fractal order of the oscillation becomes apparent.

 

You can see that there’s really no causation involved. Infinitely ordered structure is simply present within the singular chaotic oscillation. And if human consciousness is a phase-projection of a conscious chaotic oscillation, then nothing in our world can be causal. Also note that we already know from quantum physics that, at the most fundamental quantum level of material reality, causality doesn’t exist..

[Guest Melvin1]

I guess everyone agrees that the Absolute God of Hindus is Krishna( Brahman).

[ken111]

the Absolute God of Hindus should be Hiranyagarbha, every other god are manifestations of Hiranyagarbha. Hiranyagarbha IS the god of gods. Krishna is the lord of this universe, and should be considered one with Hiranyagarbha, but not higher. This I have seen in a vision. Just read other sacred texts, there are lots of gods claiming to be the highest, and they are right, because they are talking out of their oneness with Hiranyagarbha.

[Guest Melvin1]

 

the Absolute God of Hindus should be Hiranyagarbha, every other god are manifestations of Hiranyagarbha. Hiranyagarbha IS the god of gods. Krishna is the lord of this universe, and should be considered one with Hiranyagarbha, but not higher. This I have seen in a vision. Just read other sacred texts, there are lots of gods claiming to be the highest, and they are right, because they are talking out of their oneness with Hiranyagarbha.

 

The master of the universe is Garbhodakasayi Visnu who is worshiped as the Hiranyagarbha Supersoul. The Vedic hymns describe Him as having thousands of heads. This Visnu expansion Hiranyagarbha is like a second candle. He is as powerful as Krsna, but the original Visnu is Krsna. Brahma and Lord Siva are obedient servants of the Supreme Lord, and the Supreme Lord as Visnu is an expansion of Krsna.

[ken111]

I see Hiranyagarbha as the outermost reality, that everything is within it and nothing outside of it, of course if the Soul of Hiranyagarbha has a different name, that may be. I see that all beings come from Hiranyagarbha before entering any of the universes. I see in Hiranyagarbha there are four gods that is supreme, Krsna, Shiva, and two other that I haven't identified. I also see a shining center in the middle of Hiranyagarbha, like a giant sun, this may be Hiranyagarbha itself, since Hiranyagarbha is called the golden womb, I have also seen that when a new being is created, he arises from this shining center.

[Guest Melvin1]

 

I see Hiranyagarbha as the outermost reality, that everything is within it and nothing outside of it, of course if the Soul of Hiranyagarbha has a different name, that may be. I see that all beings come from Hiranyagarbha before entering any of the universes. I see in Hiranyagarbha there are four gods that is supreme, Krsna, Shiva, and two other that I haven't identified. I also see a shining center in the middle of Hiranyagarbha, like a giant sun, this may be Hiranyagarbha itself, since Hiranyagarbha is called the golden womb, I have also seen that when a new being is created, he arises from this shining center.

 

Hare Hiranyagarbha ( Krsna) Hare Hiranyagarbha(Krsna) Hiranyagarbha(Krsna) Hiranyagarbha( Krsna) Hare Hare...

[primate]

 

I see Hiranyagarbha as the outermost reality, that everything is within it and nothing outside of it, of course if the Soul of Hiranyagarbha has a different name, that may be. I see that all beings come from Hiranyagarbha before entering any of the universes.

...

 

Yes, this is also the conclusion of a (deterministic) chaos theory of reality. Ultimately the oscillation of a singular formless conscious point (or entity) is all that exists; the sum total of all consciousness. In the model, this is God.

 

Although that may sound like impersonalism, form and structure exist in phase-projections of the oscillation, as sub-sets of this original consciousness. The outermost form (like the Mandelbrot Set) is the supreme form of God, which must be a person.

 

A chaos theory explains why this supreme form of God must be a person. This is simply because we ourselves are persons. Structure in chaotic phase-projections has a 'fractal geometry', which means that it is 'hierarchical and self-similar', which means that similar structures exist within similar structures, within similar structures, infinitely. So, if humans are parts of the absolute whole, then the absolute whole must be similar to us: a conscious person. Thus, God is a person.

 

Finally, it’s obvious that in this model everything is simultaneously one with God and different from God. We are projections, or different conscious sub-sets, of this singular original (and personal) total consciousness: God..

[primate]

<center><br />

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />

</center><br /><br /><br />

[primate]

The only question I think about is: why? Why are we here? For what purpose..?

[Guest Melvin1]

 

The only question I think about is: why? Why are we here? For what purpose..?

 

We are here because we still have to pay for the karmic debt we made from the past. To redeem this debt, we have to pay it back with good deeds in the present. Thus, in the future, it`s assured we will never come back to this material world ( prison) again. This is simply an example of how determinism works.

[primate]

 

We are here because we still have to pay for the karmic debt we made from the past. To redeem this debt, we have to pay it back with good deeds in the present. Thus, in the future, it`s assured we will never come back to this material world ( prison) again. This is simply an example of how determinism works.

If reality is strictly deterministic, then we cannot have free will. Everything would be eternally predetermined. Karma would be a meaningless concept, because we do not have any control or choice in our life. We would be just this conscious experience. Now what can be the purpose of that?

 

If, on the other hand, reality is more subtle than chaos and not strictly deterministic, then we may have free will. But this must ultimately be God’s free will, because we are a part of God and we are one with God. We are God’s conscious experience of us and our Karma is God’s Karma. Now what can be the purpose of that?

 

If God is the ultimate controller of everything we consciously experience, this must be some form of education or training, and individual free will is part of the illusion of material life. So what can be the purpose of that? Is God educating Himself?

 

You see, if God has any purpose for us, why doesn’t He just cut the crap and get on with it?