The play of creation

[theist]

 

Quote:

The material (therefore not perfect but in this case nearly) example is the sun and the sunshine. Even though they both exist simultaneously still no one would argue the fact that the sun is the cause of the sunshine.

Indeed, the Sun and its rays are not a good example, because the Sun’s nuclear reactions are clearly the cause of its rays. They don’t exist simultaneously.

 

Clearly from my quote above I anticipated your response would be to quibble with the example, which you did anyway despite my attempt to it by acknowledging the fault in the example. Every material analogy is imperfect when attempting to illustrate a spiritual reality. Indeed all human language and thought fails.

 

Ever hear Lao Tzu's famous saying, "Don't mistake my finger for the moon"?

 

When someone is pointing you to the Moon don't stare at the finger, look at the moon.

 

But seriously I have nothing beyond the few points I have given already to say. If I see something I will add it.

 

Please do not think there is any bad feelings in this. I enjoy our exchanges and look forward to more.

 

Hare Krishna

[primate]

 

So it means that sun causes sunshine since nuclear reactions are of the sun and not the sunshine.And how can yoy say that the sunshine is not there when the sun is there.

I mean that the nuclear reactions within the Sun’s core and the resultant radiation do not exist simultaneously in time. Although the Sun and its sunshine (or a star and its starlight) appear to exist simultaneously, they are always separated in time.

 

Whenever there exists such a causal relationship between two events, this cannot be used as an example of the relation between Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, because these are three simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth, as per Prabhupada..

[sant]

 

Although the Sun and its sunshine (or a star and its starlight) appear to exist simultaneously, they are always separated in time.

 

IS this just a theory or can you provide some source from where you said it.

And i thought the sunshine was emitted by lord surya.

[primate]

 

Clearly from my quote above I anticipated your response would be to quibble with the example, which you did anyway despite my attempt to it by acknowledging the fault in the example. Every material analogy is imperfect when attempting to illustrate a spiritual reality. Indeed all human language and thought fails.

 

Ever hear Lao Tzu's famous saying, "Don't mistake my finger for the moon"?

 

When someone is pointing you to the Moon don't stare at the finger, look at the moon.

 

But seriously I have nothing beyond the few points I have given already to say. If I see something I will add it.

 

Please do not think there is any bad feelings in this. I enjoy our exchanges and look forward to more.

 

Hare Krishna

That's okay Theist. No bad feelings here either. Sorry for the unnecessary remark on the sunshine metaphor.

[primate]

 

IS this just a theory or can you provide some source from where you said it.

And i thought the sunshine was emitted by lord surya.

Didn't you know that when you look at the stars, you are actually looking at the stars as they existed millions of (light)years in the past. Some of the stars we can still see today, may not even exist anymore..

[sant]

 

Didn't you know that when you look at the stars, you are actually looking at the stars as they existed millions of (light)years in the past. Some of the stars we can still see today, may not even exist anymore..

 

Take an example.Go to a room and light a matchstick.You can see even when the flame has just lighted from the time it it is small and till it becomes big(all which hapens fast) it emits light.So you can think about the sun.

[theist]

But either way primate you are missing the point which is the timeless, seemless existence of Krishna and His aura the Brahman effulgence with Krishna as the basis of that Brahman.

 

Focus on the Moon bro. and forget the finger!

[kaisersose]

 

Take an example.Go to a room and light a matchstick.You can see even when the flame has just lighted from the time it it is small and till it becomes big(all which hapens fast) it emits light.So you can think about the sun.

 

Elementary science refresher,

 

Light requires time to travel. The distance between the sun and the earth is long enough for light to take a significant time to reach earth. 8.3 minutes, actually. Your matchstick/room example is a bad one.

 

The distance between the sun and the earth was speculated for a long time, until it was accurately determined during the 14th century AD.

 

Cheers

[sant]

 

Elementary science refresher,

 

Light requires time to travel. The distance between the sun and the earth is long enough for light to take a significant time to reach earth. 8.3 minutes, actually.

 

Your matchstick/room example is a bad one.

 

Cheers

 

Wait dr kaiserose.IT doesnt mean taht the light is not there when the sun is there.It only takes time to reach us but it doent mean that the sun exists without emitting light.

[primate]

 

Wait dr kaiserose.IT doesnt mean taht the light is not there when the sun is there.It only takes time to reach us but it doent mean that the sun exists without emitting light.

The point is, that there is an action-reaction-like relation between a light source and the light it emits. In your example of a mach, first the sulphur and phosphor in the tip of the match must ignite, and only after that the match starts to emit light. So the match is the cause of the light.

 

Now, in the case of Krishna and Brahman, neither is the cause of the other. They simply exist simultaneously. They are different aspects of the same causeless Absolute Truth..

[sant]

 

The point is, that there is an action-reaction-like relation between a light source and the light it emits. In your example of a mach, first the sulphur and phosphor in the tip of the match must ignite, and only after that the match starts to emit light. So the match is the cause of the light.

Yes but my point was that the flame is cause of light.Wherever the sun is it will emit light simultaneously.

[gHari]

The Brahman is an attribute of Krsna's.

[primate]

 

Yes but my point was that the flame is cause of light.Wherever the sun is it will emit light simultaneously.

Yes, but that's not relevant for the discussion. We are looking here for simultaneously (non-causally) correlated events..

[sant]

 

Yes, but that's not relevant for the discussion. We are looking here for simultaneously (non-causally) correlated events..

 

You just said that sun and sunlight dont exist simultaneously.

But wherever there is sun there is sunlight.

[primate]

 

You just said that sun and sunlight dont exist simultaneously.

But wherever there is sun there is sunlight.

I didn't say that!

[primate]

 

The Brahman is an attribute of Krsna's.

Yes, I think that is a much better statement than "Krishna is the basis (or source) of Brahman"..

[primate]

 

But either way primate you are missing the point which is the timeless, seemless existence of Krishna and His aura the Brahman effulgence with Krishna as the basis of that Brahman.

 

Focus on the Moon bro. and forget the finger!

 

Sri Isopanishad 15

 

hiranmayena patrena

satyasyapihitam mukham

tat tvam pushann apavrinu

satya-dharmaya drishtaye

 

SYNONYMS

 

hiranmayena -- by a golden effulgence; patrena -- by a dazzling covering; satyasya -- of the Supreme Truth; apihitam -- covered; mukham -- the face; tat -- that covering; tvam -- Yourself; pushan -- O sustainer; apavrinu -- kindly remove; satya -- pure; dharmaya -- unto the devotee; drishtaye -- for exhibiting.

 

TRANSLATION

 

O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee.

 

PURPORT

 

In the Bhagavad-gita (14.27), the Lord explains His personal rays (brahmajyoti), the dazzling effulgence of His personal form, in this way:

 

brahmano hi pratishthaham

amritasyavyayasya ca

sasvatasya ca dharmasya

sukhasyaikantikasya ca

 

"I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness." Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are three aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Brahman is the aspect most easily perceived by the beginner; Paramatma, the Supersoul, is realized by those who have further progressed; and Bhagavan realization is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad-gita (7.7), where Lord Krishna says that He is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth: mattah parataram nanyat. Therefore Krishna is the source of the brahmajyoti as well as the all-pervading Paramatma.

 

...

 

Here Prabhupada says: "Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are three aspects of the same Absolute Truth". So, there is only One Absolute Truth, although it has different aspects, which can be known separately, in different stages of Krishna Consciousness.

 

"Krishna is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth: mattah parataram nanyat". In my understanding, this means that Krishna is the complete concept of the Absolute Truth. So far so good. But Prabhupada also states: "Krishna is 'the source' of the brahmajyoti as well as the all-pervading Paramatma", and "Krishna is 'the basis' of Brahman". Both these 'finger pointings' can be misunderstood as: Krishna is 'the cause' of Brahman, as a result of their temporal connotation..

[chandu_69]

 

"Krishna is 'the basis' of Brahman". Both these 'finger pointings' can be misunderstood as: Krishna is 'the cause' of Brahman, as a result of their temporal connotation..

 

Yes, some real confusion there.

My take on this

 

Krishna is a manifestation as told by him in GITA.

BG 7.24: Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

 

So krishna is the Manifestation of god on earth..Krishna is not the source.

[Sephiroth]

 

Yes, some real confusion there.

My take on this

 

Krishna is a manifestation as told by him in GITA.

BG 7.24: Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

 

So krishna is the Manifestation of god on earth..Krishna is not the source.

 

Nope, Sri Krishna is not the Source. He is merely an extension of the Source - a Personal Brahman which Humans can relate to.

 

Remember when Sri Krishna revealed His Vishnuroopa, everyone bowed down and pray for Him to STOP because of the incredible form which He have shown. Which means that God cannot reveal Himself to Man in His true form or we all have heart attacks instead of pray.

[sant]

 

do not exist simultaneously in time. Although the Sun and its sunshine (or a star and its starlight) appear to exist simultaneously, they are always separated in time.

 

[gHari]

 

Nope, Sri Krishna is not the Source. He is merely an extension of the Source - a Personal Brahman which Humans can relate to.

 

Remember when Sri Krishna revealed His Vishnuroopa, everyone bowed down and pray for Him to STOP because of the incredible form which He have shown. Which means that God cannot reveal Himself to Man in His true form or we all have heart attacks instead of pray.

This is the essence of the error.

 

Krsna is.

 

He has no source. He just Is.

 

One of His attributes is the Brahman.

 

This is how it is.

 

Krsna can be seen. But not with these material eyes.

 

This is how it is.

[primate]

 

 

 

Okay Sant, the statement is not entirely correct or unambiguous. I think I already explained it, but here goes one more time, because I think it’s quite relevant.

 

The sun and the sunlight, are often used to illustrate the relation between Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead and His effulgence the Brahman. The idea is that even though the sun and the sunlight exist simultaneously, the sun is the source of the sunlight. So, even though Krishna and the Brahman effulgence exist simultaneously, Krishna is the supreme principle of reality.

 

There is, however, a problem with this sun-metaphor. The sunlight is spatially separate from the sun. Nuclear fusion reactions in the sun’s core produce heat and ultimately photons (and other types of radiation), which are emitted by the sun and travel away from the sun at the speed of light. When these photons reach Earth (after 8.3 minutes), we see this as the sun and its sunlight. However, what we actually see are just these photons, from which we conclude that there must exist a sun in the sky.

 

Now, as you know, God is all pervasive, and Krishna and His Brahman effulgence are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. This means that, contrary to the sun and the sunlight, they are not spatially separate entities. Furthermore, they are also not separated in time, because they exist simultaneously. Importantly, this means that one cannot be 'the cause' of the other.

 

For example, a nuclear fusion reaction in the sun’s core between two atoms of hydrogen - that combine to create helium and energy, which is ultimately emitted as photons - can be said to be 'the cause' of the emitted photons. Cause and effect are not simultaneous. A cause precedes its effect. So, cause and effect (or action and reaction, if you like) are always separated events in time. Simultaneous events or phenomena, on the other hand, are events that occur at exactly the same point in time. There cannot exist a causal relation between any two simultaneous events or phenomena. one event cannot be 'the cause' of another simultaneous event.

 

In fact, we know of only one type of correlated events in our material reality that occur simultaneously. These are so called 'entangled' quantum events. When, for example, the 'spin' (or another property) of one of two entangled quantum particles is changed, the spin of the other particle changes accordingly and instantaneously, no matter how large the distance between them. Einstein called this 'spooky action at a distance'. Any other physical or material events or phenomena that we know of (including sunlight), always seem to occur as the result of a causal (action-reaction-like, non-simultaneous) relation with other material events..

[theist]

Since he was mentioned in the opening post to this thread let me quote Eckhart Tolle who said "Analyzing the pointer is pointless."

 

 

The nun Wu Jincang asked the Sixth Patriach Huineng, "I have studied the Mahaparinirvana sutra for many years, yet there are many areas i do not quite understand. Please enlighten me."

 

The patriach responded, "I am illiterate. Please read out the characters to me and perhaps I will be able to explain the meaning."

 

Said the nun, "You cannot even recognize the characters. How are you able then to understand the meaning?"

 

"Truth has nothing to do with words. Truth can be likened to the bright moon in the sky. Words, in this case, can be likened to a finger. The finger can point to the moon’s location. However, the finger is not the moon. To look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger, right?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[primate]

 

Since he was mentioned in the opening post to this thread let me quote Eckhart Tolle who said "Analyzing the pointer is pointless."

...

 

I agree. But the more exact a pointer points to what it is intended to point to, the better. If a pointer is exactly on target, we only need to follow its direction to find the target. If, on the other hand, a pointer is not exactly on target, we may have to search a whole region that is approximately pointed to, in order to find the intended target. Especially when the medium of words and language is used inexactly as a pointer, there is the risk that you will find something completely different from what was originally intended, simply because it seems closest to the meaning of the words.

 

1) "Krishna is the source of Brahman"

Due to the causal or temporal connotation of the word 'source', this can’t be correct, although it just might have been intended to indicate the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman.

 

2) "Krishna is the basis of Brahman"

This is better. It could mean that Krishna is a more basic aspect or principle of the Absolute Truth than Brahman. However, it also appears to mean that Brahman is derived from Krishna, or that Brahman is based on Krishna. Therefore, again, due to the causal/temporal undertone, this can’t be exactly correct; although, again, it might just have been the intention to indicate the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman.

 

3) "Brahman is an attribute of Krishna"

This seems to be much better. There is no causality involved. No temporal assumption at all. Brahman simply is an attribute of Krishna, and both are aspects of the same Absolute Truth. It also complies with 1) and 2), by indicating the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman.

 

4) "Krishna is an attribute of Brahman"

This states the opposite of 3), and it is very far removed from 1) and 2), because it doesn’t indicate the supremacy of Krishna over Brahman. Therefore, it's unlikely to be correct.

[Sephiroth]

 

This is the essence of the error.

 

Krsna is.

He has no source. He just Is.

One of His attributes is the Brahman.

This is how it is.

Krsna can be seen. But not with these material eyes.

This is how it is.

 

You know how you sound like? Like a Christian who says the same thing about Jesus.

 

Don't be absurd, OK? Think logically. Hindus are much more clever than Christians to be believing that God exists as a human being (as His ultimate form).

 

God is formless and shapeless - He is either Man or Woman nor Beast. He is without beginning and an End. All this is His essence as stated by the Gita. So how is it that God could be Sri Krishna who came to be by being born as a human and meet His physical end as a Human?

 

You are making the same mistake as Christians does with their Jesus. They cannot see past Jesus to the Higher Being (which is God) and kept their mind closed toward the form of Jesus. You are doing the same thing with Sri Krishna.