The play of creation

[theist]

 

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.

You say you agree but you don't really. You still want to analysis the pointer. You still don't get it.

 

Notice the Hotei in the picture. He is not pointing exactly to the moon yet we know what he is pointing to. Perhaps he had a crooked cane in his hand and the end of the cane pointed downward and he used the cane to indicate what what was meant? Only a silly person would think he was pointing to the ground.

 

You don't like the example because it is effective in showing Krishna as the basis of the Brahman as the Sun globe is the basis of the sunshine.

 

Your nit-picking of if there is a split nano second separating the sun's emitting light and the appearance of light is the best example of this silliness I have ever seen.

 

There will always be some defincientcy in human language and thought in describing the absolute. That is the idea behind the term transcendental.

[primate]

 

You say you agree but you don't really. You still want to analysis the pointer. You still don't get it.

 

...

 

No. I’m not just analysing the pointer. I’m also reformulating the pointer in more exact terms, possibly directing it more precisely to its target. My 'causality argument' is a very important consideration in this reformulation, even though we are talking about "nano-seconds". Events are simultaneous or not. And that’s absolute.

 

What I would like you to comment on, is the result of the effort. Does one state something completely wrong when one says: "Brahman is an attribute of Krishna"..?

[sant]

 

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?

Krishna never says that he is fromless.God is formless as well as with form.Both.Why cant be god with form ,youre are again limiting him by your views.

[theist]

 

No. I’m not just analysing the pointer. I’m also reformulating the pointer in more exact terms, possibly directing it more precisely to its target. My 'causality argument' is a very important consideration in this reformulation, even though we are talking about "nano-seconds". Events are simultaneous or not. And that’s absolute.

 

What I would like you to comment on, is the result of the effort. Does one state something completely wrong when one says: "Brahman is an attribute of Krishna"..?

 

Sigh..... Forget about it.

[sant]

 

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.

 

You mean there is no sun?

[primate]

 

Which is worse, one who openly opposes the conclusion of krishna's devotee or the one who pretends to be a disciple of said devotee while openly and publically opposing his conclusions?

 

Theist, I hope you can understand that I don’t think I’m opposing Prabhupada’s conclusions. Possibly I’m opposing the English transliteration of one of his ideas. If, however, I am opposing his conclusions, then can you please explain this to me?

[primate]

 

You mean there is no sun?

No. We just can't be sure that there is a sun. But don't worry, it's very likely that the sun exists..

[theist]

 

Theist, I hope you can understand that I don’t think I’m opposing Prabhupada’s conclusions. Possibly I’m opposing the English transliteration of one of his ideas. If, however, I am opposing his conclusions, then can you please explain this to me?

 

That is what I have been trying to do and the explanation is right there in the form of the Sun and the sunshine. That is not my example by the way. I heard it first from Prabhupada but it goes back as far as the vedas.

 

Drop the idea of time altogether. Speaking of time means you are still analysizing the finger.Look at the moon only. Or in this case the eternal sun, Krishna.

 

Krishna does not come from the brahman any more than the sun globe comes from the sunshine. The brahman comes from Krishna just like the sunshine comes from Krishna.

 

The same for each one of us individually. We come from Krishna. Krishna does not come from us. Our existence is based on Krishna. If Krishna suddenly disappeared so would we and everything else but if we disappeared Krishna would still remain complete unto Himself.

 

There is no perfect example we can use when describing krishna because there is nothing else equal to Him or like Him.

 

I don't expect you to just believe what I am saying I am only asking you to understand that the Vaisnava perepective is different from the mayavada interpretation which you are speaking rather you know it or not. They are very different and it is not what Prabhupada is saying.

 

Remain objective and neutral and decide which way you want to go from that position.

[Sephiroth]

 

Krishna never says that he is fromless.God is formless as well as with form.Both.Why cant be god with form ,youre are again limiting him by your views.

 

Actually, it is you who are "limiting" God by putting Him in form of Sri Krishna.

 

I'm not saying Sri Krishna is not (the Avatar of) God, I merely saying, don't think that Sri Krishna's form is the only form. This is the same attitude Christians has about their Jesus (that he is the only way) and this is why Christianity IS DYING. You want to kill Hindusm with your close-minded approach?

 

To me, Sri krishna is not the only form. I also see Sri Rama in the same way as I see Sri Krishna. The same way I see Narashima, and the Kurma Avatar and all other Avatars of Maha Vishnu. There is no difference to me on which form He comes.

[gHari]

 

Actually, it is you who are "limiting" God by putting Him in form of Sri Krishna.

 

I'm not saying Sri Krishna is not (the Avatar of) God, I merely saying, don't think that Sri Krishna's form is the only form. This is the same attitude Christians has about their Jesus (that he is the only way) and this is why Christianity IS DYING. You want to kill Hindusm with your close-minded approach?

 

To me, Sri krishna is not the only form. I also see Sri Rama in the same way as I see Sri Krishna. The same way I see Narashima, and the Kurma Avatar and all other Avatars of Maha Vishnu. There is no difference to me on which form He comes.

You are talking about the lila incarnation, Prince of Dvaraka, Lord Krishna. We are speaking about Bhagavan Svayam Sri Krsna who is described in the Srimad-Bhagavatam as the source of all incarnations - http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en.

 

From this verse we can see that as you say, Lord Krishna and Lord Rama are both the same Sri Krsna, God. Sri Krsna appears in His original form as Lord Krishna or as His primary expansion form of Balarama or as Lord Nrsimha or Vamana, Varaha, Kurma, Matsya, ad infinitum - depending on His desire and purpose and His own sweet will.

[Amlesh]

For me also... I cannot see any difference between Sri Ram and Sri Krishna and the rest of the Avataras.

 

All are equally auspicious.

[Sephiroth]

 

For me also... I cannot see any difference between Sri Ram and Sri Krishna and the rest of the Avataras.

 

All are equally auspicious.

 

Then why is it that people could take Sri Krishna to be a Supreme God over other Avatars?

 

I think those who does this are missing the very important lesson Maha Vishnu is trying to teach them. No matter how many avatars He took, He is the same. Those avatars are merely "Forms" which He needs to accomplish the tasks.

 

Same way, no matter how many times we are born, die and reborn again, we are the same regardless of our physical differences. We could have been born as animals, plants or humans of various races. But the Soul remains the same - unchanged and eternal. No one life or form in any one life is more important than another.

 

This is what differentiate Christians from Hindus. Christians stuck with Jesus. They cannot think outside the "Jesus Box". Hindus should not be stuck in the same "box" as well.

[sant]

 

Actually, it is you who are "limiting" God by putting Him in form of Sri Krishna.

 

I'm not saying Sri Krishna is not (the Avatar of) God, I merely saying, don't think that Sri Krishna's form is the only form. This is the same attitude Christians has about their Jesus (that he is the only way) and this is why Christianity IS DYING. You want to kill Hindusm with your close-minded approach?

 

To me, Sri krishna is not the only form. I also see Sri Rama in the same way as I see Sri Krishna. The same way I see Narashima, and the Kurma Avatar and all other Avatars of Maha Vishnu. There is no difference to me on which form He comes.

 

SHri krishna is the original and most beautiful form of god.

He is the source of incarnations.Stop your christian example.IT doesnt come here.Im not saying that sri krishna is the only form of god..Please dont come with your short sighted views and come after some reading.

NO ones killing hinduism here.Nobody is denying god is formless.

[gHari]

 

Then why is it that people could take Sri Krishna to be a Supreme God over other Avatars?

 

I think those who does this are missing the very important lesson Maha Vishnu is trying to teach them. No matter how many avatars He took, He is the same. Those avatars are merely "Forms" which He needs to accomplish the tasks.

 

Same way, no matter how many times we are born, die and reborn again, we are the same regardless of our physical differences. We could have been born as animals, plants or humans of various races. But the Soul remains the same - unchanged and eternal. No one life or form in any one life is more important than another.

 

This is what differentiate Christians from Hindus. Christians stuck with Jesus. They cannot think outside the "Jesus Box". Hindus should not be stuck in the same "box" as well.

http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/28/en

[primate]

 

That is what I have been trying to do and the explanation is right there in the form of the Sun and the sunshine. That is not my example by the way. I heard it first from Prabhupada but it goes back as far as the vedas.

 

Drop the idea of time altogether. Speaking of time means you are still analysizing the finger.Look at the moon only. Or in this case the eternal sun, Krishna.

...

 

Yes. Forget about time. That’s what I was trying to say all along. After all, time only has meaning in a material context. Even though our material consciousness is ultimately a function of God’s creative energy, I don’t think God can be understood in material terms. Causality and the irreversible passage of time, are material illusions, resulting from Maya, which hides the Absolute Truth from our human consciousness. I think, therefore, that any conception or formal description of the Absolute Truth that doesn’t depend on such material concepts, is to be preferred over a description that does. Now, allow me to (again) consider the following quotes from Prabhupada:

 

 

"Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are three aspects of the same Absolute Truth" (Purport of Sri Isopanishad 15)

 

This concept of the Absolute Truth doesn’t involve time or any other material reference. Here Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, clearly are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth. Therefore, I could accept this as a true statement about the Absolute Truth.

 

Please notice, that in the next quote, the translation of the original Sanskrit verse must actually be: “… there is no truth superior to Me. Everything is strung in Me, like pearls on a thread”; and it is obviously not: “... there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread”!

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 7.7

 

mattah parataram nanyat

kincid asti dhananjaya

mayi sarvam idam protam

sutre mani-gana iva

 

SYNONYMS

 

mattah -- beyond Me; para-taram -- superior; na -- not; anyat kincit -- anything else; asti -- there is; dhananjaya -- O conqueror of wealth; mayi -- in Me; sarvam -- all that be; idam -- which we see; protam -- is strung; sutre -- on a thread; mani-ganah -- pearls; iva -- like.

 

TRANSLATION

 

O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

 

PURPORT

… one concludes that the Supreme Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervading by His multi-energies, both material and spiritual.

 

This verse can once more be understood as a concept of the Absolute Truth that doesn’t involve time or causality; although ‘pearls strung on a thread’ is a ‘material’ example, it simply appears to illustrate the all pervasiveness of God, which is confirmed by Prabhupada’s purport: “... the Supreme Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervading by His multi-energies, both material and spiritual”.

 

This is even further explained by Prabhupada in the next quote:

 

 

"Krishna is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth: mattah parataram nanyat" (Purport of Sri Isopanihad 15, refering to BG 7.7)

 

And once more, there is no temporal or causal implication here. Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervasive, is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth. And that is that.

 

Now, you might ask, then what exactly is the Brahman aspect of the Absolute Truth, that was mentioned in the first quote? This is explained by Prabhupada in his Purport of BG 4.24 as follows:

 

"... The word brahma (Brahman) means "spiritual." The Lord is spiritual, and the rays of His transcendental body are called brahmajyoti, His spiritual effulgence. Everything that exists is situated in that brahmajyoti, but when the jyoti is covered by illusion (maya) or sense gratification, it is called material. This material veil can be removed at once by Krishna consciousness; thus the offering for the sake of Krishna consciousness, the consuming agent of such an offering or contribution, the process of consumption, the contributor, and the result are -- all combined together -- Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth covered by maya is called matter. Matter dovetailed for the cause of the Absolute Truth regains its spiritual quality. Krishna consciousness is the process of converting the illusory consciousness into Brahman, or the Supreme. When the mind is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness, it is said to be in samadhi, or trance. Anything done in such transcendental consciousness is called yajna, or sacrifice for the Absolute. In that condition of spiritual consciousness, the contributor, the contribution, the consumption, the performer or leader of the performance, and the result or ultimate gain -- everything -- becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman. That is the method of Krishna consciousness."

 

Again, the Absolute Truth remains non-causal. There is no mentioning of any action-reaction-like relation between Krishna and Brahman. Instead, it is stated that when the covering of Maya or material illusion is removed, everything is one in Brahman, or the Absolute Truth.

 

My personal conclusion from the above quotations, is that Brahman is the aspect of oneness -, and Krishna is the aspect of all-pervasiveness of the same Absolute Truth. However, Krishna is the ultimate (most complete) concept of the Absolute Truth, because all-pervasiveness (logically) implies oneness. I don’t see any other possible interpretation, and I think it is consistent and acceptable.

 

Consequently, I am mystified when Prabhupada translates ‘brahmano hi pratishthaham’ in BG 14.27 as: “Krishna is the basis (or source) of Brahman”. According to my earlier conclusion, he actually says: ‘all-pervasiveness’ is the basis of ‘oneness’! This doesn’t seem to make sense at all. Apart from the implied causal relation between Krishna and Brahman (which can’t be true), I don’t see how all-pervasiveness can be the basis of oneness. Especially not, when in Krishna Consciousness everything (material) dissolves into oneness or Brahman, as per Prabhupada in his Purport of BG 4.24. I therefore assume that the meaning of the original Sanskrit verse must be something like: “Krishna is the manifestation of Brahman”. But I can’t be sure..

 

I would very much appreciate it if you (or anyone else) could explain this, or point out the error in my argument. I hope you can see that I’m sincerely trying to understand Prabhupada’s teachings. This is not ‘nitpicking’, but really a fundamental question that I have.

 

At this point, however, I will just assume that the translation of the original Sanskrit verse of BG 14.27 is not correct. I don’t know if this is Prabhupada’s error or the error of one of his editors. In the Purport of BG 14.27, Prabhupada himself appears to confirm my point of view by stating: “both Paramatma and the impersonal Brahman are within the Supreme Person”. Since, per definition, the basis of something is more basic or fundamental or simple than what is based upon it, Krishna cannot be the basis of Brahman and Paramatma, because both are within him. For example, a house is build with bricks. The bricks are the basis of the house and not vice versa. And the bricks are within the house and not vice versa.

 

Finally, as I suggested earlier, the Sanskrit word ‘pratishtha’ in BG 14.27 doesn’t mean: ‘the basis’ or ‘the rest’; it means: ‘the manifestation’ or ‘to rest on’ or ‘to depend upon’:

 

Pratishtha pratistha (Sanskrit) [from prati-shtha to stand towards, stay from prati towards, upon, in the direction of + the verbal root shtha to stand]

 

Dwelling place, residence, receptacle; preeminence, superiority. In the Bhagavad-Gita Krishna refers to himself as a pratishtha of Brahman or parabrahman; an image or manifestation of parabrahman or a hypostasis or representation of the divine in the worlds of manifestation.

 

Thus the hierarch or manifested divinity in any world system is a pratishtha of the surrounding invisible life or Brahman, Brahman again being one of the infinitely numerous channels or pratishthas of parabrahman.

 

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Pratishtha_pratistha/id/135709

 

Also see:

 

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=apte3&query=pratiSThA&matchtype=exact&display=utf8

 

http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/

 

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 14.27

 

brahmano hi pratishthaham

amritasyavyayasya ca

sasvatasya ca dharmasya

sukhasyaikantikasya ca

 

SYNONYMS

 

brahmanah -- of the impersonal brahmajyoti; hi -- certainly; pratishtha -- the rest; aham -- I am; amritasya -- of the immortal; avyayasya -- of the imperishable; ca -- also; sasvatasya -- of the eternal; ca -- and; dharmasya -- of the constitutional position; sukhasya -- of happiness; aikantikasya -- ultimate; ca -- also.

 

TRANSLATION

 

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

 

PURPORT

 

The constitution of Brahman is immortality, imperishability, eternity, and happiness. Brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization. Paramatma, the Supersoul, is the middle, the second stage in transcendental realization, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth. Therefore, both Paramatma and the impersonal Brahman are within the Supreme Person.

…

 

[theist]

 

Yes. Forget about time. That’s what I was trying to say all along. After all, time only has meaning in a material context. Even though our material consciousness is ultimately a function of God’s creative energy, I don’t think God can be understood in material terms. Causality and the irreversible passage of time, are material illusions, resulting from Maya, which hides the Absolute Truth from our human consciousness.

 

You say you understood this all along yet you continued to nit pick over the unavoidable flaw in the example of the sun and sunshine. It is that nit picking that shows me you don't really understand this.

 

 

 

I think, therefore, that any conception or formal description of the Absolute Truth that doesn’t depend on such material concepts, is to be preferred over a description that does. Now, allow me to (again) consider the following quotes from Prabhupada:

 

Well until you address the point of the example of the sun and sunshine, also given by Prabhupada, I have no inclination to consider your examples. Sorry but first things first.

 

I offered this example to show how Krishna is the basis of the Brahman.

 

Please address this directly or please allow me to end this particular conversation.

 

Hare krishna

[primate]

 

You say you understood this all along yet you continued to nit pick over the unavoidable flaw in the example of the sun and sunshine. It is that nit picking that shows me you don't really understand this.

 

 

 

 

Well until you address the point of the example of the sun and sunshine, also given by Prabhupada, I have no inclination to consider your examples. Sorry but first things first.

 

I offered this example to show how Krishna is the basis of the Brahman.

 

Please address this directly or please allow me to end this particular conversation.

 

Hare krishna

Your answer makes me wonder.. Are you actually interested in the Truth? And if not, then what are you interested in?

[primate]

Deleted

[theist]

 

Your answer makes me wonder.. Are you actually interested in the Truth? And if not, then what are you interested in?

 

I am not interested in word games primate. I go to Prabhupada for the truth.

 

You still won't address the point. What is your problem.

[primate]

 

I am not interested in word games primate. I go to Prabhupada for the truth.

 

You still won't address the point. What is your problem.

What's the point? Really..?

[theist]

reread the thread

[primate]

 

reread the thread

I mean, what's your point?

[Sephiroth]

 

SHri krishna is the original and most beautiful form of god.

He is the source of incarnations.Stop your christian example.IT doesnt come here.Im not saying that sri krishna is the only form of god..Please dont come with your short sighted views and come after some reading.

NO ones killing hinduism here.Nobody is denying god is formless.

 

Yes, YOU ARE.

[Amlesh]

 

Then why is it that people could take Sri Krishna to be a Supreme God over other Avatars?

Maybe, many are still attached to the process that is leading to Self Realisation.

 

I think those who does this are missing the very important lesson Maha Vishnu is trying to teach them. No matter how many avatars He took, He is the same. Those avatars are merely "Forms" which He needs to accomplish the tasks.

 

Initially, many gets blinkered with the Form that the Lord first used to approach them to get them out of the dark well. But with time one will come to see that Ram is God, Krishna is God, God is Krishna, God is Rama.

None a lesser God.

He is one without a second, the same OLD absolute Truth.

 

 

Same way, no matter how many times we are born, die and reborn again, we are the same regardless of our physical differences. We could have been born as animals, plants or humans of various races. But the Soul remains the same - unchanged and eternal. No one life or form in any one life is more important than another.

 

For us the Jeevas YES.

 

Concerning the Bhagavan Himself, each form is tracendentally situated. Life after life, if we see it with our crooked eyes, HE has that same eternal Form.

And for us, it is different, it is always mutating, without our understanding but our Karma being the cause.

 

This is what differentiate Christians from Hindus. Christians stuck with Jesus. They cannot think outside the "Jesus Box". Hindus should not be stuck in the same "box" as well.

There is a difference though, but many of the Hindus, do have some of such misconceptions.

I was long time back like that. I sincerely hope, I've changed.

[sant]

 

Yes, YOU ARE.

Where?