Reply to Runt

[Paraprakrti]

PM only allows 5,000 characters and this only allows 10,000. Well, here goes my 97,000 sum-odd characters (lol)...

Sorry it took me so long to respond; I’m lazy…

It's ok. I have probably took longer. I didn't have internet access for 3 weeks. I'm on a naval ship and our system that provides internet is temporarily down. We just pulled into port the other day and so I can respond.

Before I get started responding directly to your comments—and my God, how many comments there are!—I would first like to explain some things and make some observations.

On The Concept of Nothingness:
Later in this response you will see that I refer to the All as an undivided and thus quality-free (lacking in characteristics or independent distinguishing features) Unity. Previously I was referring to this concept using the word “Nothingness”, and after reading your most recent comments I think I finally realize why you kept rejecting the concept. I was using a particular connotation of the word that is different than the one commonly in use. The everyday usage of the word “Nothingness” usually refers to a Void, so when I said that God is the Nothingness from which all things spring forth, you thought I was suggesting that Being springs forth from Non-being, from a Void. In actuality, the Taoist connotation of “Nothingness” I was really using is “unity lacking in defining characteristics or independent features” rather than “void”, “vacuum”, or “emptiness”. It is a subtle difference, but a significant one. Therefore in truth Being already exists, but because only humans look at the great, unified puddle of undifferentiated Being and divide it up into individual concepts that are useful to us, within our minds individual, defined elements of Being “spring forth” from the undefined and the indefinable, the lack of quality, the Unity that is God. As the Tao Te Ching states, “Naming is the origin of all particular things”, and we are the namers, the ones who purposely divide Being into separate things and apply words to each of the concepts we literally create. Outside of the mind nothing is “springing forth” from this “unified puddle of undifferentiated Being” (I really like that phrase; it is fun) because there are no divisions in the All, no independent things, nothing to “spring forth”.

Thank you for clarifying, but please explain to me how ‘undivided’ means ‘thus quality free’. In an absolute sense there may be no ‘divisions’, in the way I think you mean, but oneness does not rule out variegatedness. And variegatedness does not constitute a division of the Unity that is God. If I didn’t clarify this before, from the transcendental perspective, God and His energies are non-different from each other. Still, a distinction is made between living energy and non-living energy. This is Vedic philosophy, ‘Acintya bheda-bheda tattva’, Inconceivably one and many/different. So my position here consists of both oneness, as you have explained, and variegatedness simultaneously.

You wrote earlier:

And so I ask, how is it that infinity becomes divided? If the infinite whole is perfect in itself, then how does it become divided and fall subject to these imperfections?

I hope the above clears this up for you. The simplified answer: The All is divided by humans, but exists in its divided state only within our heads; outside of our perception, it is still united.

It depends on how you mean by “divided”. For example, I can understand that a pot made of earth and the earth itself are really non-different from each other. That is a gross analogy. But still, the distinction between the pot form and the earth is there. Although, in this material world (as I call it) no forms are ever-enduring. This is where we get into distinctions between the material energy and the spiritual. The spiritual energy, according to the Sastra, is eternally manifest in it’s forms.
Also, when I asked the above question I was referring to consciousness and/or intelligence in specific. How does the perfect, infinite whole consciousness/intelligence become divided into many and fall subject to material illusion? You seem to want to negate individual consciousness. But in doing so how can you account for it’s being? How can you say that there is only one undivided consciousness and still explain the variegated conscious living organisms who often times haven’t a single conception of the infinite whole?
Your premise that the All is divided by human minds brings about the question, how did the Infinite Mind of the All divide into variegated human (as well as other living organism) minds in the first place? That is really the bottom line debate here.

Anyway, for your convenience I will no longer use the term “Nothingness” but rather the just now invented phrase “characteristic-free Unity” to refer to this concept of the unified, undivided All, which is indeed a Something, and not an Emptiness or Void as the word “Nothingness” was implying to you.

Coming from a mental speculative platform we should understand that no human conception can fully describe the transcendental characteristics of God. If this is what you mean when you say “characteristic-free unity”, then I agree. But, all in all, it would be only due to a shortcoming of perception to conclude that the Supreme Absolute Truth is devoid of characteristics. That reminds me of some story where, I believe, a fox or a wolf is trying to reach some fruit on the branch of a tree but fails to do so. Therefore he decides, “Never mind, I didn’t want the fruit anyway.” Jumping to a conclusion out of despair.
Personally, I accept that such characteristics of God exist, but that the most confidential of them cannot be known to us by the ascending endeavor of attaining knowledge as done by empiric philosophers and modern science. Therefore I will tend to refer to Sastra (Scripture) in explaining things beyond the reaches of gross and subtle material perception. Still, knowing what those specific characteristics are is not the debate here. The debate is whether they exist. The philosophy behind why they exist (whatever they may be, specifically) is explained in how this relative world of quality is but a perverted reflection of the absolute world. As my guru would say, “wherefrom have these forms originated?” negating the idea of form coming out of non-form. The same line of reasoning could be used with “quality” rather than “form”. Actually, in the Vedas it is explained that God is both impersonal and Personal, formless and with form. Although God is one, the most confidential of knowledge consists of God as the Supreme Person with a transcendental form. Emanating from His transcendental body is the impersonal brahmajyoti. So both conceptions of personal and impersonal make up the complete truth. In a logical sense it fits very nicely and in a religious sense it is authorized by what is claimed to be by many personalities in the disciple line as God-word.

On Spiritual Energy And Material Energy:
We have been going back and forth about the concept of spiritual vs material energy. Much of the disagreement, I understand now, came from a lack of understanding on your part arising from a bad choice of terms on my part. I will try to clarify now.

Previously I stated that I believe that material energy is sufficient to describe the workings of the universe. You disagreed on the basis that the All is not just physical; it is spiritual as well. Thus, you defined two kinds of energy; material and spiritual. I disagreed, saying that I believed these terms “spiritual” and “material” refer to the same thing, that spiritual energy and material energy are different terms describing the same thing.

Yes, as I explained above, from the transcendental perspective God’s energies are one with God. Therefore, the advanced sage sees all things equally spiritual because he/she sees all things in relation to God. That is actually what is meant by spiritual. Although, for philosophical purposes I will refer to spiritual energy, being the living spark, as opposed to material energy, being the otherwise lifeless lump of matter. This is another good example of simultaneous oneness and difference.

I think this is where the misunderstanding occurred. It probably sounded like I was insisting that reality is only physical when I said that spiritual and material energy are the same thing. This is not true, but because of my choice of terms (namely my insistence on using the term “material energy” to describe this single force) you obviously could have come to no other conclusion. Hence the disagreement.

I feel that ultimately the disagreement is that you see one side as negating the other, whilst I see each side constituting one half of the whole truth. Perhaps I didn’t clarify myself in my last post, as well. From now on I would like to note that when I use the word “material”, it can mean either one of two things usually depending on it’s context:
1) Used in relation to the unchanging living spark (aka: spirit-soul), material refers to the temporary forms of this ever-changing manifestation.
2) Material simply means “forgetful of God”.

The exact opposite definitions can be given to the word “spiritual”:
1) Used in relation to the temporary forms of this ever-changing manifestation (aka: material universe), spiritual refers to the unchanging living spark that is responsible for animating any particular material body.
2) Spiritual simply means “in the service of God”.

 

[Paraprakrti]

It is still true that I believe the universe is composed of one, not two, types of energy. However, there are more similarities between my belief in one energy and your belief in two separate energies than there is between my belief in one energy and the scientific belief in one energy. This is because my belief is essentially that what is commonly regarded as “material energy” is more than just physical; it is spiritual as well. Basically I believe that this energy making up all living and nonliving things is more than what science understands it to be, but is one thing, not two, as you understand it to be.

One, yes. Different, as well. I hope my above explanation gives light to what I mean. I feel it is particularly imperative that a distinction be made, especially in the neophyte stages of transcendental understanding, between material and spiritual energy. The reason being is that the default ignorant position of the general population already equates all things as being purely material, with no regard to what you refer to as “more than just physical”. They have no concept of the soul apart from the body. Although all energies are one in God (or the Tao, per se), within that oneness is variegatedness.

Now, I have been calling this physical-spiritual energy “material energy” as a matter of convenience, but in all actuality should really be calling by its proper Taoist name: “chi”. From now on, I will use the correct term, “chi”, rather than the misleading term “material energy”.

Speaking in regards to the constitution of that one energy/chi, I will often require clarification as to which aspect you are referring to. We cannot equate the body with the soul. The body is born and will eventually die, while the living energy will take shelter in another place. Therefore, a distinction between matter and spirit is obvious, in this example at least.

Chi is the natural energy of the Universe. This energy is spiritual and physical in nature, and it permeates all things. It is the very source of our vitality, and the very source of the Universe. Without chi, there is nothing, because it is the underlying nature of Being itself. Creation and destruction, life and death, are basically the convergence and dispersal of chi. As Wang Chong said in the first century AD, “As water becomes ice, so chi produces life. As water freezes into ice, so chi unites to form life. When ice melts, it becomes water. When life extinguishes, it becomes chi again.”

Interesting. According to this line of reason, “chi” is spiritual energy (as I have explained above). What Wang Chong refers to as “life”, being produced, formed or extinguished, is nothing more than attributes of material form. Birth is not life, nor is death the extinguishing of life. Actually, I would equate the term “chi” with the term “life”, in this case. The life-chi (aka: spiritual-energy) causes the transformations of the body from birth to childhood, childhood to youth, youth to middle age, middle age to old age, and old age to death. It needs to be understood that the life-chi never becomes anything other than itself. “Life extinguishing” just means that the chi has departed from that particular indwelling. No such “extinguishing” exists but in the minds of those who are unaware of the transcendental fact.

Body, consciousness, life, non-life, God… everything in Being is composed of chi, which is homogenous. When you see this, you see that everything is One. Unified. Tao. Any divisions we believe exist are illusions created by our mind.

Then what is the value of saying that the chi produces, forms or extinguishes life, or anything at that matter, if all things are chi? Why would chi become life or life become chi if chi is life and life is chi? This is where I disagree with the Taoist presentation of the unified whole. This is called monism. That everything is simply ONE and no distinctions exist whatsoever.
Ok, for arguments sake, I will presume to accept that any divisions we believe exist are illusions created by our mind. Then what created the division of our “mind”? If our mind is one, then how has it become many? Or, how did the one mind fall under illusion? I have heard people reason that the “one mind” fell into illusion once it became many, but that it became many because it fell into illusion. Circular reasoning. I have yet to see any reconciliation.

On Material, Logical, And Intuitive “Proof”:
You wrote:

Nevertheless, you are exemplifying the seemingly infallible nature of man's servitude toward material sense-gratification. Most people think, directly or indirectly, "If it does not satisfy my senses it is not of my concern". Just as you consider that proof is subject to this line of thought.

Material proof, logical proof, and intuitive proof are the only means we have of judging whether or not something is true. Material and logical proof are ways of communicating to other people the truth of your beliefs, but intuition can only be used to prove something to yourself.

What you call intuition, I call past experience. Nevertheless, you are correct that proof by use of the material senses and the mental logic in themselves are imperfect. But logic can get you a long way. Logic goes beyond gross material sense perception. Just like, for example, the constitution of the soul can be understood logically, and yet, cannot be touched, seen, smelled, heard or tasted. And logic itself is only defeated by higher logic. At the point that logic is no longer applicable, there can be no further debate without making inquiry into Sastra. Of course, this does not mean that the Sastra is contrary to logic, it just means that some things are purely beyond our scope of speculation.

And all three forms of verification have their faults:

Material proof is based on faulty sensory perception and thus can lead one to incorrect conclusions. Example: I am walking through the woods and I think I see fairy flying through some leaves. I get excited and I tell my friends what I saw. They laugh at me and tell me to prove it by showing them the material proof. I take them to where I saw the “fairy”, only to discover that my eyes had deceived me and what I really saw was a butterfly. My faulty sensory perception tricked me.

Or, perhaps there are things you simply cannot see at all. Perhaps you did see a “fairy” but it, for some reason, left your scope of perception. Perhaps you are constantly surrounded by fairies. The imperfection of the five senses consists not only of things we see that are not really there, but also of things that are there that we are not seeing.

Logical proof is based on faulty sensory perception applied to the faulty word-based consciousness and thus can lead one to incorrect conclusions. Example: After months of practicing breaking practice boards in Tae Kwon Do, I finally believe I am ready to break a real board. I tell my Master I can break a real board, and he wants me to prove it logically. I tell him that I have successfully broken the hardest practice board, the black board, and that after holding the practice board in one hand and a real board in the other hand, I have come to the conclusion that because they feel about equal in weight and about equally hard, I should be able to break a real board. My Master tells me that my logic, based on faulty sensory information, is fallacious; I failed to notice that there is a weakness in the middle of the practice board that makes it easier to break, and thus the practice board and the real board are not equally easy to break.

Then upon further study, logic has told you that the weakness in the practice board makes it easier to break than the real board. This is simply logic defeating logic.
This is really just another example of imperfect gross material sense perception because at first you failed to perceive the weakness in the practice board.

Intuitive proof can also lead one to false conclusions, because although intuition alone can be far more reliable in revealing Truth than material or logical proof (because it bypasses imperfect sensory perfection and imperfect human reasoning entirely), when we try to gratify our intellect by explaining an intuitive experience through the application of reason, we can still arrive at false conclusions. For example, a Christian knows intuitively that God exists. However, they do not know God’s gender, so they reason that because they believe men to be better than women, God must therefore be male. Intellectual speculation corrupted the truth revealed by intuition.

What is “better”? Define “better”. And do Christians typically think this way? I think of “God the Father” in relation to “nature the mother”. God injects His seed into the womb of material nature thus giving birth to all living entities. The positions of male and female are different. “Better” is up to personal preference. Equating everything on a material level is absurd. For example, a woman must carry the child in her womb. A man does not. Point made…

 

[Paraprakrti]

Intuitive proof can also be faulty because we can mistake material or intellectual experiences for intuitive experiences. Example: I am unsure whether or not homosexuality is wrong, so I meditate upon it. As I am meditating, I suddenly get the feeling that homosexuality is not wrong. I think I have tapped into the static truth, but in reality I was so focused on my question that my mind was not truly free of word-based consciousness, and thus without my knowledge my intellect supplied an answer instead of my intuition.

This “intuition” is vague. Actually, there is a philosophy behind sex life, homo or hetero. Sex life is meant primarily for reproduction. The gratification is secondary. When it becomes primary is when the term “pervert” applies. Unfortunately, homosexuality is automatically condemned to being perverted due to its inability to reproduce offspring.

Therefore, not only are the conclusions gained by any of these proofs questionable because all three proofs have weaknesses, but the most valid form of knowing—intuition—can only be self-affirmed (for we are obviously not able to connect mind to mind and simply blast another person with an intuitive experience to show them that it is genuine). Therefore, in order to prove the validity of an intuitively discovered Truth to others who have not shared the intuitive experience with us, intuitive understanding must be translated into faulty, word-based logic and supplemented by material proof. Otherwise there is no substance backing our belief, and thus nothing that will allow others to know that that which you believe to be Truth really is Truth.

First of all, things can be known from authority as well. Just like one goes to school and learns from the authority of the instructor. Or one knows who one’s father is from the authority of their mother. This is how knowledge is passed down in disciple succession. Otherwise, we are ultimately left with mental speculation. We cannot rely on this so-called intuition. One person may intuitively conclude one thing and another person may intuitively conclude something else. And just like you have pointed out, there is no way to allow others to know your intuitions as truth. Nor will these “intuitions” necessarily be truth. Intuitions are based on experience and that doesn’t automatically guarantee an experience uncontaminated by material illusion.

So, to directly address your original comment: No matter how much you would like for me to agree with your belief, I cannot accept that your belief is Truth when I have not intuitively experienced this Truth myself. Therefore, in order to prove your stance, your only choices are material proof and logical proof. You have no material proof, and because logic is essentially based on material proof, you have no logical proof either. Thus, until I have an intuitive experience that proves to me without a doubt that you are right, or until you have an intuitive experience that proves to you without a doubt that YOU are wrong, you cannot seriously complain about my lack of belief and demand for proof. It is not the exemplification of “the seemingly infallible nature of man's servitude toward material sense-gratification”. It is simply the refusal to accept what thus far is untestable, seemingly illogical, and doesn’t ring as Truth with my gut instinct.

Understanding the existence of the soul is logical. Based on observation one can realize it’s existence. Consciousness is the symptom of the soul. Because one can consciously observe changes of the surrounding environment proves the existence of an unchanging standard. This is plain and obvious fact because *change cannot objectify change*. If the self was a product of change, being thus changing itself, then it would not have the ability, whatsoever, to note such changes. This is subtle material proof of the existence of the soul.
The idea that something needs to be seen, smelled, touched, heard or tasted in order to exist is, no offense, pathetic. That is why I referred to your “servitude toward material sense gratification”. As long as you insist things be displayed to the satisfaction of the senses you will be inhibiting your spiritual realization. You either serve God or you serve Maya (illusion). A Christian would say something similar; that one either serves God or serves Satan.

So far your belief has about as much backup as the claim that unicorns exist. They may. They may not. We have no indication of the Truth of the matter other than our intuition.

What belief is that, specifically? If you want to compare anything I “believe” to unicorns then go ahead, be specific. Also, even if we can’t agree that the Vedas are authoritive, at least understand that the teachings have been accepted by personalities dating back thousands of years. Not to mention that there are certain Vedic injunctions that have been proven more recently by modern science. For example, the Vedas say that cow dung is pure. It has been found that cow dung actually contains all anti-septic properties. This fact was in the Vedas for thousands of years, yet was only recently discovered by modern science. Beside all this, consider the characters of the personalities who accept and follow the Vedas. If you were to compare them to the general mass of people today it would be obvious who between the two groups should be considered more likely authoritive.

On The Problem Of Establishing “Truth” In This Debate:
You wrote:

If it is a question of either being in accordance or being in contradiction to science, then the Vedas are in accordance, as far as what can be tested in their humble laboratories.

Are you stating that Science is true while it affirms the Vedas, but if Science contradicts the Vedas, then the fault is with Science and not the Vedas? That if there is a contradiction between Science and the Vedas, it is because Science is simply unable to discover the static Truth which the Vedas contains, and not that the Vedas have a faulty perception of the static Truth?

Yes, absolutely.
There are four defects of common man:
1) Is sure to commit mistakes, 2) is invariably illusioned, 3) has the tendency to cheat others and 4) is limited by imperfect senses.
The Vedas don’t claim “we have performed experiments and come to such and such conclusions”, but yet, certain things have been spoken in the Vedas and recently proven by modern science. Other things have not been proven, but that is the defect of modern science. The Vedas may contradict science only where science is left in theory speculation. For example, theory of evolution, especially macroevolution; the idea that one species evolved from another species. That is not the Vedic version. But this evolution is not a proven fact, only an abstract theory attempting to take place of knowledge of the soul. Knowledge of the soul is perfect and without inconsistency, something that cannot be said for any of these scientific theories.

I hope not, because if that is the case, then why are we even having a debate? If you hold this as true, and are willing to use it as an argument against me, then it is clear that you will only accept arguments that affirm your beliefs while automatically rejecting anything contradicting your beliefs by retreating to the classic (but lame) argument that “logic simply has yet to catch up with the static Truth of my beliefs”. With this kind of stance, no matter how valid the argument contradicting your beliefs, you will never admit that the problem may lie in your beliefs rather than in the logic or material proof refuting them.

I never said logic has yet to catch up. “Modern science” is not interchangeable with “logic”. I understand that you and I don’t agree on what is authoritive or not. It doesn’t matter so much; I still continue to argue logic as I have been.

You said, “The more I have attempted to defeat Krishna’s philosophy, the more I am defeated.” Perhaps this is why… if you hold this point of view, science and logic can never be used to prove the Vedas wrong, only to prove them right.

This statement is past tense. I hold the point of view that I have yet to see Krishna’s philosophy defeated. Logic backs up Krishna’s philosophy. Any contrary concept from modern science is questionable and always proven uncertain, if not logically unacceptable.

Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps you do not believe this. But if you do… well, then please tell me, because I would prefer to back out now rather than waste a debate on someone who is going to automatically reject any argument that contradicts his beliefs until the only thing left at the end of the debate is the incessantly repeated statement, “My beliefs only appear false because science and human reasoning have not yet reached the point where you can validate them on the basis of scientific knowledge and logic”.

I have not rejected any argument simply because it disagrees with the Vedas. We are more or less arguing philosophy by logic. If you present something that I disagree with then I will address the logic behind it. I’m not going to ignore logic. Actually, if your position makes more sense then I will accept it. That is the dilemma, I cannot find anyone making more sense than Krsna. You're always welcome to try.

 

[Paraprakrti]

For now I am going to continue responding to your comments with the assumption that this is NOT your argument… but if you intend to retreat to that argument whenever you don’t like a logical or scientific refutation, then seriously tell me now, because that is no debate.

Like or dislike has nothing to do with it. I address logic with logic.

Where We Match Up Theologically And How We Differ Where We Match Up:

We are all constitutionally one with God, but our ignorance gives us the illusion otherwise.

…a constant state of flux is the illusion covering the unchanging reality.

God is indifferent, yet involved.

(However, I don’t believe involvement indicates Consciousness, whereas you suggested that Consciousness and Involvement are basically synonymous. I address this in depth further down.)

He is His creation, yet His creation is not Him.

(However, I think the only reason that the creation is not the creator is because the creation is literally separated from the creator by the mind. In the Eternal Tao, there are no individual creations. There is just the Tao. Therefore, in truth there is no separation between “me” and “you”, no separation between “me” and “my environment”, no separation between “me” and “God”. The “me” is an illusion that creates more illusions by choosing where to divide the Tao up into individual things.

Yes, ignorant minds create the illusion of separation from God. But, oneness with God does not mean that we merge into God’s existence. Oneness means we agree with God, that is all.
In truth there is a distinction between you and me. If the “me” is an illusion, then it’s conception of any “Tao” is an illusion, as well as it’s conception that it itself is an illusion.
Also, if the self is an illusion then this conversation has no value. That is really the bottom line.

So it is true that when I look at “me” as independent of God, I cannot say that I am God because I have identified myself as an entity independent of everything else and therefore I have separated myself from God. I must lose my Self to truly be able to say, “I am God”.

No. You are never God. That is Maya. You have already lost your self if you think you can become God. You are eternally subordinate to God.
You are energy of God. God and His energies are one in the same sense that the sun globe and the sunshine are one. Only a fool would mistake the sunshine as being the sun globe. They are distinct, although they cannot be separated. There is no meaning to sun globe without sunshine, and no meaning to sunshine without sun globe. You do not become the sun globe, sunshine particle. You be happy being part and parcel of the sun globe, otherwise, you be happy suffering the illusion that you are the sun globe.

First you explain to me how God has become false self, and then I’ll take your stance more seriously.

This is easy to say but not so easy to do. I am a practicing Taoist and even I find it difficult to lose my Self. It is easy to know that “I do not exist independently of God”, but not so easy to let go of the talking mind and actually feel this truth…)

That is correct. We do not exist independently of God. That doesn’t mean that we are equal to God in all respects. How can you feel this supposed truth if you are not omnipotent, omniscient and all pervading? These are qualities of God, you do not have them, and God does not ever lose them. Therefore, you cannot be God, EVER. God never becomes God; God is God FOREVER. God means eternal designation. Unless you are God now, you are God never. Nor does God lose realization of Himself. Both the Infinite and the infinitesimal exist. They are one just as the sun globe and the sunshine are one.
If the self is false, beside the question of how God has become false, explain to me the necessity for God to manifest anything false. Or is God false too? If so, then we’re heading back around to voidism.

Self/spiritual realization is a way of life, not merely a neat idea.

(Half of the “Tao Te Ching” is about this—the Taoist way of life rather than the Taoist view of life. It is basically a book of advice on spiritual living. I often find those lines more fulfilling than the ones purely about metaphysical philosophy, because they take the philosophy and apply it to daily spiritual life.)

The best way to live in complete negation of the self would be to cease living. Of course, the question remains, why do you “live” in the first place? If it is purely an illusion there is no reason for it to begin with. If the Tao negates reason as well, then there’s no reason to continue this discussion.

The soul is the same quality in spite of the outer covering it indwells.

(However, I also believe that the entire universe is the same quality in spite of the physical and conceptual attributes we apply to it in our minds. Soul, body, consciousness, ground, air… it is all chi, and blends together into one seamless whole (though quantum foam suggests that it does not blend evenly… one seamless but lumpy whole, you could say. The decision of where one lump begins and ends and what to call this lump is a decision we make, though. I could take the lump that is the totality of “my sister’s chi” and “my chi” as we are sitting next to each other on the couch, and call that… “Ruprak”… but I won’t because that is silly.)

Once again… One and different. I have explained the importance of understanding the distinctions between things, especially between the soul and the body. People are under the illusion that the body is the self. Out of this illusion people tend to focus on material sense gratification, which only leads to the suffering of the results of one’s work. There can be no spiritual living without knowledge of the soul. Spiritual living means knowing the self and knowing its relationship to the absolute. If the self is false then spiritual life is false.

Vedas teach us that subjective consciousness (consciousness subjected under the material modes of nature) separates us from reality.

(I agree. Elaboration: Taoists would define the subjective consciousness as the word/concept-based consciousness that divides reality into the imaginary bits and pieces of the Natural Tao, and that the objective consciousness is the “beginner’s mind”, the intuitive, freed consciousness with which we perceive the Eternal Tao.)

Then stop using words and concepts.

I desire to know the value of a freed *false* consciousness. If the self is false then how can “freeing” the self make it of any more value? Consciousness constitutes self.
You seem to be implying here that there is a true self, and not just that all notions of self are false. Actually, the notions that are false are,
1) Thinking one’s self to be the body, as well as identifying with the interactions of the bodily senses with their sense objects.
2) Thinking the relatives of one’s body as having any real connection with the self, as well as thinking the place of birth in the same manner.
3) Thinking that anything belongs to the self and should therefore be enjoyed.

In general, the illusion of common man is that he thinks himself to be the creator, proprietor and enjoyer of all he surveys. It is not that the self is false, but that, due to ignorance, he creates a sense of false self. Behind that false self is the REAL self.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Although separation is an illusion, the illusion itself is a fact that cannot be transcended by mere word-jugglery.

(I agree; however, the illusion can be transcended by the escape from word-based, illusion-creating consciousness. This does not mean you are letting go of consciousness completely… you are just leaving behind the more imperfect form of consciousness and using “beginner’s mind” instead. You probably believe that such perception is not possible for a human except after thousands of years of reincarnation. I, however, hold that any individual can do it in one lifetime, and some do.)

“Beginner’s mind” means that an entity exists. So you agree with me.
All you see is one lifetime. How can you say that an individual is gaining spiritual knowledge within one incarnation? You do not know at what understanding they were in, in their previous incarnation.
This particular entity was given a human body after thousands, more like millions of reincarnations. And now, in this human form they have the proper facility for cultivating spiritual life. How then could one say that the individual did it in one lifetime?

Where I Must Disagree

In an absolute sense, there is no "empty". Empty is not a quality, it is the lack of quality. There can only logically be one or the other.

I hold these things as premises:
A. God is so great that It is beyond imperfect human understanding.
B. God is infinite.
C. For humans, the basic unit of understanding is the concept, which exists symbolically as a word.
D. Nothingness refers to a lack of qualities rather than a void.

A. Humans can understand God to an extent, but God must give that knowledge. We may be able to speculate our way to an *idea* of God, but not the facts of God on a Personal level. And when God gives those facts, they can be understood… even with word-based concepts.
B. Yes, agreed
C. That is fine. This does not negate the authority words may have.
D. Lack is something God does not have, being infinite and all.

People tend to think that qualities limit God from being infinite, but this idea arises out of the imperfect human speculation of God (A). God has transcendental qualities, not no qualities. Actually, the qualities in the relative world are imperfect reflections of the transcendental spiritual qualities. Otherwise, wherefrom these qualities came? Just like in the desert you see a mirage. It appears to be water, but it is false. This does not mean that water is false, just the illusion of water there in the desert is false. You recognize the mirage as water because you have factual experience with real water. Otherwise, wherefrom did the idea of “water” come?

We theists usually resort to “premise A” whenever we encounter a question of logic which disproves the existence of God, especially atheist arguments that God cannot exist because science cannot detect and measure it. We simply point out to the atheists that the reason science cannot detect God is because God is so huge and so far beyond our understanding that It cannot be detected. However, using this argument to kill any logical argument against God’s nature or existence, we cannot then use arguments of logic to prove or disprove anything about the nature of God: we have already established that God’s nature is beyond imperfect human understanding and that logic, being a product of imperfect human understanding, is fallible in coming to conclusions on this subject. Until you can LOGICALLY get past the lack of physical evidence for God (and don’t start up the whole “subjective material reality” argument again… it proves nothing in this case) without using the “God is too much for us to understand” argument, you cannot tell me that my belief, or anybody’s belief, about God is illogical, or that your own belief about God IS logical, because logic has already been proven inadequate in describing God’s nature.

Well, I observe qualities paralleled between you and atheists. For example, in the negation of the existence of God, an atheist consciously or subconsciously attempts to be God, or become God. In general they think themselves creator, proprietor and enjoyer of all they survey. Now, you may not think this way, but the business of attempting to be or become God is the same. Just like a so-called civilized man is engaging in sex life on a luxurious bed and a dog is doing it in the street. The business is the same.

A true theist knows him/herself as eternally subordinate to God. The desire to merge into the existence of God constitutes still somewhat a tinge of atheistic thinking. As well, the desire for liberation also constitutes a tinge of materialistic/atheistic thinking. The highest stage of spiritual life is devotional service. That means to seek to please God with no thought of self-gratification.

I have been arguing logical consistency based on certain premises about God that we agree on, for the most part. Also, in the case we don’t agree, I take up your premise for argument’s sake. I don’t have to logically get past the lack of physical evidence of God if we both agree on that premise. And furthermore, if we both build upon that premise, then our arguments can be equally subject to any logic thereof.

Now moving on. Because you hold that God’s nature is infinite (life span, abilities, consciousness), and because I hold that God is infinite (due to its very Unity), God’s nature can be divided into an infinite number of concepts. Mathematically we know this is possible. You can divide the number 1 infinitely; it can be divided into two halves, three thirds, sixteen sixteenths, one billion billionths, and so on and so forth forever and ever. No matter how we choose to divide it, whether we look at the number 1 as two halves or one billion billionths, the nature of the number 1 is still one. These divisions are illusions and blind us to the reality of the number 1’s nature.

The fact of simultaneous oneness and variegatedness exemplifies the greatness, the infiniteness of God. The problem is not in perceiving variegatedness; it is in not perceiving oneness. Similarly, the problem is not in perceiving oneness; it is in not perceiving variegatedness. The fact consists of the infinitely variegated ONE. Do not negate one side of the whole.

It is the same with God. God, being infinite, encompasses all imaginable concepts, but because these concepts are based on imperfect human understanding, and because we literally choose where and how to divide God’s nature into concepts, (just as we choose where and how to divide the number 1), these concepts about God are just illusions, and lead us to an imperfect understanding of God.

Infinity is a concept. Is this an imperfect understanding of God? How about the concept of omnipresence?
How about the concept that all concepts are imperfect? Is that concept also imperfect? Perhaps it is infinitely, irreconcilingly undeterminable. But then again, that is also a concept.

When we realize that any characteristic we use to describe God is really just an illusion, we realize that God’s nature is the lack of qualities, just as the nature of the number 1 is the lack of its divisions: Unity or One. God is not divided, but United. God’s nature is quality-less, indefinable, and therefore incomprehensible to humans.

How about United in variegatedness? Why does multiplicity automatically constitute a “division”?
One may understand different parts of that ONE in a sense of dividing one part from another in order to study the relations, but both the oneness and the distinctions within that oneness are eternal facts.
The characteristics used to describe God are not necessarily illusory. For example, if I say that God is the transcendental Person that does not mean that God is likened to personal characteristics of the imperfect human. Out of lack of knowledge people want to negate God’s Person. Rather than negating, understand that God is transcendental in His qualities. Just like the analogy of the desert mirage. Just because the qualities here are imperfect do not conclude that no qualities thus exist in God.

 

[Paraprakrti]

As for whether or not it is “empty”… refer back to the note on “Nothingness” at the beginning of my response.

My conclusion, the All includes the fullness where emptiness is perceived. As soon as we put characteristics in describing "empty", it becomes *not empty*.

The All includes fullness (oneness or Unity), yes, but the division of that fullness or Unity into particular things is where perception vs. reality applies. Again, if you look at the All and see that it is One, then you know that it can be divided in infinitely different ways, (ways in which we humans literally choose)… but its true nature is still undivided Unity or oneness. If you divide a table into two halves in your mind and give each half a name—eao and exo—and a description (an eao is the left half of the table and an exo is the right half of the table), do eaos or exos really exist? No, the division was fabricated and therefore it exists nowhere but in your mind. The table is still an undivided, unified entity. So why would we say anything different about other divisions we carve into reality: male and female, light and dark, earth and air? We say they “exist” out of a matter of convenience—we find some divisions useful (like hot and cold) rather than nonsensical (like eao and exo) because they are useful in describing the Natural Tao and its apparent interaction with us. But in truth they are the result of our application of the Knife of Thought to the All to carve out concepts in ways that are useful to us, and they exist nowhere but in our heads. What is “hot” and “cold” really? They are relative. No such division exists in the Eternal Tao.

The table can be one table consisting of two halves, or four-fourths, sixteen-sixteenths, billion-billionths, etc. Those designations are not false. The infinitely variegated One is the fact. False designations come when one misperceives, or fails to perceive the relationships between these multiplicities. For example, if I see two halves of the table, eaos and exos, as being independent of each other, that is a false designation. To prove their co-dependency, I could simply cut eaos from exos (or exos from eaos, however you may have it) and observe the table collapse. Similarly, we ‘collapse’ (in a sense) when we fail to apply our relationship to the Absolute. So it is not the variegatedness that is false, it is the ignorance of their relationships.
Also, upon cutting eaos and exos apart, there is none of this nonsensical idea of them possibly merging into each other’s existence. If they are brought back together there is still a distinction between what we have agreed to term the “eaos” side and the “exos” side of the table.
If a green bird enters a green tree then a person with lesser intelligence may conclude that the bird has merged with the tree. This is a materialistic conception due to a lack of perception. If one were to study the tree more closely they would observe that the bird’s individuality remains a fact.

The question now is whether or not the divided, changing mental reality is as equally “real” as the undivided, static physical reality. That answer you will have to answer yourself; however, the Taoist answer is that this “mental reality” (subjective reality) is the divided Natural Tao, reality as we humans are able to perceive it on a daily basis, and that to an imperfect human it is as real as the unified, quality-less, undefined, incomprehensible Eternal Tao. Basically the philosophy is that, since we are unable to escape it other than through eternal death or brief meditation, we might as well work with it, for it cannot help but give meaning in our lives.

This world is real but temporary. Its “falseness” refers to the fact that it is un-enduring. The word in Sanskrit is “Maya”. Maya doesn’t refer to the variegatedness of this universe. Variegatedness is a fact. The illusion is in the temporary nature of these material forms in relation to the unchanging, transcendental spirit.

The creations, or constituents of the Tao are thus the controlling factors, according to your line of philosophy. That there is no mind beyond the mind of the Tao's creation, therefore, we are left to consider which one of these 'controlling factors' holds the greatest level of control.

It is not a matter of which of the ‘controlling factors’ holds the greatest level of control. The totality of all of the “controlling factors” is one unified entity: the Tao. You do not look at your body and say “which part of my body holds the greatest level of control?” The answer to that question will always be subjective and depends entirely on where the human observer puts the division based on what he or she views as most important: Is it the heart because it supplies the blood which every part of the body needs? Is it the blood itself? Is it the brain, which controls these functions? Is it the cells which make up everything in the body? Is it the atoms that make up the cells? The subatomic particles making up the atoms? The energy making up the subatomic particles? The laws governing the energy? If I had enough time I could go on and on infinitely, because there are infinite ways to make the divisions.

The body holds no control. The soul is the controller of a body that is otherwise a dead lump of matter. There is no question of “which part of my body holds the greatest level of control?” Just as the soul is the controller of one particular body, the Supersoul, God, is the Supreme Controller of the universal body. The Energetic controls the energy.

The Taoist answer to the question is that none of these ‘controlling factors’ holds the greatest level of control—they are all part of the unified Tao and work together. If one of them disappears, all you get is a different Tao. The universe as we know it falls apart, but Being itself continues.

But it is a fact that there are varying degrees of control. Therefore there must be one who holds the greatest level of control. The argument we are going to have is whether God controls impersonal nature, or impersonal nature controls God. I do not accept that energy controls the Energetic. One might observe their material conditioning and conclude that God is also conditioned, but that is their ignorance. The “disappearance” of a controlling factor is like the disappearance of the sun. Grown adults understand that the sun still exists even when it seemingly disappears beyond the horizon. So disappearance means that you have no power to see, not that it is no longer there.

Well, that’s not entirely true. Chi is technically the controlling factor… but it is unified, homogenous, the underlying form of all the “controlling factors”, and therefore synonymous with the Tao. If the Tao is the totality of all things, and chi is the true nature of all things, then chi is the Tao, and if chi disappears the Tao disappears. That is like saying that if the Tao disappears the Tao disappears, or if Krishna disappears Krishna disappears. It is a big “no duh”.

Of non-existence there is no endurance. Of existence there is no cessation. “Disappearing” is relative to one’s imperfect vision. But that’s not the debate here…

If chi is energy then it is not the controlling factor, for energy is controlled by the Energetic. But the Energetic, although distinct from energy, simultaneously pervades its energies. In conclusion, God (the Energetic) is simultaneously one and different with/from His energies. He is both the sum total of energies as well as completely transcendental to them. If Tao is the complete whole, then this is Tao.

Furthermore, since the Tao itself lacks purpose, intelligence, and thus conscious control, it is more than plausible that such a purposeful and intelligent entity lords over the Tao; a concept lacking in the quality that is somehow given to it's constituents, conscious control.

No, because the Tao, being the All, does not have something outside of it. If a thinking, decision making God did exist, it would be part of the Tao, or it would be the Tao itself. The question is whether or not the totality of all (the Tao) manifests as or includes a thinking, decision making God.

Here is my humble interpretation:
The natural Tao is what I refer to as “material energy”. Whereas the Eternal Tao is what I refer to as “spiritual energy”. Although they are one, this distinction exists.

Furthermore, from the conception of energy exists the Energetic. If the Tao is the concept embodying the complete whole then yes, God is the Tao. But God is not homogenous with His energies. I have already explained this philosophy now many times.
For example, although a rock is part of the Tao, one cannot say that the rock is the Tao. Now replace the word “Tao” with “God”. The difference in what I follow is that there is still a distinction between Tao and rock. I do not homogenize them. I understand their oneness by relationship. So what is the difficulty with this?

 

[Paraprakrti]

If the Tao is truly the complete whole, then perhaps there is a conscious God. The argument against this is based on the speculation that consciousness only exists subjective to material conditions.

And the argument in favor of this is based on the speculation that consciousness exists independent of material conditions. The keyword in both cases is “subjective”. We are ill equipped to prove either of our stances because our stances are subjective. However, I will try.

You already have experience of consciousness despite differing conditions, but you choose to ignore it. At one time the conditions were “child body”, now the conditions are “adult body”, yet *you* (the fundamental consciousness) is the same throughout. And you will be the same when the conditions are “old body”. There is no static material condition that produces the unchanging self. It is a fact that all material conditions are changing. Therefore, if you are a product of this changing nature then you have no observing ability. But by the simple fact that you understand, “I had child body, now I have adult body” *proves* your observing ability and constitutes the existence of a static, standard consciousness I term “soul”.

Conscious or unconscious, this is merely more words conveying God as being either involved or indifferent, respectively.

You speak as if “conscious God” and “involved God” mean the same thing. I don’t think they do. I agree that God is indifferent AND involved. As I suggested before and will soon describe in more depth, I can accept the possibility that It possesses infinitesimal consciousness, but not absolute. I do not agree that this indicates that God is a thinking, judging, loving (or any other adjective) entity. Having a vast quantity of infinitesimal consciousness (even though this is not infinite consciousness) would actually suggest that God does NOT think—It would pretty much be aware of everything, including having foreknowledge of all the future thoughts and decisions and actions on Its part. (More on this later).

What do you mean, “that God does not think”, but yet, “is aware of everything, including having foreknowledge of all the future thoughts and decisions and actions on Its part”?
These two things seem contradictory. Will you please explain?

First and foremost, I do not claim this philosophy as belonging to me, nor due to my imperfect sense-perception. But rather, that it belongs to Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and if you question His ability, you should take that up with Him.

That is the lamest response I have ever heard. It completely closes the door to any further argument not by providing evidence, but by employing the most famous theological avoidance ever: “I believe it because God says it is true”. You’re a smart person; you should know full well that in order to legitimately use this excuse, you have to first prove that God exists (which you can’t—we both believe in God, but both of our beliefs are based on intuition, not logic, the problems of which I already described), and then you have to prove that your philosophy actually came from God and is not just the result of a bunch of humans believing God spoke to them (a phenomena which has apparently happened in EVERY religion—God sure has a lot of contradictory things to say… that, or everyone just thinks the little voice in their head is the voice of God), and then you have to prove that God was actually speaking truth (if God is as you understand It and communicates with us at all, He could have been testing humans in some way…) Your only defense is “it is a matter of faith”, but faith is useless in a debate.

First of all, because we both accept the existence of God I am not required to prove His existence, unless you are going to change your position and move the goal posts merely for pointless argument.
Secondly, you go ahead and find contradiction in Vedic philosophy. If it is merely the philosophy of a bunch of humans then they must have been the most intelligent and seemingly flawless humans ever to exist. You may not accept that, so you go ahead and seek out contradiction. Then we’ll discuss it.
That the philosophy doesn’t belong to me is a fact. That the philosophy is Krishna’s is also a fact. If this philosophy is speculated by Krishna, and that Krishna is an ordinary, flawed human, then it will fall under the same category as any other mundane philosophy. I do not accept that Krishna is an ordinary person. You would be right to say that I cannot prove Krishna is God, but regardless of this, my statement of this philosophy not belonging to me or being a product of my imperfect sense perception is fact. That is why I concluded the paragraph with, “if you question His (Krishna’s) ability, you should take that up with Him.”
If you doubt the authority of Krishna then you take that up directly with Him. Part of the reason why I accept Krishna as God is how I am continually defeated when I try to defeat His philosophy. Another reason is that all the descending acaryas (teachers) accept Krishna as God. Faith is going to take you from theory to practical application. Right now it is only a theory to you that Krishna is God, but that is because you do not have the eyes to see. A blind man is also a fool when insisting the color blue be proven to him prior to the healing of his blindness. First you become healed then you will see. God is not so cheap to see Him otherwise.

I fail to see the logic in this when reincarnation constitutes a fundamental, unchanging entity of some sort being subject to a constantly changing environment. I mean, if there is no entity, then there is nothing to be re-incarnated.

You were arguing that “my” belief in reincarnation is essentially wrong. It is not, because I have no belief in reincarnation. I believe we die and merge with God. End of story. Well, almost: As I said, some of our energy may end up a part of another life form, but this is not the same as reincarnation, because there is no guarantee that it will transfer as a whole package and the things which make that entity “me” (personality and consciousness) do not even exist after death. Thus there is no “I” to accept the illusion that I am separate from God, so “I” am dead and that which used to be “me” is one with God.

You were explaining that “some of our energy may end up as part of another life form” as your idea of ‘reincarnation’ (or at least that is what it seemed you were saying), and I was responding that that is not reincarnation because reincarnation constitutes a thing that is unchanging. This energy becoming part of another life is conversion of energy, not reincarnation.
You said, “that which used to be “me” is one with God”, but why did “me” used to be? Why did it ever come into existence in the first place?

The human egg begins to develop, ok. Eventually the right physiological conditions are met, ok... And embryonic human consciousness pops into being out of nowhere, no. Go back to "the right physiological conditions are met". Those conditions permit the consciousness to display itself, not for the consciousness to "pop into being out of nowhere".

If consciousness exists but doesn’t manifest until the right physiological conditions are met, then it exists before the life it inhabits does. Now if “those conditions permit the consciousness to display itself”, then without those conditions the consciousness does not display itself. (If it could display itself without physiological conditions being met, then it could display itself without the possessor of physiological conditions—life—being present, which makes you wonder for what purpose God created life if not to display consciousness… the only answer I can come up with is the one I have already provided; that God never decided to create life.)

To be more precise, those conditions permit the consciousness to display itself *to our perception*. Sorry I didn’t clarify that in the beginning.
Life is not created! So there is no question of “for what purpose did God create life”. Perhaps the question you mean is, “for what purpose did God create these material forms for life to indwell?”
The answer is simple: man proposes, God disposes. It was the infinitesimal soul’s desire to enjoy apart from God’s Personal association. Therefore God has given us proper facility to do so here.
What would God have to benefit from if He is full in Himself? Nothing… So, it is not a matter of God’s Personal desire for His own benefit, it is a matter of God desiring to meet our demands. Now, spiritual living means you have turned away from demanding from God and decided rather to be in His service.

Now if reincarnation is a reality, then any particular consciousness is pretty much always being manifested because immediately upon death it passes onto a living organism.

Not always. Sometimes the soul does not accept a gross body due to a very strong attachment of one’s previous body and therefore becomes something like a ghost. But in general, yes, the soul moves from one gross body to another.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Now, you admitted that you do not believe in the eternal existence of life or eternal reincarnation. So you will agree that if you look far enough into the past or far enough into the future, eventually you will come to a reality in which there is no life in the universe, period. That means far enough into the past or far enough into the future, there will be a vast pool of consciousness just floating around, with no way to manifest because the physiological conditions permitting its manifestation do not exist because life does not exist. Because time is eternal, this unused pool of consciousness continues eternally into the past and eternally into the future, only being manifested (and thus having a purpose) for only a tiny little speck of time in all of eternity. Why would a consciously creating God create infinitesimal consciousness if it will only be able to manifest for a brief little instant in all of creation? Why would a consciously creating God create life in order to manifest this consciousness if life is so brief compared to this consciousness?

Eternal existence of life does not mean eternal reincarnation.
“From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again.” –Sri Krsna (Bg 8.16)

If you look far enough into the past or the future you will come to a reality in which there is no manifest universe. When the universe is no longer manifest as we know it, the living entities who are not eligible for liberation to the spiritual world will merge temporarily into something similar to this “vast pool of consciousness” you refer to. That vast pool may be going on eternally, but the living entities who reside there are not doing so eternally. Just like the material energy exists eternally, but is neither eternally manifest nor does any particular living entity reside there forever. Also, those who desire merging into God’s existence actually merge into His impersonal Brahmajyoti. That is the effulgence of God. But this type of liberation is temporary. Eventually the living entity falls back down into material life due to it’s individual capacity. Think of it like individual waves manifesting from the ocean’s surface. Still, there is another ocean where the waves are eternally manifest, as described in the above quote.

Your questions:

”Why would a consciously creating God create infinitesimal consciousness if it will only be able to manifest for a brief little instant in all of creation? Why would a consciously creating God create life in order to manifest this consciousness if life is so brief compared to this consciousness?”

The infinitesimal living entities are not created.
"For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.” -Sri Krsna (Bg. 2.20)
Creation is for the lesser intelligent living entities. Those who realize the self and its relationship to God will return to Krsna’s abode where manifest consciousness won’t be so insignificant.

And how can you call unmanifested consciousness CONSCIOUSNESS if an entity can only be conscious of anything if consciousness manifests through physiological senses; i.e. what would unmanifested consciousness be conscious of? It would not be aware or thinking or anything, because it is not manifested… so what is it?

Consciousness is there, but it is covered by ignorance in varying degrees. By manifest or unmanifest I mean to say, “perceivable or not perceivable to us”. Even microscopic living entities have the same consciousness as any other soul, but theirs is covered by a thicker layer of ignorance. To us it may appear as unmanifest, but in their scope of perception consciousness is there.

In conclusion, consciousness is not a product of physiological development, but rather, physiological development is a product of consciousness, the symptom of the eternal soul.

In light of the above, this could not possibly be true. In reality your notion of consciousness is completely dependent upon life; independent of the temporary existence of life, it has no meaning and no purpose, and in my opinion, no existence (for I do not believe it is independent of life at all).

Why do you keep referring to life and consciousness as separate? Life means soul, consciousness is the symptom of the soul. The soul, when under material nature, tends to display its consciousness imperfectly. But, once liberated from material nature, the soul is without impedance in displaying its consciousness. The consciousness falsely plays as if it is dependent on material life, but that is how ignorance is covering it. Thinking oneself as dependent on material energy is called false ego.

Make note that, "My body grew and changed forms. However I did not change bodies."
Why, is the body not a form? If the form has changed, and this is a bodily form, then the body has changed.

Fine, the form of my body changes throughout my life. My understanding of reincarnation is that when the body dies (not changes form, dies) the soul gains a new body (not a new form of the old body), and continues its spiritual evolution. Unless you want to suggest that reincarnation is really the process by which the full spiritual journey of a soul takes place in one body, this example is not analogous to the concept of reincarnation, so I do not understand what point you are trying to illustrate with it.

First you make account of why the body you indwell is changing forms in the first place, and then you will understand why it makes similar changes in the last place (death). Old bodies are given up and new ones are accepted. Whether it is given up by growth or decay is not important, the fact of accepting a new body is seen from infancy to childhood, childhood to youth, and youth to old age. From old age the body becomes useless and is discarded. Just as you may find a shirt old and useless, so you discard it and put on a new one. Why would one merge into God or enter into His abode if one is not ready to do so? If these things were automatic, then there would be no reason for knowledge. This discussion would be pointless and so would your knowledge of the Tao. What difference does it make if no matter what you think or what you do, you will merge into the Tao upon death?

The third option is that we become engaged in Personal association with God in His spiritual abode. The distinction of the Infinite and the infinitesimal still remains; there is no merging of the two, nor is there a question of reincarnation.

Is not the purpose of reincarnation to achieve spiritual perfection? If God is spiritual perfection, and the distinction between the Infinite and the Infinitesimal still remains after a soul has finally reached the end of reincarnation, then what was the purpose of reincarnation? To simply better oneself spiritually, rather than attain spiritual perfection? But one can better oneself in one lifetime, thus no need for multiple lives. So what is the ultimate purpose of reincarnation?

‘Spiritual perfection’ is understanding perfectly that you are eternal servant of God. The infinite Supersoul, God and His infinitesimal part and parcel souls constitute spiritual perfection. Material life (reincarnation) happens *by* reason, not necessarily *for* reason. Just like a man goes to prison by reason of his criminal activity. If he hadn’t done the crime then there would be no reason to go to jail in the first place. One could say that the reason *for* going to jail was to teach a lesson, but my point is that if we hadn’t been foolish in the first place there would be no reason for material life. Reincarnation is necessary just as prison life is necessary. And it is not a matter of bettering oneself; it is a matter of realizing oneself. All you see is “one lifetime”, how can you say that multiple lives (incarnations) are not involved?

Although, human life is important so far as one's intellectual capacity is concerned.

So basically you are stating that human life is important because we can only advance in intellectual capacity if life exists? Then you are basically assuming that intellectual capacity in and of itself (independent of anything else) is important, so important that life is only important subjectively as a means of gaining intellectual capacity. Can you actually give an objective reason why intellectual capacity is important? Because if your belief that intelligence is important is completely subjective, then the belief that human life is important is also completely subjective. Which proves that it only has importance in the Natural Tao and is inconsequential within the Eternal Tao.

I am confused by your first question. I am stating that human life is important because we can only advance in intellectual capacity if life exists??? Huh? I know life exists. Why do you say, “if life exists”?
How do I say that life is only important subjectively? Can you explain how it is I have stated this?
A human can inquire into the nature of self and the absolute. That is the difference between humans and animal life. That is the importance of the human form.

 

[Paraprakrti]

One cannot add an infinite quantity of infinitesimal-quality consciousness to equal that of an infinite-quantity consciousness.

I never said that a large quantity of infinitesimal-quality consciousness is the equivalent of an infinite-quality consciousness. However, this is not to say that God cannot have a large quantity of infinitesimal-quality consciousness rather than infinite-quality consciousness (my god, that is a mouthful… where did you come up with those terms?) The idea that God’s consciousness is infinite is mere speculation. This is the question being debated in the “God’s Power” forum, and I haven’t seen a single theist prove that God can be all-powerful. Every religion agrees that God, by definition, is more powerful than any single creation and is an entity associated with the fundamental workings of the universe. Not every religion believes that God is omniscient. Many religions throughout history have described God as being very powerful, rather than all-powerful. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Celtic gods come to mind.

Would it be better to say that God is inconceivably powerful? Because “all-powerful” brings up what appear to be contradictions. I.e.: can God create a rock to heavy for Him to lift? That kind of nonsense. Actually, God can, and then He will command the rock to lift itself while it simultaneously merges into His transcendental body. (LOL) Next…
I am saying that both the Infinite-quantity of consciousness and the infinitely numbered, infinitesimal-quality of consciousness exist simultaneously. (Actually, both God and the infinitesimal souls are of the same quality, just different in quantity. But in this context I have referred to the infinitesimal souls as “infinitesimal quality”, in order not to confuse the fact that there exists an infinite quantity of the infinitesimal souls.)
The idea that God is infinite in all capacities constitutes the definition of “God”, the Supreme Absolute Truth.

So the question is, if God exists, is It all-powerful or just very powerful? Every theist likes the concept of an all-powerful God because it ties the universe up into a nice, neat package, but if you consider that the basics of the universe—energy—was not created by God (because energy is infinite, neither being created nor destroyed), then you cannot say that God is all powerful, because God can only shape the universe from the energy which has always existed, and cannot create this energy. If God cannot do something, God is not all-powerful, but simply very powerful. If God is not all-powerful, then there is no reason to believe that God has infinite consciousness.

The Energetic and It’s energies are non-different from each other. Therefore to say what you have said is equivalent to saying, “then you cannot say that God is all powerful because God cannot create Himself.” Maybe God is eternally creating and destroying Himself, and thus, He is doing neither. You must understand that God is ultimately inconceivable. It is not a matter of God not being able to do something; it is a matter of being able to conceive of that something being done. If you cannot conceive, then why waste your time?

So, three new premises: 1) God, not being omniscient, cannot have infinite consciousness, 2) God can have a large quantity of infinitesimal consciousness, 3) God possesses the totality of all infinitesimal-quality consciousness present in the universe.

1) Why can God not be omniscient?
2) If God is the totality of infinitesimal beings then explain to me how God, in whole or in part, has become conditioned under material nature?
3) Yes, “God possesses” means that God is distinct from these infinitesimal-quality consciousness’. That means that God is the Infinite consciousness, whereas we are the infinitesimal.

Briefly, I need to prove “Premise 3”: You said:

I agree that, from the absolute platform, all life (spiritual energy) and non life (material energy) are One with God.

Therefore, even if you think God is more than just the totality of its creation, you still agree that all Being is part of God. So if God includes all Being, God therefore possesses the totality of all infinitesimal-quantity consciousness present in the universe.

God possesses them, yes. But God is not merely the totality of all sentient beings. God is a distinct Living Entity. Oneness and difference. I don’t think there is need for me to go into that again for the umpteenth time.

Consider: quantum physics has proven (and mankind has long suspected) that time itself does not really exist—that what we consider to be past, present, and future all exist simultaneously, and that it is only our perception of the universe that prevents us from realizing this. Therefore, in an odd way, life is eternal—it may eventually cease to be in human perception of time, but because past, present and future coexist simultaneously, the past (life) will coexist with the future (no life). So, in theory there is no such thing as time: there is simply an infinite moment in which past, present, and future and all possible manifestations of reality within each of these times exist simultaneously, and God possesses them all. Thus God possesses the totality of all consciousness in the universe; not just all the available consciousness of the present but also of the past and future as well. There would be a limited quantity, yes, but far greater that either of us can possibly imagine. (How many lives—humans, plants, animals, bacteria—have there been up to this point on this planet alone? How many will have existed on this planet when life finally ceases to be? How many will have existed on the totality of all planets in the total span of the very existence of life? And what would the totality of all this consciousness be like? It may not be an infinite quantity, but at the same time I suspect there would be NOTHING that it cannot know. It operates simultaneously in past, present, and future, and thus it simultaneously knows what has already occurred, what is occurring, and what will occur.)

Yes, time we perceive as events, but eternity is now and now is eternity. I am not disagreeing with you that God possesses the totality of all consciousness in the universe, past, present and future. When you speak of future (no life) you are thinking in terms of ‘life’ by material sense perception. Life is never “no life”. Even if life is not present under material energy, it will be present elsewhere. It is said in the Vedas that there are an innumerable amount of material universes, but that the totality of this innumerable quantity only makes up 1/4th of the entire manifestation. 3/4ths of that manifestation is in the spiritual world. Imagine first how many living entities exist just on this planet, then consider the incalculable amount of planets throughout this universe, then consider the other universes and all their planets. Now consider that that is only 1/4th of the manifestation. How many living entities can there be residing in the spiritual world? It is inconceivable to us. We can say infinite, or we can say innumerable. Either way, it is too many for us to account for. Often times the Sanskrit terms translate to something of “infinite” when it may be more proper to say “innumerable” or “incalculable”.

And existing in this infinite moment, God would not think, or judge. Everything, not only its creation and all consciousness, but also every one of God’s actions, every change in the universe, would exist simultaneously in this one timeless moment, and God would know it all. Humans, not being able to perceive time this way, believe that our thoughts and actions occur in a linear pattern. We notice something, we think about it, we respond, and we watch the effect of our response. For God, all these things would occur at the exact same time: creation, opinion about creation, control of creation, destruction; all of it is seen and done in one timeless moment. There is no need for thought in such an awesome consciousness as this.

This is where I would differentiate between human thought and God thought. Just as you have explained, (and I agree), that God knows it all as one timeless moment, that would constitute God’s “thinking”. His knowing and thinking would be one and the same. It just depends on how we look at the terms. Though it is not good to try and take up the perspective of God. We can understand it by dint of reason, theoretically, but we shouldn’t ignore the “linear pattern” of thought and activity.

 

[Paraprakrti]

If the entity was truly subject to this constantly changing environment (be it a product thereof) it could only be subserver and never observer.

All matter responds to its environment according to its specific nature. “Observer”, “consciousness”, “awareness”, “mind”; these are all just the way the particular arrangement of matter creating the unit we call a Human responds to its environment. Scientists understand now, on a physical level, how thought, emotion, awareness, memory, and all other psychological phenomena work. This reduces consciousness to nothing more than a series of interactions between matter, implying that consciousness is no more “special” than what I just described. It is wishful thinking, not observable fact, to say that consciousness is immaterial. It is only Humans, naming ourselves the “observer”, who think that we NOT subject to “this constantly changing environment”. You said it yourself in the “God’s Power” forum: “We are not in control, we are controlled.” As far as I can tell, you believe that the control occurs on four levels: God controlling spiritual energy, spiritual energy governing the nature and behavior of the soul and the consciousness (which you believe to be free of the physiological body), spiritual energy controlling material energy (meaning God ultimately controls the natural laws and the workings of the universe), and material energy controlling the human physicality.

We are controlled by material nature, but that does not mean we have to be. We are seemingly dependent on it, but that does not mean we have to be. The point of self-realization is to understand that we are constitutionally transcendental to material nature. To think contrarily is called false ego. The observer may respond to its environment, that also constitutes false ego. Thought, emotion, awareness and memory are all experienced through subtle material energy. The soul transcends subtle material energy. It is beyond the mind. So even the interactions of thought and emotion are material. But behind those interactions is the soul. Without the soul, there can be no interactions. So it is not the interactions in and of themselves that constitute the existence of the soul, but that they take place at all that constitutes the soul, aka: “observer”. The fundamental fact of this observer underlying all these outward interactions of both gross and subtle material relations is the concept of the soul. Do not mistake subtle material energy for the soul.

The so called human “observer”, therefore, is DEFINITELY controlled by this “constantly changing environment”—whether you want to speak of it as a God-controlled spiritual environment or spiritual-environment-controlled material environment, or, in my case, just the Tao-controlled environment. Either way, the consciousness is NOT independent of the environment, and thus is subject to it… which I suppose indicates that the term you suggested, “subserver”, is the accurate one.

Yes, we are either controlled by God or controlled by Maya. Being controlled by Maya is a false designation. By “false” I mean temporary. We may play subserver on a subtle material level, but that is only possible because behind subservitude of material nature there exists an observer who is transcendental to material interactions, gross and subtle.
The difficulty you are having now is your battle with false ego. You are thinking self in relation to the mind, symptoms and interactions thereof. My point of “observer” goes deeper than these external designations of mental interaction.

2. The subtle mind, intelligence and false ego.

Number 2, although also lacking the capacity to find the perfection of Truth on it's own accord (speculation), does have the ability to understand the perfection of Truth by dint of reason.

We either accept this premise or we will be forced to conclude that neither of us can understand what is truth and thus cannot speak a single word of it.

Or we reject this premise and conclude that word-based intellect cannot reveal Truth and intuition can.

Reason does not always lead us to truth: reason operates on the word-basis of the Natural Tao, and can only describe the changing “truths” of the Natural Tao (truths which are illusions outside of the Natural Tao). The Natural Tao, no matter how useful to us, is an illusion, and so are its truths (which are subjective and true only to humans or the things humans apply them to). It is the Eternal Tao that is the “eternally real” (Tao Te Ching) and it cannot be viewed using the facilities of the Natural Tao. Understanding of the Eternal Tao is wordless and intuitive: reason doesn’t go well with these things.

But yet we have been reasoning very well the concept of the eternal Tao.

Illusory consciousness is illusory. Factual consciousness is factual.

Yes, but how do you differentiate between the two when illusionary consciousness is possible? If human consciousness is capable of producing illusions which lead us to false conclusions about reality, then how can one be sure that what one perceives to be reality is in truth reality?

This is to say that consciousness can be utilized in an illusory way. Actually, consciousness is constitutionally factual. But it is bewildered by material energy. That is false ego. When the consciousness returns to its real position means that it returns to its position in direct relationship with God. That is how one knows illusory from factual. Or you may replace the word “God” with “Eternal Tao”. Although, your understanding of that relationship differs from mine. You believe that your position is nil, meaning that “you” have no real individual capacity, but rather are constitutionally homogenous with the Tao. Whereas I believe that my oneness with God constitutes an agreement, not a merging homogenously.

Not to say I don’t agree. Taoism provides an answer. Illusionary consciousness is basically the word-based Consciousness that creates the Natural Tao. Factual consciousness is perception that is not based on words and logic but which is free from both: enlightenment, intuition; these are roughly synonymous. Thus, to achieve factual consciousness, you must free yourself of word-based (illusionary) consciousness. We believe when you do this, factual consciousness reveals the world as a timeless moment of Unity.

Ok.

Personally, I accept what I have seen to be most reasonable.

But is what you have seen based on illusionary consciousness or factual consciousness? Is what you believe to be “most reasonable” illusion or reality? Do you use intuition or reason to arrive at this answer? If you use intuition, how do you know that the application of imperfect reason to your intuitive understanding has not destroyed the static Truth? How do you know it was really intuition and not unconscious intellectual reasoning being mistaken for intuition? If you use reason, how do you know your conclusions are not faulty, when reason is based in imperfect human understanding gained when the imperfect senses feed information to the imperfect intellect to form imperfect conclusions?

Your questions toward me are assuming the premise of mental speculation. You may not accept that the Vedas are beyond speculation, but that will be my answer, first and foremost. Secondly, these conclusions were not fed to me by imperfect sense perception. I did not look at the sun and conclude that it was a flat glowing disc. I looked in a science book and read that the sun is actually spherical. Although both instances of perception include the eyes, one instance is perfect. That is how knowledge is passed down in the disciple line. This knowledge can be understood by logic. You say logic is imperfect, but logic itself is only as perfect as its subject. Just as you have made the analogy of logic being imperfect because you failed to take into account the weakness of the middle portion of the practice board. Actually, logic was not imperfect in that case, it was only that it was being applied to an imperfect premise; that premise being of the practice board as the same quality as the real board.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Two posts ago you said:

I also see that it is due to massive amounts of philosophical reasoning that ultimately leaves people with the conclusion that the absolute is impersonal. This is simply out of despair, as well as poor fund of knowledge. My understanding of the 'complete whole' consists of both the Infinite and the infinitesimal

And I replied:

Why do you assume that your philosophy has a superior claim to Truth when you have used the exact same resources as everyone else (limited material resources as well as intelligence) to arrive at your philosophy? It seems to me that your philosophy should be just as subject to human error as anybody else’s... how then can you claim that you are right? You feel you are right... but that is not a logical answer.

To which you most recently responded:

Why do you assume that this is my philosophy?

I was looking at the phrase “poor fund of knowledge”, which you used to describe the reason people arrive at what you believe to be the inaccurate belief that “that the absolute is impersonal”. I was wondering how you can refute the validity of other people’s beliefs in this way (by claiming that their lack of knowledge has led them to incorrect conclusions) when you have suggested repeatedly that all humans possess infinitesimal, imperfect consciousness and understanding. By the logic of your own premise you should therefore be included in this arena of “lack of knowledge”, and the validity of your own beliefs should therefore be questionable.

If you are going to reject reason and logic, then we have no premise upon which to debate. Otherwise, I can tell you that beyond mental speculation or intuition is Scripture, and that Scripture can be understood by dint of logic. The conclusion of impersonalism is due to a lack of perception. Just like one may look at the sunshine and not consider the source. The sunshine, in this analogy, is the impersonal effulgence of the sun-globe ‘person’. Another way for anyone to attain so-called enlightenment of impersonalism is to shut one’s eyes. Darkness merges everything into oneness. But that is speculation out of a lack of perception, whether one’s eyes are open or closed. That is why in the Bhagavad-Gita it states that the most confidential knowledge is the Supreme Personality from which all impersonal conceptions have their source. Another analogy may go: when one views a mountain from a distance they may see one big massive piece of rock. Then when one gets up closer they will notice that within that mountain there are many living entities. From a distance everything is one homogenous lump, but upon closer study there are many things going on. From a speculative platform, God is impersonal, but upon further study (from Sastra) one can understand that God is Supremely a Person.

Unless you did not mean to suggest this… if not, please explain what you meant, because I didn’t understand.

I meant that I am not speculating. If what I follow is speculation then it is someone else’s speculation. In theory, it belongs to Krsna. I am simply presenting it while simultaneously using reason and logic, as far as it can be applied. Most of these analogies I am giving are from the literature or from my guru.

Too many people are procrastinators who think that liberation/salvation is easily obtained.

Although I think that liberation/salvation is easily obtained, I do NOT believe that this frees us from responsibility for our actions. I think religious notions of “eternal consequences” exist only to serve a social function (to force people to take responsibility) and do not reflect Truth, and therefore can be ignored if one decides to take responsibility for their actions simply out of compassion for other people rather than out of fear of eternal consequences.

Yes, liberation does not mean cessation of activity. Liberation means purification of activity. I agree with your idea of why eternal damnation is stressed.

Subjective virtue is subjective. Objective virtue is objective. Truth is attained by transcending subjective consciousness/virtue. In other words, Truth is attained through a state of objective consciousness/virtue, for only through non-subjective virtue can one have a relationship with the transcendentally virtuous God, (transcendentally virtuous meaning: transcendental to virtue subjective to our relative perceptions.)

It is possible that objective virtue exists… but humans are subjectively thinking beings. I cannot think of a single virtue that can be anything but subjective. I am sure you could list a few virtues that you believe to be objective… but I am also equally sure that I would consider every one of them subjective. So who gets to decide whether or not they are objective… and wouldn’t the very need to decide indicate their subjectivity?

Subjectively thinking means, “I am this body. These are my things. Let me enjoy them”. When I say “objectively”, I mean in relation to material things. So, “objective” thinking means, “I am not this body. I am spirit-soul. Nothing belongs to me. Everything belongs to God. Let God enjoy them.”

You may think these are subjective only because you see any individual capacity as subjective. You do not believe in an enduring individual soul. Therefore all conceptions of “I”, “me” and “my” are false, according to you. I am presenting that they are not always false. They still exist even upon liberation. The difference is in the above explanation of subjective and objective thought.
If anyone gets to decide what is objective, that would be God. God says that the self is not the body, and that the self owns nothing, but rather, is owned by God. He also says that the self is eternally related to God. This is what God supposedly says. You accept, or you dwell on a speculative platform. That is your choice.

Karma begets karma begets karma.

Also, the word "eternal" means, "without beginning and without end". Therefore, unless one has been always suffering karma, consequences cannot be eternal.

If Karma begets karma, then a being who ever suffers from karma will suffer from karma eternally because that initial karma will create more karma, which will create more, which will create more, eternally. Therefore the only way for this being not to suffer eternally from karma would be to never get karma in the first place. Which means if karma exists and begets karma, the only beings who are not going to suffer from it eternally are those that never suffer from it from in the first place…

Karma begets karma begets karma, but…

God burns up karma!

Also, the problem is that “eternally” means without beginning and without end. If one begins in karma, then that cannot be eternal. Regardless, karma begets karma as long as one acts on that platform. Acting on the spiritual platform means acting in devotional service to God. That is the shelter by which karma is burnt up. Just like you are outside and you are cold, so you take shelter in a house with a heater. Karmis (people who act on the karmic platform) eventually take shelter of God. Just as the house burns up the coldness, God burns up karma.

 

[Runt]

If you are going to reject reason and logic, then we have no premise upon which to debate.

Yes, you’ve said that before, which makes no sense because you have repeatedly argued against logic. You basically said that if science does not support the Vedas, it is only because human understanding is imperfect—basically human logic can only be used to PROVE your religion, not to reject it. If you are going to accept reason and logic, then you have to accept that there is no evidence for a thinking God, no evidence for the soul, no evidence for karma… and therefore you must accept that your entire religion may be no more than a pipe dream. If you are going to continue arguing against logic, then you are right; we will have to stop debating.

Otherwise, I can tell you that beyond mental speculation or intuition is Scripture, and that Scripture can be understood by dint of logic.

LMAO, you tell me that you must base your beliefs on reason and logic, and that all else is “mental speculation”, and yet you then try to suggest that Scripture, which is full of illogical ideas BASED on this mental speculation you so abhor, is “logical”! Try as you might, the ideas contained in Scripture cannot be supported logically. You prize logic quite highly… and yet you reject the idea that all things manifest materially. Therefore, you do not prize logic, but rather mental speculation. Logic, my friend, is based on that which is known to exist in reality. Everything that we know to exist in reality has physical evidence; therefore, in order to call something “logical”, you MUST be able to prove, PHYSICALLY, its existence. The lack of physical evidence for the soul, God, or karma reduce these concepts to mere “mental speculation”, NOT logic.

The conclusion of impersonalism is due to a lack of perception.

The conclusion of “impersonalism” is due to accurate perception. The conclusion that God is a thinking, controlling entity with a personality and purpose is due to a lack of perception based on mental speculation.

I meant that I am not speculating. If what I follow is speculation then it is someone else’s speculation. In theory, it belongs to Krsna.

Yes, you ARE speculating. You are speculating that Krishna exists. You are speculating that Krishna wrote the Vedas. You are speculating that Krishna wrote the TRUTH in the Vedas, rather than writing lies to see if you could figure out the real truth for yourself. The only “evidence” you have for any of these things IS the Vedas… and the only evidence you have that the Vedas is “truth” is, again, the Vedas. This is circular logic: “The Vedas are true because they are written by Krishna. The Vedas are written by Krishna because they say they were written by Krishna. Krishna exists because the Vedas say he exists.” That not logical; it is mental speculation.

When I wrote:

I cannot think of a single virtue that can be anything but subjective. I am sure you could list a few virtues that you believe to be objective… but I am also equally sure that I would consider every one of them subjective.

You responded:

Subjectively thinking means,

So, “objective” thinking means

Never once did you address the original question. I wanted an example of objective virtue after you suggested that there is both subjective AND objective virtue. I was not asking about objective vs subjective thinking.

If anyone gets to decide what is objective, that would be God. God says that the self is not the body, and that the self owns nothing, but rather, is owned by God. He also says that the self is eternally related to God. This is what God supposedly says. You accept, or you dwell on a speculative platform. That is your choice.

If anyone gets to decide what is objective, that would be God, IF GOD EVEN EXISTS. THE VEDAS SAY WITH NO PROOF THAT God says the self is not the body, and that the self owns nothing, but rather, is owned by God. THE VEDAS ALSO CLAIMS, AGAIN WITH NO PROOF, THAT he also says that the self is eternally related to God. This is what God supposedly says. You accept THAT THIS IS AN OBJECTIVE PLATFORM AND THAT YOUR OWN POST IS A SUBJECTIVE PLATFORM, or you dwell on a speculative platform. That is your choice.

We are controlled by material nature, but that does not mean we have to be.

Oh? Explain to me how you’ve defied material laws lately.

The point of self-realization is to understand that we are constitutionally transcendental to material nature.

No proof, no logic, no debate. Remember?

To think contrarily is called false ego

No, it’s called “reality”. To believe what you state is called “mental speculation”.

Actually, consciousness is constitutionally factual. But it is bewildered by material energy. That is false ego. When the consciousness returns to its real position means that it returns to its position in direct relationship with God. That is how one knows illusory from factual.

LMAO, allow me to suggest an alternate hypothesis. For the sake of convenience, we’ll accept that what you just said is true. That still means that illusionary consciousness is possible because it CAN be “bewildered by material energy”. Being bewildered, it may THINK that it has returned to its “real position in direct relationship with God”, but in truth it has not, it is confused and mistook its position of “false ego” as the position of “direct relationship with God”. So, again, how do you differentiate. While illusionary consciousness is possible, you can never be sure that what you think is factual really IS factual.

Your questions toward me are assuming the premise of mental speculation. You may not accept that the Vedas are beyond speculation, but that will be my answer, first and foremost.

Which, again, makes me wonder why we are debating. You offer no proof other than a book that claims to be its own proof… and you one moment reject logical arguments based on the notion that human logic has yet to catch up with the truth of the Vedas, and the next argue that only logic can be used in a debate. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

Secondly , these conclusions were not fed to me by imperfect sense perception

Oh? PROVE it, because I think they were.

did not look at the sun and conclude that it was a flat glowing disc. I looked in a science book and read that the sun is actually spherical.

There you go again. One minute you seem to be saying “I am logical, my beliefs are based on science” and the next “Science is wrong when it does not match my beliefs and is based on illusionary material reality.” MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

You must understand that God is ultimately inconceivable.

Really? Then why do you keep telling me what God is and isn’t, what God can be and what God can’t be? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

Gah, I can't do this anymore. You keep making statements that you claim are logical and objective, and yet refuse to offer proof on the basis of your scorn of “material sense gratification” and your insistence that science is only true so long as it supports your beliefs.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I said: "If you are going to reject reason and logic, then we have no premise upon which to debate."

To which you replied:

Yes, you’ve said that before, which makes no sense because you have repeatedly argued against logic. You basically said that if science does not support the Vedas, it is only because human understanding is imperfect—basically human logic can only be used to PROVE your religion, not to reject it. If you are going to accept reason and logic, then you have to accept that there is no evidence for a thinking God, no evidence for the soul, no evidence for karma… and therefore you must accept that your entire religion may be no more than a pipe dream. If you are going to continue arguing against logic, then you are right; we will have to stop debating.

Logic is not confined to modern science. If I argue against science that doesn't mean I argue against logic. Actually, there is no scientific fact that rejects "my religion". There may be some theory, but that is all.
You are a sentient being because God is a sentient being. Only, you are sentient of a very, very miniscule body in comparison to God's omni-sentience. It is ILL-logic to think that any quality comes from the lack of itself. This is proof of God's "thinking". The evidence of the soul I have already explained. I'm not going to go into it again. Just know that if no soul exists, then you have no basis to speak on whether it does or not. Karma is cause and effect. You may not be able to observe every cause for every effect, or every effect for every cause. But is it logical to conclude that, where you fail to see, the cause is automatically void of reason?? Karma means cause and effect where you see and where you don't see. Your seeing power is imperfect. That you must sanely accept.
You aren't one to speak about "arguing against logic". It is you who feels that logic is imperfect through faulty word-based concepts. So either way you see this, you should have stopped speaking before you started.


I stated: "Otherwise, I can tell you that beyond mental speculation or intuition is Scripture, and that Scripture can be understood by dint of logic."

To which you replied:

LMAO, you tell me that you must base your beliefs on reason and logic, and that all else is “mental speculation”, and yet you then try to suggest that Scripture, which is full of illogical ideas BASED on this mental speculation you so abhor, is “logical”! Try as you might, the ideas contained in Scripture cannot be supported logically. You prize logic quite highly… and yet you reject the idea that all things manifest materially. Therefore, you do not prize logic, but rather mental speculation. Logic, my friend, is based on that which is known to exist in reality. Everything that we know to exist in reality has physical evidence; therefore, in order to call something “logical”, you MUST be able to prove, PHYSICALLY, its existence. The lack of physical evidence for the soul, God, or karma reduce these concepts to mere “mental speculation”, NOT logic.

It is only your mental speculation that Scripture is full of mental speculation. Also, as I have said, I have no speculation in this. This is not my philosophy. Regardless, you lack physical evidence to prove that you are hungry. You also lack physical evidence to prove that you have a mind. Therefore it is logical for me to conclude that you don't have a mind. I have given you enough subtle proof to understand the existence of God and the soul as more than mere speculation. Actually, you have offered nothing to replace these concepts. If they are imperfect speculations, then how come you have no plausible substitute? Void is not a substitute. The existence of the soul may not be proven by seeing, touching, tasting, hearing or smelling, but that makes no difference. Consciousness is the symptom of the soul. But then again, I guess since you have no mind it makes sense now why you cannot see this simple fact.


I stated: "The conclusion of impersonalism is due to a lack of perception."

To which you replied:

The conclusion of “impersonalism” is due to accurate perception. The conclusion that God is a thinking, controlling entity with a personality and purpose is due to a lack of perception based on mental speculation.

God is not void of any quality. Actually, from God comes all qualities, therefore God is not impersonal. Impersonal means void of personality. God is not void of ANYTHING. Quality does not come from void. It is LACK OF PERCEPTION to think that it does. This "accurate perception" is mental speculation. You cannot understand how God can be a person, or who this person is by your speculation, therefore you have made this conclusion that God is void of personality. God is not void. GOD IS TRANSCENDENTAL! God cannot be a person like you because you are limited, and so you have decided that He has no personality. This is your foolishness. You are not expected to fully understand the specifics of God, but to conclude lack as a quality of God (or a quality at all) because of this is not very intelligent.


I said: "I meant that I am not speculating. If what I follow is speculation then it is someone else’s speculation. In theory, it belongs to Krsna."

To which you replied:

Yes, you ARE speculating. You are speculating that Krishna exists. You are speculating that Krishna wrote the Vedas. You are speculating that Krishna wrote the TRUTH in the Vedas, rather than writing lies to see if you could figure out the real truth for yourself. The only “evidence” you have for any of these things IS the Vedas… and the only evidence you have that the Vedas is “truth” is, again, the Vedas. This is circular logic: “The Vedas are true because they are written by Krishna. The Vedas are written by Krishna because they say they were written by Krishna. Krishna exists because the Vedas say he exists.” That not logical; it is mental speculation.

Then I am speculating that you exist. but that is another thing...
Krishna did not Personally write any of the Vedas. The Bhagavad-Gita is the account of Krishna's word's toward Arjuna, but the Vedas were written by Vyasadeva. That is not the point either...
You may use common sense to decide whether something is truth or lies. I do not blindly accept anything that is stamped, "Vedas". It is simply a matter of my continual defeat in attempting to find flaws in Vedanta philosophy. That is my experience. You're welcome to find flaws in it as well. If you want I can send you a copy of the Bhagavad-Gita, free of charge. Just let me know when you are ready.
It is pointless to debate whether Krishna exists. You exist maybe because you say you exist. Actually, that is less a reason to believe that your existence has any more validity than Krishna's, seeing that not only does Krishna account for His own existence, but various other personalities account for it as well. Now you can go and round up a group of people to verify your existence to me. Still, I will only be convinced of their authority by the quality of their character and whether or not they appear to be slave or master of the senses. So many things must go into account before something is accepted as authoritive.
This is me just playing into your reasoning. Call me a fool, but I actually accept that you exist without being thoroughly convinced.

Never once did you address the original question. I wanted an example of objective virtue after you suggested that there is both subjective AND objective virtue. I was not asking about objective vs subjective thinking.

Subjective virtue means virtue relative to one's own whims. Objective virtue means virtue given by God.


I said: "If anyone gets to decide what is objective, that would be God. God says that the self is not the body, and that the self owns nothing, but rather, is owned by God. He also says that the self is eternally related to God. This is what God supposedly says. You accept, or you dwell on a speculative platform. That is your choice."

To which you replied:

If anyone gets to decide what is objective, that would be God, IF GOD EVEN EXISTS. THE VEDAS SAY WITH NO PROOF THAT God says the self is not the body, and that the self owns nothing, but rather, is owned by God. THE VEDAS ALSO CLAIMS, AGAIN WITH NO PROOF, THAT he also says that the self is eternally related to God. This is what God supposedly says. You accept THAT THIS IS AN OBJECTIVE PLATFORM AND THAT YOUR OWN POST IS A SUBJECTIVE PLATFORM, or you dwell on a speculative platform. That is your choice.

Lol. You are a rascal! Referring to yourself as a theist then turning around to suggest that God may not exist. That pretty much sums it all up.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I said: "We are controlled by material nature, but that does not mean we have to be."

To which you replied:

Oh? Explain to me how you’ve defied material laws lately.

"Material" means forgetful of God. Thus material laws are defied when one acts in remembrance of God. Also, the general symptoms of material life are birth, disease, old age and death. One who acts in pure devotional service of God is not required to take birth again after the death of his/her current body. You have no practical experience of rebirth or of being transcendentally situated, at least not that you can recall. Your memory is bewildered by material interaction. Otherwise, describe to me in detail where you were, what you were doing, and what you were thinking on March 20th, 1992, at 5:30 pm.


I said: "The point of self-realization is to understand that we are constitutionally transcendental to material nature."

To which you replied:

No proof, no logic, no debate. Remember?

Perhaps I did not address the logic herein because I had previously addressed it multiple times in other places. Perhaps I am tired of trying to spoon feed you answers that I have already presented.


I said: "To think contrarily is called false ego"

To which you replied:

No, it’s called “reality”. To believe what you state is called “mental speculation”.

Your so-called reality is a product of imperfect sense perception. That about sums it up for you. You fail to take into consideration the self who is responsible for the interaction between the senses and their sense objects, but yet cannot have anything to do with the interactions themselves. Furthermore, you have failed to see the logic in this showing how, if the self is in fact constitutionally entangled in material interaction, then it would thus have not the ability to consider whether it is or isn't entangled in material interaction. In other words, (as I have put it so many times now), CHANGE PRODUCES CHANGE. If you are in any way a product of any material interaction then *YOU* do not exist. And if you do not exist, then what to speak of the value of your words, spoken or typed? This pretty much sums you up to nil. We're adding lots of zeros here, which brings me back to questioning why you even continue discussing these things.


I said: "Actually, consciousness is constitutionally factual. But it is bewildered by material energy. That is false ego. When the consciousness returns to its real position means that it returns to its position in direct relationship with God. That is how one knows illusory from factual."

To which you replied:

LMAO, allow me to suggest an alternate hypothesis. For the sake of convenience, we’ll accept that what you just said is true. That still means that illusionary consciousness is possible because it CAN be “bewildered by material energy”. Being bewildered, it may THINK that it has returned to its “real position in direct relationship with God”, but in truth it has not, it is confused and mistook its position of “false ego” as the position of “direct relationship with God”. So, again, how do you differentiate. While illusionary consciousness is possible, you can never be sure that what you think is factual really IS factual.

To think oneself as eternal servitor of God is itself sufficient as "factual consciousness". Even if one has little to no understanding of who God is, sincere thinking and attempting to act in that way is not false ego, aka: illusory consciousness. Coming in contact with the material body, people tend to think self as body. That is false ego because such an existence has no endurance. Therefore, true ego is not in understanding one's identity as the body, but understanding that one's identity is in relation to the absolute. So your speculation that one can be in false ego in direct relationship with the absolute is nonsense. God means absolute and absolute means eternally enduring. Comparing a body that only endures for a very short period of time with an eternally existing reality should provide you with the answer to which consciousness is factual and which one is illusory. The further we go the more skeptical you get, resulting in my having to over explain these points. If you don't understand by now then perhaps you are not ready for this.


I said: "Your questions toward me are assuming the premise of mental speculation. You may not accept that the Vedas are beyond speculation, but that will be my answer, first and foremost."

To which you replied:

Which, again, makes me wonder why we are debating. You offer no proof other than a book that claims to be its own proof… and you one moment reject logical arguments based on the notion that human logic has yet to catch up with the truth of the Vedas, and the next argue that only logic can be used in a debate. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

And in your case it matters not if what I speak is logic or otherwise because truth cannot be displayed perfectly in word-based concepts. So why are you debating? At least I accept the possibility of words as authoritive. That gives me more reason to debate than you.


I said: "Secondly, these conclusions were not fed to me by imperfect sense perception."

To which you replied:

Oh? PROVE it, because I think they were.

Proof: I didn't write the Vedas, therefore I cannot be held responsible in the case that they are merely speculative. Which means that these conclusions were not fed to me by imperfect sense perception, at least not my imperfect sense perception, (that is what I meant when stating this originally).


I said: "did not look at the sun and conclude that it was a flat glowing disc. I looked in a science book and read that the sun is actually spherical."

To which you replied:

There you go again. One minute you seem to be saying “I am logical, my beliefs are based on science” and the next “Science is wrong when it does not match my beliefs and is based on illusionary material reality.” MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

This was simply an example. Not everything that science has concluded is false. I have never said that. And you are not addressing the analogy itself. My mind is made up. You are the one that cannot decide whether to be a theist or an atheist.


I said: "You must understand that God is ultimately inconceivable."

To which you replied:

Really? Then why do you keep telling me what God is and isn’t, what God can be and what God can’t be? MAKE UP YOUR MIND!

Because God being ultimately inconceivable doesn't mean that we can conceive nothing of Him. It just means that we are limited in our understanding of Him. We can understand to a degree. Behold the made up mind!

Gah, I can't do this anymore. You keep making statements that you claim are logical and objective, and yet refuse to offer proof on the basis of your scorn of “material sense gratification” and your insistence that science is only true so long as it supports your beliefs.

It is not my lack of offering proof, it is your rejection of that offering. That's the problem. You will live indulged either in your relationship with God or your relationship with Maya. From this premise you can go seek what is logical and objective. I have already explained the logic behind everything I have stated. You, because you cannot debate these points, have resorted to moving the goal posts. You have changed your position merely for the sake of argument, "theist". My position on these matters has not changed. I am not entertaining the idea of God not existing. That is what you are doing. So you make up your mind. I'll be around when you do.