Vedantic theory of God

[Arkangel]

not at all sarcastic arkangel - i agree with most of the views expressed here, just felt that what i could say might be redundant.

however now at the risk of being repetative, i agree that most hindus consider ISKON as a part of hinduism, just like the kali cult, saivism etc.

my belief (more in line with vedantic theory)is that god, is an idea of a tremendous pool of energy, the sum total of all energy conceivable, and which resides in you me an everyother animate or inanimate object, thus making us all subsets of godliness. (this is also the underlying concept of idolism, stones represent god as much as you and i do). Krishna in my belief was human with much more godliness than you and me and that by my theory of god ties in very well. so Krishna for me is a manifestation of god, and might i say you are a manifestation of god too but only less significant.

i personally think that the truth (for me) is to practice ways of increasing the pool of energy in me, such that at some point in space and time, i would be one with god, thus freeing myself of the bondage of space, time etal. that revealation would make me at once you and me and everything else, and help me be there and here at once and be then and now at once, that as far as my revealations go, is a field of whitelight, intense, hot and cold at the same time, which feels like pure love...

I to believe in a similar idea but with a difference. We are the same manifestation of that energy; me, you, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus or anything/anybody. The difference is that Krishna, Buddha and Jesus realised their true nature, their true being. But we are still so bound by the maya that this life is that we might as well take a long time to realise individually what they realised so early.

The energy and the soul knows its Godhead nature but to experience its Godhead nature it needs to know what it is not to know its Godhead nature. For example, for everything to exist there has to be nothing, for the universe to keep expanding there has to be something that is empty of everything so that universe, which is everything can expand into this emptiness which is nothing cause it lacks something, which again is part of everything. If you do not understand this, no problem. I took months to understand that, it is not the point, just an example.

For those who would like to understand, i will try to make it simple. The universe is still expanding, meaning that there is room available for this expansion. Now we know that the universe is the sum total of everything that is, but it is expanding into something that is not, that is void of everything (in this context, Universe). It is empty, a void that lacks everything but void so that the universe can move in. This void is nothing. Likewise, for the Soul to attain its Godhead, it to should expand into this void which is not-god to understand what Godhead is. Our karma takes us through misery only to understand happiness. With no night, nobody can truely understand day; the expericence of a day comes as a result of experincing night. So too should the soul experience things that will ultimately lead to Godhead, like night leads to Day.

 

[Moses the God Archetype*]

m: What can i say arkangel as always you leave me with nothing more to say or add on at this time..........hahahahahahaha(estatic laughter) but then again who knows, i think and beloved tell me if i'm wrong, that the difference between you and i is that i belive in the personal aspect to the divinity(krishna), and that the impersonal (brahman) is merely his aura or the all pervading light that surrounds him that is my position within the vedas.:flower2:

 

[Arkangel]

m: What can i say arkangel as always you leave me with nothing more to say or add on at this time..........hahahahahahaha(estatic laughter) but then again who knows, i think and beloved tell me if i'm wrong, that the difference between you and i is that i belive in the personal aspect to the divinity(krishna), and that the impersonal (brahman) is merely his aura or the all pervading light that surrounds him that is my position within the vedas.:flower2:

I have relpaced your term of light with cosmic energy, since i believe that energy is more pervasive in the universe than light. But i still mean brahman.

Your interpretation is not wrong.

You do not distinguish the aura from the self, or to put in other terms. The soul and the cosmic energy. They are so intertwined that distinguishing them becomes difficult. Is the soul different from the energy, am i different from the universe. The energy surrounds me yet it is impersonal while my soul is only me. But when it comes to the divine (Krishna) your interpretation holds true. Since Krishna realised his Godhead, the supreme soul, of which we are all subsets, it makes no difference to distinguish between Krishna and brahman.

But when talking about the individual, you, me and others. I believe the difference holds true.

 

[Moses the God Archetype*]

Thankyou for that understanding beloved.