KRSNA - as Vasudeva. to Vyasudeva
- Thread starter XianeX
- Start date
::shaking his head:: w/ heresy (for once albeit not for the same reason)
LMFAO @ WJ
MAN, You continually say I'm wrong then prove I'm right then go back and give evidence of how you think I'm wrong.
YOU AMAZE ME!!! wow!!!
I am not arguing that Vasudeva was created I'm arguing that Krsna being created is not the cause of causes. for how can the cause of causes be caused?
therefore the translation Krsna the son of Vasudeva is incorrect. they are one and the same Vasudeva is another name for Krsna.
Vasudeva is "the personification of godhead" Krsna IS "godhead beyond form".
if we are ALL krsna in fragment seeking pleasure we are collectively Krsna entertaining each other. therefore Krsna entertains himself through himself as us. this is blatant throughout the cantos.
I see you as an extension of myself (which is manifest through our communication).
You see the canto from the position of the devotionalist, I see the cantos from the position of the guru.
we won't see eye to eye because of you have an indoctrinated perspective not a indoctrinating perspective.
grab a math book |1| + |1| = |1| & |1| * |1| = |1|
1/1 == 2/2 == 3/3 == 4/4 etcetra
these are ALL PERSPECTIVES ON THE ABSOLUTE.
the absolute is one but pursuant to the perspective he is considered multifarious. just as a sphere has only one true facet one that is incapable of seeing the sphere all encompassingly will see a perspective and that perspective is considered to him "a" facet.
do the math
i'll reiterate. You say I'm wrong prove that I'm right then (erronously) propose evidence of my incorrectness.
my ism is deep. call it what you wish
LMFAO @ WJ
MAN, You continually say I'm wrong then prove I'm right then go back and give evidence of how you think I'm wrong.
YOU AMAZE ME!!! wow!!!
I am not arguing that Vasudeva was created I'm arguing that Krsna being created is not the cause of causes. for how can the cause of causes be caused?
therefore the translation Krsna the son of Vasudeva is incorrect. they are one and the same Vasudeva is another name for Krsna.
Vasudeva is "the personification of godhead" Krsna IS "godhead beyond form".
if we are ALL krsna in fragment seeking pleasure we are collectively Krsna entertaining each other. therefore Krsna entertains himself through himself as us. this is blatant throughout the cantos.
I see you as an extension of myself (which is manifest through our communication).
You see the canto from the position of the devotionalist, I see the cantos from the position of the guru.
we won't see eye to eye because of you have an indoctrinated perspective not a indoctrinating perspective.
grab a math book |1| + |1| = |1| & |1| * |1| = |1|
1/1 == 2/2 == 3/3 == 4/4 etcetra
these are ALL PERSPECTIVES ON THE ABSOLUTE.
the absolute is one but pursuant to the perspective he is considered multifarious. just as a sphere has only one true facet one that is incapable of seeing the sphere all encompassingly will see a perspective and that perspective is considered to him "a" facet.
do the math
i'll reiterate. You say I'm wrong prove that I'm right then (erronously) propose evidence of my incorrectness.
my ism is deep. call it what you wish
What the fuck are you talking about?
1. Krsna, the Supreme Person, is not caused nor is He created.
2. The quote YOU provided (SB 1.1.1) even says as much: [color=sky blue]"I meditate upon Lord Sri Krsna because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes."[/color]
So the answer to your question "How can the cause of causes be caused?" is obviously that it cannot be caused. That is what it means to be eternal. Never beginning and never ending. Having no cause.
What the fuck are you talking about? You are going to tell me that the Vedas are incorrect, and that the acaryas (spiritual masters), who are lifelong scholars of Vedanta, and Krsna Himself, are all incorrect and that you have somehow gleaned the actual truth from the Vedas?
You should read the entire Bhagavatam, then you would not make such blatant mistakes.
SB 4.30.24:
namo visuddha-sattvaya haraye hari-medhase
vasudevaya krsnaya prabhave sarva-satvatam
[color=sky blue]"Dear Lord, we offer our respectful obeisances unto You because Your existence is completely independent of all material influences. Your Lordship always takes away the devotee's miserable conditions, for Your brain plans how to do so. You live everywhere as Paramatma; therefore You are known as Vasudeva. You also accept Vasudeva as Your father, and You are celebrated by the name Krsna. You are so kind that You always increase the influence of all kinds of devotees."[/color]
You say Vasudeva and Krsna are one and the same. They are not. They are one and different. The Vedas clearly say that this is the case yet you claim the Vedas are incorrect.
Why are you unable to read the scripture as it is? Because your false ego is subtly attempting to create an interpretation of the scripture which is in line with your minds' already formed perspective and prior opinions. So while the Vedas are clearly saying "Krsna is Supreme Person", your false ego is looking for ways for that to mean "Everyone is Supreme Person." The false ego is the component which causes the mind to reject subordinance (even though it is obvious that we infinitesimal living entities are not in control of the material nature, and are subject to a superior power). On a subtle level, you are thinking "I am God". Maybe you think that consciously. Either way, you are half-true. We are equal in QUALITY with the Supreme, but we are not equal in QUANTITY with the Supreme. There must be a distinction between the supreme and the subordinate, otherwise to discuss God is meaningless.
The false ego rejects this obvious distinction, and instead it constantly attempts to convince the mind of the false notion that each individual is "equal" to God. This leads to the view that "all is one" or "all is zero". This is all due to the false ego, and is why you refuse to see Vasudeva AS HE IS, and instead you fallaciously designate Him as Krsna's equal. Then you offer the opinion that there is no distinction between Krsna and Vasudeva. You say they are "one and the same". But this is clearly incorrect. As the verse says, "Therefore you are known as Vasudeva. You also accept Vasudeva as Your father and You are celebrated by the name Krsna."
What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes, Vasudeva is another name for Krsna.
No, Krsna is NOT "Godhead beyond form". Where are you getting this from?? Krs-na means all-attractive. We see minutely attractive people, and their FORM is what is attractive, and Krsna is the supremely attractive form.
Krsna Himself says in the Bhagavad-gita 4.6:
[color=sky blue]"Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form."[/color]
So Krsna is saying that He has a transcendental form. He says He is unborn and His body never deteriorates. He is clearly saying that He has a FORM.
But are you again going to tell me that Krsna and His word, the Vedas, are incorrect?
See you keep trying to equate us with Krsna and that is incorrect. Krsna is present in every living beings' body. We are not. Krsna has complete knowledge. We do not. We have all of Krsna's qualities but we do not have them in equal quantity as Krsna. We are not equal to the Absolute, but we are a part of it and share the qualities of it.
You are seeing from a faulty perspective. I am not an extension of you. You are not an extension of me. We are both parts and parcels of the Supreme Truth, Sri Krsna.
You are not a guru. And if you knew what guru means, you would know that the guru is the highest representation of devotion.
We don't see to eye to eye because I do not feel the need to change and interpret the clear words of the Vedas. We do not see eye to eye because unlike you I do not fool myself into thinking I am God and everything is an extenstion of me.
You are trying to indoctrinate me into thinking that the Vedas and Krsna are incorrect. You shouldn't pretend that you are somehow above being conditioned and conditioning others.
All the numbers in the world mean nothing without 1. 1 is singular. That singularity is Krsna. After the basis of 1, there may be an infinite number which exist subsequently. But the 1 is always superior, supreme, absolute.
I doubt that you actually understand what "absolute" means.
But if you understood that Krsna is both attached and detached eternally from the sphere, then you see that He CAN see the sphere all encompassingly and remain independent of it even at such time as He is pervading it and sustaining it.
It's not about "right" and "wrong". Like you said we are simply sharing perspectives on the Absolute. I accept that the nature of the Absolute is *as it is* described in the Vedic literature, and where we differ is that you wish to interpret and change the scripture to fit your "all is one/all is the same" ideology.
1. Krsna, the Supreme Person, is not caused nor is He created.
2. The quote YOU provided (SB 1.1.1) even says as much: [color=sky blue]"I meditate upon Lord Sri Krsna because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes."[/color]
So the answer to your question "How can the cause of causes be caused?" is obviously that it cannot be caused. That is what it means to be eternal. Never beginning and never ending. Having no cause.
What the fuck are you talking about? You are going to tell me that the Vedas are incorrect, and that the acaryas (spiritual masters), who are lifelong scholars of Vedanta, and Krsna Himself, are all incorrect and that you have somehow gleaned the actual truth from the Vedas?
You should read the entire Bhagavatam, then you would not make such blatant mistakes.
SB 4.30.24:
namo visuddha-sattvaya haraye hari-medhase
vasudevaya krsnaya prabhave sarva-satvatam
[color=sky blue]"Dear Lord, we offer our respectful obeisances unto You because Your existence is completely independent of all material influences. Your Lordship always takes away the devotee's miserable conditions, for Your brain plans how to do so. You live everywhere as Paramatma; therefore You are known as Vasudeva. You also accept Vasudeva as Your father, and You are celebrated by the name Krsna. You are so kind that You always increase the influence of all kinds of devotees."[/color]
You say Vasudeva and Krsna are one and the same. They are not. They are one and different. The Vedas clearly say that this is the case yet you claim the Vedas are incorrect.
Why are you unable to read the scripture as it is? Because your false ego is subtly attempting to create an interpretation of the scripture which is in line with your minds' already formed perspective and prior opinions. So while the Vedas are clearly saying "Krsna is Supreme Person", your false ego is looking for ways for that to mean "Everyone is Supreme Person." The false ego is the component which causes the mind to reject subordinance (even though it is obvious that we infinitesimal living entities are not in control of the material nature, and are subject to a superior power). On a subtle level, you are thinking "I am God". Maybe you think that consciously. Either way, you are half-true. We are equal in QUALITY with the Supreme, but we are not equal in QUANTITY with the Supreme. There must be a distinction between the supreme and the subordinate, otherwise to discuss God is meaningless.
The false ego rejects this obvious distinction, and instead it constantly attempts to convince the mind of the false notion that each individual is "equal" to God. This leads to the view that "all is one" or "all is zero". This is all due to the false ego, and is why you refuse to see Vasudeva AS HE IS, and instead you fallaciously designate Him as Krsna's equal. Then you offer the opinion that there is no distinction between Krsna and Vasudeva. You say they are "one and the same". But this is clearly incorrect. As the verse says, "Therefore you are known as Vasudeva. You also accept Vasudeva as Your father and You are celebrated by the name Krsna."
What the fuck are you talking about?
Yes, Vasudeva is another name for Krsna.
No, Krsna is NOT "Godhead beyond form". Where are you getting this from?? Krs-na means all-attractive. We see minutely attractive people, and their FORM is what is attractive, and Krsna is the supremely attractive form.
Krsna Himself says in the Bhagavad-gita 4.6:
[color=sky blue]"Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all sentient beings, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form."[/color]
So Krsna is saying that He has a transcendental form. He says He is unborn and His body never deteriorates. He is clearly saying that He has a FORM.
But are you again going to tell me that Krsna and His word, the Vedas, are incorrect?
See you keep trying to equate us with Krsna and that is incorrect. Krsna is present in every living beings' body. We are not. Krsna has complete knowledge. We do not. We have all of Krsna's qualities but we do not have them in equal quantity as Krsna. We are not equal to the Absolute, but we are a part of it and share the qualities of it.
You are seeing from a faulty perspective. I am not an extension of you. You are not an extension of me. We are both parts and parcels of the Supreme Truth, Sri Krsna.
You are not a guru. And if you knew what guru means, you would know that the guru is the highest representation of devotion.
We don't see to eye to eye because I do not feel the need to change and interpret the clear words of the Vedas. We do not see eye to eye because unlike you I do not fool myself into thinking I am God and everything is an extenstion of me.
You are trying to indoctrinate me into thinking that the Vedas and Krsna are incorrect. You shouldn't pretend that you are somehow above being conditioned and conditioning others.
All the numbers in the world mean nothing without 1. 1 is singular. That singularity is Krsna. After the basis of 1, there may be an infinite number which exist subsequently. But the 1 is always superior, supreme, absolute.
I doubt that you actually understand what "absolute" means.
But if you understood that Krsna is both attached and detached eternally from the sphere, then you see that He CAN see the sphere all encompassingly and remain independent of it even at such time as He is pervading it and sustaining it.
It's not about "right" and "wrong". Like you said we are simply sharing perspectives on the Absolute. I accept that the nature of the Absolute is *as it is* described in the Vedic literature, and where we differ is that you wish to interpret and change the scripture to fit your "all is one/all is the same" ideology.
::Yawn::
I now find you morbidly stupid. I apologize for wasting my time in discussion with you. at first I wasn't going to endulge this laborous read. but I stopped and said what the hell.
hence forth I have only rhetorical questions that I don't wish answered neither will I seek answers:
If a father is the cause of his son how can his son be the cause of all causes if the son himself has been caused?
a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
how can a son have no ending or beginning IF he began with his father? a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
how am i making a blatant mistake outside of entertaining your questions when you already presume my incorrectness? you are undoubtedly wasting your time and mine.
a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
you are an idiot. you read the commentary around the cantos and accept eschatology as absolute ism. you are acolyte of nonsense. it is funny how you can directly quote a canto in three forms and not understand that the english translation they've given is not direct quote. you are a fool. you insult my ego but you can't read. teapot and the kettle.
if we are god how are we subordinate? a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
how if I say we are all fragments of the absolute did you get the idea of my equating myself with the absolute?a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
I never said godhead beyond form was the definition for the word KRNSA. I meant that if Vasudeva is the personification of godhead then krsna to be the absolute would have to be beyond (Transcending) form.
If Vasudeva is another name for Krsna then you've just said that I was right. and are providing information to disprove what you just gave credence to. why do you do this?a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
if transcendental is beyond and form is state. we in this incarnation are a manifestation of krsna in a common form "not" transcendental. because you and I both assert that there is a form beyond this and the absoulute is not constraned by time and space; the transcendental form is perpetual and is NOT static when does the absolute take a form which isnt absolute?a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
if krsna is present in all things how are we not a fragment of krsna?a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
Krsna is al attracting and find each part of himself attracting to another. we as fragments of krsna are extensions of the absolute. if krsna endwells all things then we as being a part of krsna are attracted through discourse to perpetuate and unite as a more powerful manifestation of krsna together than we would alone. in he absolute every manifestation within this manifestation is another universe that is inseperate from the absolute.
if we are "parcels" of sri krsna you have once again backed my argument and have reaffirmed my position.
I know what guru means but undoubtedly you don't know what devotionalist means.
I never said or asserted that I am god absolute. you are in error. if you don't wish to change your perspective you are wasting your time mine will not be altered. I have self knowledge you are seeking. if I do not suit your pallette seek elsewhere and don't waste our time. *smile*
nothing that I've said indicated that the ORIGINAL TEXT of the vedas are incorrect you should learn how to read. then you would see what I'm saying more clearly. then you wouldn't skip important things that i say that indicate the fallaciousness of your presumptions.
I'm not above or below any concept of conditioning. but I will say. you are not fit to condition me *smile*
I have not tried to condition you either. I give a perspective from how I see it. if you do not accept my position ignore as do I yours.
I said that I see things from the perspective of the indoctrinating. you should learn how to read things "as they are" as you continually remind me.
My Quote:
grab a math book |1| + |1| = |1| & |1| * |1| = |1|
1/1 == 2/2 == 3/3 == 4/4 etcetra
Your Quote:
All the numbers in the world mean nothing without 1. 1 is singular. That singularity is Krsna. After the basis of 1, there may be an infinite number which exist subsequently. But the 1 is always superior, supreme, absolute.
this shows how stupid you are. grab a MATH BOOK. DAYUM!!!
once again you have unwittingly reasserted my position. THANK YOU for being so inept.
Your Quote:
I doubt that you actually understand what "absolute" means.
Undoubtedly it is you that doesn't CTFU-ROFLMMFAO WOW this is hillarious
how many times have I said this. even in our last discussion i've said this. I just used "the absolute" not the word "krsna" once again you take what I say then repeat it to me as if I hadn't already said it. LMAO DAYUM. you just keep diggin deeper.
I never said that krnsa or the absolute was a sphere once again you as you do your book read things that aren't there and not read exactly what is.
if it is not about right or wrong why do you contest what I say? If we are sharing perspectives then It wouldn't be you fighting everything i say tooth and nail. if it wasn't about right or wrong you'd be saying this is a way to look at it not "what the fuck are you talking about" LMFAO. your last paragraph is faulty.
my ideology is not "all is one/all is the same". far from it. but you can't see past your own predisposition and opinion to actually know what mine is.
All is a part of One. all see the one with different perspectives until they comprehend the all encompassing nature of the one. then they see themself. then they see all things in balance.
I now find you morbidly stupid. I apologize for wasting my time in discussion with you. at first I wasn't going to endulge this laborous read. but I stopped and said what the hell.
hence forth I have only rhetorical questions that I don't wish answered neither will I seek answers:
If a father is the cause of his son how can his son be the cause of all causes if the son himself has been caused?
a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
how can a son have no ending or beginning IF he began with his father? a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
how am i making a blatant mistake outside of entertaining your questions when you already presume my incorrectness? you are undoubtedly wasting your time and mine.
a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
you are an idiot. you read the commentary around the cantos and accept eschatology as absolute ism. you are acolyte of nonsense. it is funny how you can directly quote a canto in three forms and not understand that the english translation they've given is not direct quote. you are a fool. you insult my ego but you can't read. teapot and the kettle.
if we are god how are we subordinate? a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
how if I say we are all fragments of the absolute did you get the idea of my equating myself with the absolute?a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
I never said godhead beyond form was the definition for the word KRNSA. I meant that if Vasudeva is the personification of godhead then krsna to be the absolute would have to be beyond (Transcending) form.
If Vasudeva is another name for Krsna then you've just said that I was right. and are providing information to disprove what you just gave credence to. why do you do this?a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
if transcendental is beyond and form is state. we in this incarnation are a manifestation of krsna in a common form "not" transcendental. because you and I both assert that there is a form beyond this and the absoulute is not constraned by time and space; the transcendental form is perpetual and is NOT static when does the absolute take a form which isnt absolute?a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
if krsna is present in all things how are we not a fragment of krsna?a STUPID question please don't bother answering.
Krsna is al attracting and find each part of himself attracting to another. we as fragments of krsna are extensions of the absolute. if krsna endwells all things then we as being a part of krsna are attracted through discourse to perpetuate and unite as a more powerful manifestation of krsna together than we would alone. in he absolute every manifestation within this manifestation is another universe that is inseperate from the absolute.
if we are "parcels" of sri krsna you have once again backed my argument and have reaffirmed my position.
I know what guru means but undoubtedly you don't know what devotionalist means.
I never said or asserted that I am god absolute. you are in error. if you don't wish to change your perspective you are wasting your time mine will not be altered. I have self knowledge you are seeking. if I do not suit your pallette seek elsewhere and don't waste our time. *smile*
nothing that I've said indicated that the ORIGINAL TEXT of the vedas are incorrect you should learn how to read. then you would see what I'm saying more clearly. then you wouldn't skip important things that i say that indicate the fallaciousness of your presumptions.
I'm not above or below any concept of conditioning. but I will say. you are not fit to condition me *smile*
I have not tried to condition you either. I give a perspective from how I see it. if you do not accept my position ignore as do I yours.
I said that I see things from the perspective of the indoctrinating. you should learn how to read things "as they are" as you continually remind me.
My Quote:
grab a math book |1| + |1| = |1| & |1| * |1| = |1|
1/1 == 2/2 == 3/3 == 4/4 etcetra
Your Quote:
All the numbers in the world mean nothing without 1. 1 is singular. That singularity is Krsna. After the basis of 1, there may be an infinite number which exist subsequently. But the 1 is always superior, supreme, absolute.
this shows how stupid you are. grab a MATH BOOK. DAYUM!!!
once again you have unwittingly reasserted my position. THANK YOU for being so inept.
Your Quote:
I doubt that you actually understand what "absolute" means.
Undoubtedly it is you that doesn't CTFU-ROFLMMFAO WOW this is hillarious
how many times have I said this. even in our last discussion i've said this. I just used "the absolute" not the word "krsna" once again you take what I say then repeat it to me as if I hadn't already said it. LMAO DAYUM. you just keep diggin deeper.
I never said that krnsa or the absolute was a sphere once again you as you do your book read things that aren't there and not read exactly what is.
if it is not about right or wrong why do you contest what I say? If we are sharing perspectives then It wouldn't be you fighting everything i say tooth and nail. if it wasn't about right or wrong you'd be saying this is a way to look at it not "what the fuck are you talking about" LMFAO. your last paragraph is faulty.
my ideology is not "all is one/all is the same". far from it. but you can't see past your own predisposition and opinion to actually know what mine is.
All is a part of One. all see the one with different perspectives until they comprehend the all encompassing nature of the one. then they see themself. then they see all things in balance.
Look at you, what a little bitch you turn into when you can't win a debate with logic. You should have just left the Vedas alone little girl, because you clearly do not have the mental capacity of a lab rat, much less the necessary human mind needed to grasp Vedic philosophy.
I didn't even bother reading all that blah blah blah shit once I realized you didn't do shit but whine like a little hoe. You know how I know that you are full of shit and don't even grasp the philosophy you are trying to talk about? By your repetitive use of "CTFU ROFLMMFAO this is hillarious wow golly gee I am cracking up OMG LOL DAYUM" etc etc etc etc ad nauseum.
Stop with the bullshit and fake laughter already you fuckin dork, you and I both know your faggot ass is not "cracking the fuck up" over this shit, and if you are, then you are a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for.
What kind of muthafucka talks like that? Are you sure you aint some 13 year old girl? With all your cute little acronyms and smiley faces and DAYUMS... You are right I am wasting my time.
I did appreciate your attempt to discuss this shit in an academic manner, but I knew you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about from the get go. You got in over your head, and now that you are unable to debate using logic or reason, you go right back to the usual bullshit.
You know why you answered your own questions with "STUPID question don't bother answering"??
Because they *are* stupid questions, and this is no surprise, considering the source.
Do yourself a favor you fuckin retarded fruitcake. Go back to imitating people and copying and pasting their names and words, because the nonsensical bullshit that appears as a result of your own keystrokes is worse than seeing the same shit repeated over and over.
I didn't even bother reading all that blah blah blah shit once I realized you didn't do shit but whine like a little hoe. You know how I know that you are full of shit and don't even grasp the philosophy you are trying to talk about? By your repetitive use of "CTFU ROFLMMFAO this is hillarious wow golly gee I am cracking up OMG LOL DAYUM" etc etc etc etc ad nauseum.
Stop with the bullshit and fake laughter already you fuckin dork, you and I both know your faggot ass is not "cracking the fuck up" over this shit, and if you are, then you are a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for.
What kind of muthafucka talks like that? Are you sure you aint some 13 year old girl? With all your cute little acronyms and smiley faces and DAYUMS... You are right I am wasting my time.
I did appreciate your attempt to discuss this shit in an academic manner, but I knew you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about from the get go. You got in over your head, and now that you are unable to debate using logic or reason, you go right back to the usual bullshit.
You know why you answered your own questions with "STUPID question don't bother answering"??
Because they *are* stupid questions, and this is no surprise, considering the source.
Do yourself a favor you fuckin retarded fruitcake. Go back to imitating people and copying and pasting their names and words, because the nonsensical bullshit that appears as a result of your own keystrokes is worse than seeing the same shit repeated over and over.
XianeX is a:
stupid?
bitch?
hoe?
a 13 yr old girl?
dork?
idiot?
retarded?
fruitcake?
WOW. CTFU ROFLMMFAO
OMG GOLLY GEE DAYUM HAHAHA
my questions are stupid because you can't answer them. so I'd rather not allow you to embarass yourself. merciful me.
you say I'm right and then refute it. so how do I know nothing if you keep saying I'm right? a Stupid question don't bother answering it.
I'm over my head but you are the one frustrated and have more questions that your are willing to ask because I've shattered your understanding of the vedas. don't be upset, learn.
I've used absolute logic and reasoning. you just chose to ignore it for if you accept what I'm saying as true you would lose your religion. I apologize if this hurts you. sometimes you must break a limb to spare a tree.
once again you accuse me of untrue things. I am sorry that you are inept and basically just childish. i forgive you.
don't ask me for what you can't handle anymore. If i knew that truth would have an effect on you like this I prolly. . . . .woulda did it anyway *smiles* it is a shame that I quote your book and you still don't believe.
Pieces.
stupid?
bitch?
hoe?
a 13 yr old girl?
dork?
idiot?
retarded?
fruitcake?
WOW.
CTFU ROFLMMFAOOMG GOLLY GEE DAYUM HAHAHA
my questions are stupid because you can't answer them. so I'd rather not allow you to embarass yourself. merciful me.
you say I'm right and then refute it. so how do I know nothing if you keep saying I'm right? a Stupid question don't bother answering it.
I'm over my head but you are the one frustrated and have more questions that your are willing to ask because I've shattered your understanding of the vedas. don't be upset, learn.
I've used absolute logic and reasoning. you just chose to ignore it for if you accept what I'm saying as true you would lose your religion. I apologize if this hurts you. sometimes you must break a limb to spare a tree.
once again you accuse me of untrue things. I am sorry that you are inept and basically just childish. i forgive you.
don't ask me for what you can't handle anymore. If i knew that truth would have an effect on you like this I prolly. . . . .woulda did it anyway *smiles* it is a shame that I quote your book and you still don't believe.
Pieces.
Damn...
I haven't been on here in a while.
Nevertheless, I have a few things to say...
@XianeX
Do you really wish to understand this? Or are you merely putting forth your own mentally concocted speculation of what it means?
quote:
"If a father is the cause of his son how can his son be the cause of all causes if the son himself has been caused?"
Krsna was *not* caused by Vasudeva. Krsna put Himself into that position. Also, a father is not the cause of his son. A father may only be an immediate cause for the **material body** in which the eternal soul dwells. But the eternal soul, being eternal, is not born when the body is born. Therefore, the living entity (soul) is caused by The Supreme Lord, not the material father. When you realize that Krsna does *not* have a material body, you realize that Krsna could not have been caused. Krsna set it up for Vasudeva and Devaki to have a child and He placed Himself in the position of that child. Absolutely nothing here shows Him to have been caused. You are obviously plagued with the ignorant conception that material birth is the beginning of the living entity's existence. This is due to false ego. Krsna existed before the material form of His earth father Vasudeva did. Now I hope this is clarified...
quote:
"how can a son have no ending or beginning IF he began with his father?"
Further proof that you have NO idea what you are talking about. This was explained above.
quote:
"if we are god how are we subordinate?"
We are not God. Vyasa has said multiple times that we are part and parcel of God. We are the same qualitatively. But our qualities are not the same in quantity to God's. This is simple. Can you not read? You, I, everyone -- we are only conscious of the body which we indwell. God is conscious of all bodies. Consciousness is the symptom of the soul. Thus, we are equal to God in quality by consciousness. But, because we may only know a part of the whole at any given time, we are not on the same level as God, quantitatively...
quote:
"how if I say we are all fragments of the absolute did you get the idea of my equating myself with the absolute?"
Wait a minute. How are you going to ask, "if we are god how are we subordinate?", implying that we are equal to God, and then ask this question stating that it was you who has been saying that we are only fragments of the absolute?
Are we God or subordinate fragments?
Either you are going to have to explain to me the philosophy of fragments being quantitatively equal to the whole, or you are going to have to admit your hypocrisy.
quote:
"I never said godhead beyond form was the definition for the word KRNSA. I meant that if Vasudeva is the personification of godhead then krsna to be the absolute would have to be beyond (Transcending) form."
Krsna is not "transcending form", but His form is transcendental.
I haven't been on here in a while.
Nevertheless, I have a few things to say...
@XianeX
Do you really wish to understand this? Or are you merely putting forth your own mentally concocted speculation of what it means?
quote:
"If a father is the cause of his son how can his son be the cause of all causes if the son himself has been caused?"
Krsna was *not* caused by Vasudeva. Krsna put Himself into that position. Also, a father is not the cause of his son. A father may only be an immediate cause for the **material body** in which the eternal soul dwells. But the eternal soul, being eternal, is not born when the body is born. Therefore, the living entity (soul) is caused by The Supreme Lord, not the material father. When you realize that Krsna does *not* have a material body, you realize that Krsna could not have been caused. Krsna set it up for Vasudeva and Devaki to have a child and He placed Himself in the position of that child. Absolutely nothing here shows Him to have been caused. You are obviously plagued with the ignorant conception that material birth is the beginning of the living entity's existence. This is due to false ego. Krsna existed before the material form of His earth father Vasudeva did. Now I hope this is clarified...
quote:
"how can a son have no ending or beginning IF he began with his father?"
Further proof that you have NO idea what you are talking about. This was explained above.
quote:
"if we are god how are we subordinate?"
We are not God. Vyasa has said multiple times that we are part and parcel of God. We are the same qualitatively. But our qualities are not the same in quantity to God's. This is simple. Can you not read? You, I, everyone -- we are only conscious of the body which we indwell. God is conscious of all bodies. Consciousness is the symptom of the soul. Thus, we are equal to God in quality by consciousness. But, because we may only know a part of the whole at any given time, we are not on the same level as God, quantitatively...
quote:
"how if I say we are all fragments of the absolute did you get the idea of my equating myself with the absolute?"
Wait a minute. How are you going to ask, "if we are god how are we subordinate?", implying that we are equal to God, and then ask this question stating that it was you who has been saying that we are only fragments of the absolute?
Are we God or subordinate fragments?
Either you are going to have to explain to me the philosophy of fragments being quantitatively equal to the whole, or you are going to have to admit your hypocrisy.
quote:
"I never said godhead beyond form was the definition for the word KRNSA. I meant that if Vasudeva is the personification of godhead then krsna to be the absolute would have to be beyond (Transcending) form."
Krsna is not "transcending form", but His form is transcendental.
::yawn::
beyond = transcending. LOL
how can a fragment be the absolute and how can we as fragments of the absolute ever be totally detached from what we are collectively.
the absolute is subordinate to itself therefore so is it's constituencies but if it's constituencies are manifestations of the absolute is it actually subordinate or just in ordinance?
ponder.
Krsna to be the absolute can have NO beginning or end. If he begins with a father he is in that facet limited. I understand your position and logic but it is flawed in that one cannot be absolute and all powerful as a subordinate and progeny.
that thesis invokes that he has either been given or asurped power.
ANY birth or "coming forth from" shows inferiority to a predecessor.
the absolute is all circumstance and only a product thereof when viewed through the metric of time
unless devaki and vasudeva are symbolic metrics of time and space and Krsna is a metric of a current manifestation of the absolute Krsna can not be considered the absolute. if he in fact IS a manifestation then he is limited to his scope and is not the all encompassing absolute.
ponder.
beyond = transcending. LOL
how can a fragment be the absolute and how can we as fragments of the absolute ever be totally detached from what we are collectively.
the absolute is subordinate to itself therefore so is it's constituencies but if it's constituencies are manifestations of the absolute is it actually subordinate or just in ordinance?
ponder.
Krsna to be the absolute can have NO beginning or end. If he begins with a father he is in that facet limited. I understand your position and logic but it is flawed in that one cannot be absolute and all powerful as a subordinate and progeny.
that thesis invokes that he has either been given or asurped power.
ANY birth or "coming forth from" shows inferiority to a predecessor.
the absolute is all circumstance and only a product thereof when viewed through the metric of time
unless devaki and vasudeva are symbolic metrics of time and space and Krsna is a metric of a current manifestation of the absolute Krsna can not be considered the absolute. if he in fact IS a manifestation then he is limited to his scope and is not the all encompassing absolute.
ponder.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
THATS 1:26 AND I DONT SEE A "WE". MAN WASNT MADE YET SO HE COULDNT HAVE BEEN TALKING TO MAN. THE QURAN HAS MANY INSTANCES OF "HAVE WE NOT MADE ETC ETC ETC?" YET IT SAYS ALLAH IS ONE.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
THATS Genesis 3:22-24 "the man is become as one of us" IS SOMETHING TO PONDER.
OK ENOUGH.
:h:
PS AN "US" BEING TRANSFORMED INTO A "WE" CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE LANGUAGE (HEBREW).
THATS 1:26 AND I DONT SEE A "WE". MAN WASNT MADE YET SO HE COULDNT HAVE BEEN TALKING TO MAN. THE QURAN HAS MANY INSTANCES OF "HAVE WE NOT MADE ETC ETC ETC?" YET IT SAYS ALLAH IS ONE.
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
THATS Genesis 3:22-24 "the man is become as one of us" IS SOMETHING TO PONDER.
OK ENOUGH.
:h:
PS AN "US" BEING TRANSFORMED INTO A "WE" CAN CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE LANGUAGE (HEBREW).
yes it is. especially at the "is" instead of "has". but I believe that the context of god in that chapter is referred to elohim not yhwh.
I promised not to fuck with you about religion but not that we couldn't discuss it.
the context of this is discussion not debate so I don't think that this would be breaking the promise. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this verse. I may break my hebrew bible open to verify. if the context was elohim or YHWH. it may explain the translation.
I promised not to fuck with you about religion but not that we couldn't discuss it.
the context of this is discussion not debate so I don't think that this would be breaking the promise. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this verse. I may break my hebrew bible open to verify. if the context was elohim or YHWH. it may explain the translation.
@XianeX
quote:
"how can a fragment be the absolute and how can we as fragments of the absolute ever be totally detached from what we are collectively."
We, in truth, are not detached from the absolute. The mindstate that insists that we are such is known as the false-ego. This does not conclude that we are, or ever will be equal to Krsna, quantitatively. It is obvious that you, I, we are only conscious of an incredibly miniscule part of the complete whole. Thus even though we are very much a part of the absolute, because our being is so small we tend to forget this fact and we produce what is known as the false ego. The false ego says, "I am this fleeting body", and from this comes, "I am a completely separate individual whose only purpose is to gratify the material senses in such a way consisting with the notion that I will completely derrive happiness by such a nonstop and ultimately oblivious pursuit."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"the absolute is subordinate to itself therefore so is it's constituencies but if it's constituencies are manifestations of the absolute is it actually subordinate or just in ordinance?"
If I, as a part of the absolute, am prone to forget my relationship with the absolute, I then become "detached" in a sense, due to my false ego. Krsna did not take material birth so He was never subordinate. I already explained this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"Krsna to be the absolute can have NO beginning or end. If he begins with a father he is in that facet limited. I understand your position and logic but it is flawed in that one cannot be absolute and all powerful as a subordinate and progeny."
And Krsna has no beginning and no end. He did not begin with Vasudeva. He is not in that way limited. Krsna is not material. Thus there is no logic in saying He is subordinate. Krsna caused Vasudeva. Then, by His (Krsna's) causeless mercy, He placed Himself as the son of Vasudeva and Devaki. There is no logic around this. It shoud be crystal clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"that thesis invokes that he has either been given or asurped power."
No. It does not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"ANY birth or "coming forth from" shows inferiority to a predecessor."
Obviously, in this case it does not show inferiority. But it definitely shows will and personality. And because Krsna is the supreme personality He can place Himself into any situation and remain untouched; untainted by the material world and such false conceptions as yours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"the absolute is all circumstance and only a product thereof when viewed through the metric of time"
Krsna is eternal time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"unless devaki and vasudeva are symbolic metrics of time and space and Krsna is a metric of a current manifestation of the absolute Krsna can not be considered the absolute. if he in fact IS a manifestation then he is limited to his scope and is not the all encompassing absolute."
None of this follows. By my explanation above you can understand why none of it follows. Krsna is not limited by any scope. He placed Himself as the son of Vasudeva. This does not limit His omnipotence. Even though He was manifest before Vasudeva and Devaki, He was still residing in His spiritual abode. He does not, by appearing in one place, ever lose His all pervasiveness. And niether does He ever lose His individuality in this process. This is His omnipotence.
You look down on the devotionalist, and because of this you cannot understand Krsna as He is. Krsna says in the Gitopanishad that only those who devote themselves to Him can truly understand Him. And this is obvious to those who live in such a way. Of course all of this is accompanied by reason and logic. But, when one tries to falsely accept themselves as the authority of the scriptures and concocts their own speculative reasoning void of devotion, they have difficulty understanding and accepting the supreme person.
quote:
"how can a fragment be the absolute and how can we as fragments of the absolute ever be totally detached from what we are collectively."
We, in truth, are not detached from the absolute. The mindstate that insists that we are such is known as the false-ego. This does not conclude that we are, or ever will be equal to Krsna, quantitatively. It is obvious that you, I, we are only conscious of an incredibly miniscule part of the complete whole. Thus even though we are very much a part of the absolute, because our being is so small we tend to forget this fact and we produce what is known as the false ego. The false ego says, "I am this fleeting body", and from this comes, "I am a completely separate individual whose only purpose is to gratify the material senses in such a way consisting with the notion that I will completely derrive happiness by such a nonstop and ultimately oblivious pursuit."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"the absolute is subordinate to itself therefore so is it's constituencies but if it's constituencies are manifestations of the absolute is it actually subordinate or just in ordinance?"
If I, as a part of the absolute, am prone to forget my relationship with the absolute, I then become "detached" in a sense, due to my false ego. Krsna did not take material birth so He was never subordinate. I already explained this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"Krsna to be the absolute can have NO beginning or end. If he begins with a father he is in that facet limited. I understand your position and logic but it is flawed in that one cannot be absolute and all powerful as a subordinate and progeny."
And Krsna has no beginning and no end. He did not begin with Vasudeva. He is not in that way limited. Krsna is not material. Thus there is no logic in saying He is subordinate. Krsna caused Vasudeva. Then, by His (Krsna's) causeless mercy, He placed Himself as the son of Vasudeva and Devaki. There is no logic around this. It shoud be crystal clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"that thesis invokes that he has either been given or asurped power."
No. It does not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"ANY birth or "coming forth from" shows inferiority to a predecessor."
Obviously, in this case it does not show inferiority. But it definitely shows will and personality. And because Krsna is the supreme personality He can place Himself into any situation and remain untouched; untainted by the material world and such false conceptions as yours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"the absolute is all circumstance and only a product thereof when viewed through the metric of time"
Krsna is eternal time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
"unless devaki and vasudeva are symbolic metrics of time and space and Krsna is a metric of a current manifestation of the absolute Krsna can not be considered the absolute. if he in fact IS a manifestation then he is limited to his scope and is not the all encompassing absolute."
None of this follows. By my explanation above you can understand why none of it follows. Krsna is not limited by any scope. He placed Himself as the son of Vasudeva. This does not limit His omnipotence. Even though He was manifest before Vasudeva and Devaki, He was still residing in His spiritual abode. He does not, by appearing in one place, ever lose His all pervasiveness. And niether does He ever lose His individuality in this process. This is His omnipotence.
You look down on the devotionalist, and because of this you cannot understand Krsna as He is. Krsna says in the Gitopanishad that only those who devote themselves to Him can truly understand Him. And this is obvious to those who live in such a way. Of course all of this is accompanied by reason and logic. But, when one tries to falsely accept themselves as the authority of the scriptures and concocts their own speculative reasoning void of devotion, they have difficulty understanding and accepting the supreme person.
@9165150
first paragraph -
I agree with just about everything (minus ego and krsna references) except your last sentence which may be indicative of yourself but definitely not me. I keep hearing you use the term ego. please define this "EGO".
second paragraph -
you still didn't answer my question. what you explained does not answer or rightfully approach my question at all
third paragraph -
how can I be the beginning of all things if I began with my father. if my father was first then I am subordinate an after effect. it doesn't take a genius to decipher the logic in that.
if krsna began with vasudeva (re-read the entire canto) then that means there was a time that krsna didn't exist. DUH! therefore krsna CAN be a manifestation of the absolute but is not the all-pervading absolute. how can a child "cause" his father (reread the canto)? thats just ridiculous. don't be so inane. that's so silly it isn't even funny
time is a facet of the absolute not the absolute so if krsna is JUST eternal time then in that he is limited
please. . . do me a favor give me a verse in the vedas which show that krsna existed BEFORE Vasudeva, and a verse that states that Krsna "placed" himself as son of Vasudeva.
if you can't do these two things your argument has no legs.
here is where you are wrong in your presumptuous notions.
I place the absolute beyond all of your limitations. my realization of truth and the absolute say that your mythological constructs diminish the greatness of what the absolute is. my understandings profess that you actually don't fathom the absolute because of your wish to iconify it. you wish to devote to the absolute in actions of futility. my devotion to the absolute is testified by my existence therefore i needn't perform any action of futility towards the One because I KNOW that it is unecessary.
devotionalism is practiced by those who perpetuate religions and doctrines. I will not practice a faith when I know that faith also is futile and does not edify the One. faith is for those who need to validate deities. the One is not merely Deity.
krsna is a deity. in that he is beneath the absolute and is not worthy of my devotion.
If it is not required of me to pay devotion to the absolute why would i pay devotion to a shard?
first paragraph -
I agree with just about everything (minus ego and krsna references) except your last sentence which may be indicative of yourself but definitely not me. I keep hearing you use the term ego. please define this "EGO".
second paragraph -
you still didn't answer my question. what you explained does not answer or rightfully approach my question at all
third paragraph -
how can I be the beginning of all things if I began with my father. if my father was first then I am subordinate an after effect. it doesn't take a genius to decipher the logic in that.
if krsna began with vasudeva (re-read the entire canto) then that means there was a time that krsna didn't exist. DUH! therefore krsna CAN be a manifestation of the absolute but is not the all-pervading absolute. how can a child "cause" his father (reread the canto)? thats just ridiculous. don't be so inane. that's so silly it isn't even funny
time is a facet of the absolute not the absolute so if krsna is JUST eternal time then in that he is limited
please. . . do me a favor give me a verse in the vedas which show that krsna existed BEFORE Vasudeva, and a verse that states that Krsna "placed" himself as son of Vasudeva.
if you can't do these two things your argument has no legs.
here is where you are wrong in your presumptuous notions.
I place the absolute beyond all of your limitations. my realization of truth and the absolute say that your mythological constructs diminish the greatness of what the absolute is. my understandings profess that you actually don't fathom the absolute because of your wish to iconify it. you wish to devote to the absolute in actions of futility. my devotion to the absolute is testified by my existence therefore i needn't perform any action of futility towards the One because I KNOW that it is unecessary.
devotionalism is practiced by those who perpetuate religions and doctrines. I will not practice a faith when I know that faith also is futile and does not edify the One. faith is for those who need to validate deities. the One is not merely Deity.
krsna is a deity. in that he is beneath the absolute and is not worthy of my devotion.
If it is not required of me to pay devotion to the absolute why would i pay devotion to a shard?
@EDJ - i've hear that before in church that the us was god talking to jesus and the holy ghost. but lets do the logic
if god is One and needs nothing to validate his existance why would he need the help of jesus and the holy ghost when he can speak all things into existance.
take note that the genesis creation myth is YOUNGER than where it borrowed from which is the sumerian and babylonian creation myth where there was more than one deity responsible for creating the world.
I'm trying to remember if it was marduk or enliki (something like that) that created the world in a story almost Identical to that of genesis.
I would adjure you to study those creation myths in contrast to the bible in time context and in historical contexts. you may (indeed) find the bible lacking because of the facts those stories hold.
if god is One and needs nothing to validate his existance why would he need the help of jesus and the holy ghost when he can speak all things into existance.
take note that the genesis creation myth is YOUNGER than where it borrowed from which is the sumerian and babylonian creation myth where there was more than one deity responsible for creating the world.
I'm trying to remember if it was marduk or enliki (something like that) that created the world in a story almost Identical to that of genesis.
I would adjure you to study those creation myths in contrast to the bible in time context and in historical contexts. you may (indeed) find the bible lacking because of the facts those stories hold.