Abusive GV teachings, Which ones? Options

[kalki]

Having a sense of self is something we all have. Aka consciousness.

We were talking about the soul as understood in religious context; that we are not the body but the soul (thus opening the way for all sorts of body mortification processes = abuse), that there is "something" in us that survives after death, reincarnated, etc. It is becoming difficult to keep believing this.

The problem arises when people mix the two. Having or not having a soul has nothing to do with having a sense of self. We still have a sense of self even though we have no soul.

This is more in line with the Christian understanding of self/soul.
In Christianity, people have souls instead of being souls.

Aside from the usual 'dva suparna sayuja sakhaya' etc, I have never heard that 'Easterners' think that two souls reside in one body. Where can I find out more about this? Or is it the 'dva suparna' that you are speaking of?

I have heard about this from Buddhists.

I don't see this in line with Christianity at all. As far as I can see, the sense of self does come from having a soul. The soul animates the body and thus our personality develops. Not having a soul but having a sense of self is a Buddhist concept.

Buddhism teaches that we have an eternal continuum in the form of a mindstream. That mindstream doesn't stop. The sense of self comes about when the mind imputes upon the 5 aggregates a sense of self. It is like the mind dupes itself because it cannot see the temporal nature of existence but mistakes phenomena to be inherently existent. Even it sees the self as inherently existent. Some religions only see a self, and others see a jiva atma in order to categorize that self.

Two souls in one body in Buddhism? Never heard of it. Where did you hear that?

[0Sophia0]

Two souls in one body in Buddhism? Never heard of it. Where did you hear that?

I'm sorry, there is a bit of terminological confusion - in Buddhist terms, this would be "two senses of self residing in the same body."
Thanissao Bhikkhu often speaks in his Dharma talks about the mind being like a committee. When the members of the committee (ie. the individual voices that we hear in the mind) just don't get along, this then looks like what Westerners call schizophrenia. I apologize, I couldn't find the reference to schizophrenia being explained that way in the texts available at ATI. It is explained in one of his talks, but I'll have to find that one.


(Search http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html for "committee":


"When you stop to look at your mind, you begin to realize that there's a whole committee in there: lots of different opinions, lots of different agendas."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...ditations4.html


"We can learn to see the mind as a committee: the fact that unworthy impulses are proposed by members of the committee doesn't mean that we are unworthy. We don't have to assume responsibility for everything that gets brought to the committee floor. Our responsibility lies instead in our power to adopt or veto the motion."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...intentions.html


"Notice the focus on intent: this is where the practice of right speech intersects with the training of the mind. Before you speak, you focus on why you want to speak. This helps get you in touch with all the machinations taking place in the committee of voices running your mind. If you see any unskillful motives lurking behind the committee's decisions, you veto them. As a result, you become more aware of yourself, more honest with yourself, more firm with yourself. You also save yourself from saying things that you'll later regret. In this way you strengthen qualities of mind that will be helpful in meditation,
at the same time avoiding any potentially painful memories that would get in the way of being attentive to the present moment when the time comes to meditate."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...aro/speech.html


"Meditation is not just a question of technique. In training the mind, you have to remember there's a whole committee in there. In the past the committee has had its balance of power, its likes and dislikes, and the politics among the various voices in your mind. Each of them has different tricks for pushing its agenda on the rest. So just as these defilements have lots of tricks up their sleeves, you as a meditator need to have lots of tricks up your sleeve, too."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors...ations.html#top

[Brainiac]

Some time ago, someone sent me a link where it showed how some Christians think that the soul and the spirit are two different things. I will try to find that link.

[Prisni]

The problem arises when people mix the two. Having or not having a soul has nothing to do with having a sense of self. We still have a sense of self even though we have no soul. Now how is this possible? Welcome to one of the many mysteries of consciousness, which largely remains unsolved.

We must have been in different religious movements.
And maybe that is quite true. Some of the followers of Prabhupada called "gurus" do preach some other religion.
Many others speak some really strange stuff, at times.

I always believed it was Christian thinking creeping in and making it hard, but I am not so sure anymore.

Anyway, in Vaisnava thinking the identify of the individual soul is of paramount importance.
You are a soul, what is called "jiva", absolutely no doubt about it.
Only that you believe that you are a human being.
That is the "illusion" part creeping in. A kind of schizofrenia, that you think that you are someone else than you really are, and have forgotten who you are. Having lost connection with reality, and now believe you are the personality you created, you are now technically speaking insane. When you remember who you are, insanity and illusion goes away. Not that we suddently become someone else more "spiritual", maybe after death. We already are spiritual, we have just forgotten it.

[0Sophia0]

As far as I can see, the sense of self does come from having a soul. The soul animates the body and thus our personality develops.

This is classical impersonalism; in its view, personality is perceived as something illusory, a mere epiphenomenon.

It seems that this view can develop among devotees too, arising out of specific conditions of abuse.

From an article on spiritual abuse that I linked to in the thread on KC resources on spiritual abuse:

...

The term depersonalization has originally been used in psychiatry to describe loss of identity or of the sense of reality of one’s self. In a broader sense, ”to depersonalize” means to negate another person by ignoring his autonomy and his feelings or by treating him as an object, a thing. In an extreme form, inmates of the concentration camps in the Second World War experienced depersonalization. As Subhananda dasa points out, depersonalization can occur in a spiritual context (even in the context of such a decidedly personalistic theology as Vaishnavism), when in the name of spirituality, followers are led to discard their self-trust along with the capacity for self-determination and self-evaluation. In other words, one becomes spiritually depersonalized by granting to a spiritual guide (which can be a person but can be a belief system as well) an absolute power to decide what one is, what one should think, feel, and want. ”To this someone may counter with ’But if the guru is qualified then one may blindly follow him.’ No. If the guru is qualified, he will not encourage blind following in the first place. A guru is not one who dictates to us what to think. A guru teaches us how to think.” [xiv]

A spiritually depersonalizing belief system implicates the follower in logical vicious circles in which one is never right unless the wielders of authority say so. Challenging the official authority is explicitly defined as wrong, so that the content of the challenge does not deserve to be even examined. An individual who has accepted such a logically closed thought system forgets that all of this is only valid if his initial decision to trust this particular person or teaching was right – and if it was, this means that he does have an independent capacity for judgment. Depersonalized devotees see their doubts as possessing a separate existence (”demons”) and disown unaccepted desires by seeing them as implanted in their mind by fearsome outside forces (Maya or other devotees acting as her agents). What this sort of ”disowning tactics” does is it gradually destroys the sense of personal participation, with one’s thoughts, emotions and volition, in anything at all -- even in acts of worship and prayer. The devotee pushes away his unaccepted experiences and so much pushes himself to feel what the authority says he should feel that by doing so, he destroys his capacity for any spontaneous, profound experience – including love for Krishna. All that is left to him is a hope that if he grits his teeth and perseveres against all odds, at the moment of death his present personality will be destroyed and he will wake up in the spiritual world with a brand new identity, no connection whatsoever between the two. This is not an exaggeration; I have seen all too many devotees with this attitude.

http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/..._spiritpain.htm

[kalki]

As far as I can see, the sense of self does come from having a soul. The soul animates the body and thus our personality develops.

This is classical impersonalism; in its view, personality is perceived as something illusory, a mere epiphenomenon.

It seems that this view can develop among devotees too, arising out of specific conditions of abuse.

From an article on spiritual abuse that I linked to in the thread on KC resources on spiritual abuse:

...

The term depersonalization has originally been used in psychiatry to describe loss of identity or of the sense of reality of one’s self. In a broader sense, ”to depersonalize” means to negate another person by ignoring his autonomy and his feelings or by treating him as an object, a thing. In an extreme form, inmates of the concentration camps in the Second World War experienced depersonalization. As Subhananda dasa points out, depersonalization can occur in a spiritual context (even in the context of such a decidedly personalistic theology as Vaishnavism), when in the name of spirituality, followers are led to discard their self-trust along with the capacity for self-determination and self-evaluation. In other words, one becomes spiritually depersonalized by granting to a spiritual guide (which can be a person but can be a belief system as well) an absolute power to decide what one is, what one should think, feel, and want. ”To this someone may counter with ’But if the guru is qualified then one may blindly follow him.’ No. If the guru is qualified, he will not encourage blind following in the first place. A guru is not one who dictates to us what to think. A guru teaches us how to think.” [xiv]

A spiritually depersonalizing belief system implicates the follower in logical vicious circles in which one is never right unless the wielders of authority say so. Challenging the official authority is explicitly defined as wrong, so that the content of the challenge does not deserve to be even examined. An individual who has accepted such a logically closed thought system forgets that all of this is only valid if his initial decision to trust this particular person or teaching was right – and if it was, this means that he does have an independent capacity for judgment. Depersonalized devotees see their doubts as possessing a separate existence (”demons”) and disown unaccepted desires by seeing them as implanted in their mind by fearsome outside forces (Maya or other devotees acting as her agents). What this sort of ”disowning tactics” does is it gradually destroys the sense of personal participation, with one’s thoughts, emotions and volition, in anything at all -- even in acts of worship and prayer. The devotee pushes away his unaccepted experiences and so much pushes himself to feel what the authority says he should feel that by doing so, he destroys his capacity for any spontaneous, profound experience – including love for Krishna. All that is left to him is a hope that if he grits his teeth and perseveres against all odds, at the moment of death his present personality will be destroyed and he will wake up in the spiritual world with a brand new identity, no connection whatsoever between the two. This is not an exaggeration; I have seen all too many devotees with this attitude.

http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_articles/..._spiritpain.htm

I like the analysis in this article. It seems accurate and quite astute. But I don't understand your first off comment to my quote. You mention impersonalism. Are you drawing that word to be the same meaning of "depersonalization" in the article? Impersonalism is one of those Iskcon words that have acquired its own meaning from devotees, even if grammatically has its own meaning. Usually impersonalism is bad according to Iskcon because it is sunyavada or mayavada.

I think Iskcon has it all wrong. For instance, I don't think they understood Shankara's teachings clearly and in any case, Buddhism which they call sunyavada, is quite different from Shankara's teaching. There is plenty of identity in Buddhism even in the spiritual world so to speak. Prabhupada's dating on the history of Buddhism is totally off as is his understanding of the philosophy, but it isn't his fault per say because he just inherited it from his guru parampara. I don't know who got things messed up at first. Was it Chaitanya? If so I will be sad because he was a cool cat.

[0Sophia0]

But I don't understand your first off comment to my quote. You mention impersonalism. Are you drawing that word to be the same meaning of "depersonalization" in the article?

Yes, for the purposes of this discussion.

Impersonalism is one of those Iskcon words that have acquired its own meaning from devotees, even if grammatically has its own meaning. Usually impersonalism is bad according to Iskcon because it is sunyavada or mayavada.

I don't think devotees have a monopoly on words.
"Impersonalism" is a useful term, I find.

I think Iskcon has it all wrong. For instance, I don't think they understood Shankara's teachings clearly and in any case, Buddhism which they call sunyavada, is quite different from Shankara's teaching. There is plenty of identity in Buddhism even in the spiritual world so to speak. Prabhupada's dating on the history of Buddhism is totally off as is his understanding of the philosophy, but it isn't his fault per say because he just inherited it from his guru parampara. I don't know who got things messed up at first. Was it Chaitanya? If so I will be sad because he was a cool cat.

A part of the problems with Buddhism is that there are so many variations of it.

But personally, I felt put off upon seeing how devotees tend to speak badly of Buddhism, while apparently unaware of its many schools and specific teachings.
I noticed that they put quite a bit of effort into being fair toward Christianity and to interpret it in palatable ways. While treating Buddhism as a kind of scapegoat, or something ugly and worthless. I felt disappointed to see such an outlook among devotees.

This post has been edited by Sophia: Jun 5 2011, 03:54 AM

[Brainiac]

I can vouch for the truth of B's statement; on this forum B seems an outspoken atheist but on Caitanya Symposium he is also very critical and scientific but at the same time offering to be a proofreader of several translations and assisting in "putting GV on a modern footing". A certain fluidity cannot be denied.

(Must have missed this post) Thanks Gerard. I was mainly referring to my own sense of being fluid, since I don't feel I sit well in the "atheist camp" or in any other 'camp', so have found myself to be very comfortable as an 'independent', or a "free agent". It can be quite amusing when some people find this baffling, since people in general like to label.

I like to help Nitai with his book production because he is a one-man show and needs help. Since the work he does is of a superior quality to anything produced in IGM, it can be quite interesting to see new stuff.

[kalki]

But I don't understand your first off comment to my quote. You mention impersonalism. Are you drawing that word to
Impersonalism is one of those Iskcon words that have acquired its own meaning from devotees, even if grammatically has its own meaning. Usually impersonalism is bad according to Iskcon because it is sunyavada or mayavada.

I don't think devotees have a monopoly on words.
"Impersonalism" is a useful term, I find.

Surely they don't have the monopoly, but like the word "kanistha" used before in another thread, which is also a sanskrit term and not made by Iskcon, carries such heavy connotation. So I got confused with your use of the word and I brought up in my own mind the Iskcon meaning.

But personally, I felt put off upon seeing how devotees tend to speak badly of Buddhism, while apparently unaware of its many schools and specific teachings.
I noticed that they put quite a bit of effort into being fair toward Christianity and to interpret it in palatable ways. While treating Buddhism as a kind of scapegoat, or something ugly and worthless. I felt disappointed to see such an outlook among devotees.

Yes, it is disappointing. I think Christianity is too easy to manipulate into something to be used by Iskcon or Hinduism in general. They both believe in God, but it is just a dispute on the name of God. But Buddhism, well it is quite clear that there is no God. It is too hard to use for preaching. But they do try to use the idea that Buddha didn't eat meat but his followers do, as an example to show the corruption of Buddhism. It is not a fact. The Buddha did eat meat on some occasion when it was offered to him as did the other monks in his sangha. But it is a Mahayana concept to even refuse the meat offered to you, which was developed by the Mahayana masters of Nalanda University. You can find statements against meat in the writings of Shantideva in the Bodhisattvavatara (Way of the Bodhisattva).

[Brainiac]

The recent posts dealing with Caitanya's ecstatic experiences have been split off from this discussion of abusive GV teachings.

It can be found here: Caitanya's ecstatic experiences.

[Brainiac]

Not necessarily abusive but I caught this graphic on Facebook today:

Kinda sums up the "Remember Krishna before death and go Back To Godhead" idea that is a feature of GV theology. I suppose it can be abusive if one justifies committing all sorts of wrongs in the hope that redemption will be attained at the final moment. It seems almost asinine that one can behave in the most terrible of ways and then suddenly everything is automatically forgiven. BG 8.5-6 appears to support this "instant forgiveness" idea at first glance, but I remember asking Advaitadas about this and he pointed out that sadā tad-bhāva-bhāvitaḥ in 8.6 implied that a long time's thinking of Krishna would enable one to achieve the state of of remembering him at the time of death. Problem solved?

Then what about Ajamila? That section of SB has a very long dialogue/argument between the Visnudutas and Yamadutas over whether Ajamila was to be taken by either party. Although SB 6.2.8 makes clear that Ajamila's constant calling of his son Narayana was a slowly-but-surely purificatory affair, Verses 14 and 15 also make clear that "instant" circumstances may also suffice for redemption.

Apologists might claim that these incidents all "prove" the glories of chanting the holy name. But still I think these are dangerous areas of scripture where abuse can be justified somehow in the belief that constant chanting will purify the abuse and nullify all sinful reactions. This may have, consciously or unconsciously, been an idea in the minds of many an abuser in ISKCON, for all kinds of abuse.

Any thoughts?

[Brainiac]

On the other hand, the thought of otherwise odious invaders of Goloka Vrindavan (whose only virtue was a sense of impeccable timing) constantly terrorising the inhabitants there does make me chuckle.

[Gomer]

Perhaps the mental state of remembering (subliminally?) somewhere deep within the mind that there is hope against hope is in itself a type of hidden devotion?

But, yeah, idiots will use any means to deflect personal responsibility.

[Prisni]

Any thoughts?

I think there are loopholes. This since almost every thing you can say on the subject is contradicted somewhere else.

Anyway, for all I know, a GV will at best take birth wherever Krishna is incarnated, and there your Krishna consciousness will be tested. When you see Krishna, appearing just like another boy, what will you think?
I think this is tested already in this life. If you (meaning if you were still a GV) see a "Vaisnava", and think - bah, that is just a spaced out bhakta, or even worse, a mataji who want to drag me down. I am so much superior. Such a person I think would think the same when he see Krishna. Krishna will then certainly not bee seen as elevated, he is just a boy running around and doing all kinds of things against the Vedic regulations.

Oh, the simple test - say haribol to a guru, a "great" Vaisnava. Does he see you and answer back, or does he think he is too elevated to even look at you, even less speak to you?
He does not know if you are not a friend of Krishna, and Krishna has asked you to send a message to the great guru to come and see Krishna in person. So he would miss out seeing Krishna due to arrogance.

[kalki]

Oh, the simple test - say haribol to a guru, a "great" Vaisnava. Does he see you and answer back, or does he think he is too elevated to even look at you, even less speak to you?
He does not know if you are not a friend of Krishna, and Krishna has asked you to send a message to the great guru to come and see Krishna in person. So he would miss out seeing Krishna due to arrogance.

there was a time when certain members of GR also didn't respond to my posts but only addressed me when they saw fit. I understood it as unfair communication of only being talked to and not listened to. But one member suggested that they might not be so hungry for communication as I was. I think this might also be the case with Iskcon gurus. Imagine how many small fish in the sea that they have to say Hari Bol to back. It would be much more than the amount of responses that a GR members have to deal with in talking to each other.

[Brainiac]

An old friend of ours (a GV scholar) recently wrote on his Facebook:

GV theism is not the same as Christian or Islamic theism. We distinguish between Paramatma and Bhagavan. GV theism is also a synthesis of atheism and theism, because monism/pantheism/impersonalism is, as Dawkins says "sexed-up atheism." But the Upanishadic concept of the unity and totality of all things is the base line of our theism. So start with Brahman, graduate to Paramatma, and then graduate to Bhagavan, whose supreme form is Radha-Krishna. This is quite different from Paramatma, who is "external" to our true identity, and Bhagavan, with whom we truly identify.

After others offered some congratulatory comments, I submitted the following:

When we distinguish between Paramatma and Bhagavan (and also Brahman), how do we do it? In Christianity, the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is similar in that the three entities there - God, Son and Holy Spirit - are 'the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons ... these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.' (Catholic Encylopaedia online)

Critics of Christianity have a hard time accepting just how there can be three distinct persons who are united at the same time. In GV, we already have this concept of Acintya-bhedabheda so it is no problem for us. Christians obviously have not grasped the idea of 'vastu', or substance. Yet Richard Dawkins has addressed this issue of substance as follows:

"Rivers of medieval ink, not to mention blood, have been squandered over the 'mystery' of the Trinity, and in suppressing deviations such as the Arian heresy. Arius of Alexandria, in the fourth century AD, denied that Jesus was consubstantial (i.e. of the same substance or essence) with God. What on earth could that possibly mean, you are probably asking? Substance? What 'substance'? What exactly do you mean by 'essence'? 'Very little' seems the only reasonable reply." (p33., The God Delusion)

Now since GV has come to grips with the idea of substance, vastu, and already having in place the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda, I would like to see an explanation or rebuttal that explains what we mean by substance, and how exactly to distinguish between Paramatma etc. in a manner that does not contradict reason.

The comment remains unanswered.

[Prisni]

Now since GV has come to grips with the idea of substance, vastu, and already having in place the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda, I would like to see an explanation or rebuttal that explains what we mean by substance, and how exactly to distinguish between Paramatma etc. in a manner that does not contradict reason.

Reason, what is reason?

Take a computer program that has become self-aware. Think about how that program is trying to understand its own creation. How will it ever understand how it came to be? It can come up with analogies, and all kind of "reason", but still can never grasp how it is to be human, how the computer program is created by human inspiration, how it is to consist of meat, all the pangs, tribulations and misfortunes of humans, or what is human "love" is. The computer program can collect all the information about the subject matter from human writings, analyse it, make tables, and still never get anything but a theoretical grasp. But we humans knows that to be a human is something else than a description of humanity, of a compbination of all the theoretical facts of being a human. The computer can never grasp.

So coming from that analogy, why should it be so hard to understand that there are things that are greater than us, that we can reason about in eterinity, and that we still cannot grasp?

So of course, something that is beyond us is beyond reason as we are beyond reason for a computer program.

And yet, GV gives an entry into that non-reason, by saying that we are the same substance as God, only that we are of minute quanitity, where god is of indefinite quanity. So we can know God by nature, and extrapolate quantity. But this cannot be understood by reason, it can only be understood by looking at the very core of our being. Of what makes us different from the self-aware computer program. From that core of us, we can start to get a grasp of God.
Not reason.
For what is reason, but a computer program in the biological computer of our brain?
It is a tool we have, like the desktop computer, but the core of us is something else.

If we were just computer programs, it would be possible to totally analyse human emotion, human reasoning, human love, with a computer program, and totally predict what a human would do. But as we all know, even though computer science has done an immense advancement, humans still remain a mystery, massively beyond what a computer can predict. The computer still remains the same dead piece of electronics as it was even in its infancy. By nature a computer, only greater in quantity. A different nature than humans, and we all know that.

By reason, the completely umpredictable nature of humans, should tell us that we are not logical computer programs, but something else. By substance we are something else.

We ran around imagining ourselves to be "devotees", and just wainting for the swan airplane to come and take us to another world.
It never happened.
Maybe it is time for a reality check that imagination does not make reality.
We are just not computers, even if we imagine it to be so.
That is the reality check.

[Brainiac]

Yes, but I believe the question was "What do we mean by substance?" Is God made out of a particular substance, or essence, that we can say "This is what God is made out of"? And on what basis do we distinguish Brahman from Paramatma, and Paramatma from Bhagavan?

I think GV has no answer to that question because there is no answer as to what is 'substance'. In GV siddhanta, Radha and Krishna are also said to be made of the same 'substance', what on earth do we mean by that?

Perhaps we can say God is made up of "spiritual stuff" that is not perceptible to material eyes and instruments. Fine, but still, what is the name for this "spiritual stuff"? I can suggest an answer: They say God is pure sac-cid-ananda vigraha. Sat, cit and ananda; Truth, existence (or consciousness) and bliss.

Is this the answer of GV siddhanta? I submit that even this answer is problematic, for not only have we not escaped from the complication of the threefold perception of God as Brahman-Paramatma-Bhagavan, but now you have three particular 'things' that we say make up "God".

Truth is only a concept, it is not a 'substance' that can be mixed with the 'substances' of consciousness and bliss in order to make up God. And even if it could, it still shows that whatever can be called "God" is made out of 'three' substances and not one. God is not one pure entity.

[Prisni]

Yes, but I believe the question was "What do we mean by substance?" Is God made out of a particular substance, or essence, that we can say "This is what God is made out of"? And on what basis do we distinguish Brahman from Paramatma, and Paramatma from Bhagavan?

I think GV has no answer to that question because there is no answer as to what is 'substance'. In GV siddhanta, Radha and Krishna are also said to be made of the same 'substance', what on earth do we mean by that?

Perhaps we can say God is made up of "spiritual stuff" that is not perceptible to material eyes and instruments. Fine, but still, what is the name for this "spiritual stuff"? I can suggest an answer: They say God is pure sac-cid-ananda vigraha. Sat, cit and ananda; Truth, existence (or consciousness) and bliss.

Is this the answer of GV siddhanta? I submit that even this answer is problematic, for not only have we not escaped from the complication of the threefold perception of God as Brahman-Paramatma-Bhagavan, but now you have three particular 'things' that we say make up "God".

Truth is only a concept, it is not a 'substance' that can be mixed with the 'substances' of consciousness and bliss in order to make up God. And even if it could, it still shows that whatever can be called "God" is made out of 'three' substances and not one. God is not one pure entity.

I see GV, at least how it is known in ISKCON as incomplete. It is like Swiss cheese, it has cheese but also holes. Sometimes it becomes like extrapolation to fill in the missing pieces.

I believe understanding of Radha-Krishna comes from first understanding brahman.
Matter is energy, and even science has come to that point. Material energy.
But there are other forms of energy.
Brahman is the union of all forms of energy.

So if we can imagine the totality of all energy, including the energy of the totality of all information.
Just hold that thought for a second.
God is the totality of everything = Brahman. In the form of nirguna brahman, it is undivided, just a union of everything. It is not really a substance, since it includes time and space too, and have nowhere and nowhen to be as a substance.

It is beyond understanding, (since understanding is a subset of that all), but in order to understand it, we imagine substance, and then we start to slice that substance in various way, to get a grasp of it.

Everything is in brahman. Prabhupada made a point of that including in that everything, there must be personality. Since personality exist in the part, it must exist in the whole. Everything is in brahman, even all concepts. And then he said that if we compare different personalitites, there must be one supreme personality, and therefore he coined "the supreme personality of Godhead" as a label for that supreme personality. He really liked that reasoning, and repeated it over and over again.

Love is a tension, an exchange, between two, and since the concept of Love exists, there must be a supreme love, in analogy with the a supreme personality. And therefore the supreme personality of godhead must be two complementary personalities, for an equal exchange of love to be possible. And we get Radha - Krishna. But things get really, really tricky here, since Radha and Krishna are not mirror images of each other. It is often spoken about prakriti-purusha, or the energetic and the energy or other analogies.

But in that whole, there is a twist in GV philosophy, in that there is a supreme unlimited personality, and there are small limited personalities. There also exist an exchange "of love", between the infinite and the finite, and thus we get "love of godhead". That is a fundamental exchange between energies, and it cannot be broken, since there is no other place for the minute jivas to go. The jivas cannot leave brahman, the totality of everything. Therefore we got the material world to make it an illusion for the limited to believe that we went somewhere else, the illusion of that there is not that love exchange anymore. It is still there, but hidden. That hiding energy is called Maya, which is a variation of the spiritual energy of similar function, just cleverly hidden as something else.


I probably lost myself there somewhere in the middle. I do not know and remember the ISKCON GV philosophy as good as you guys.

[ras]

Yes, but I believe the question was "What do we mean by substance?" Is God made out of a particular substance, or essence, that we can say "This is what God is made out of"? And on what basis do we distinguish Brahman from Paramatma, and Paramatma from Bhagavan?

I think GV has no answer to that question because there is no answer as to what is 'substance'. In GV siddhanta, Radha and Krishna are also said to be made of the same 'substance', what on earth do we mean by that?

Perhaps we can say God is made up of "spiritual stuff" that is not perceptible to material eyes and instruments. Fine, but still, what is the name for this "spiritual stuff"? I can suggest an answer: They say God is pure sac-cid-ananda vigraha. Sat, cit and ananda; Truth, existence (or consciousness) and bliss.

Is this the answer of GV siddhanta? I submit that even this answer is problematic, for not only have we not escaped from the complication of the threefold perception of God as Brahman-Paramatma-Bhagavan, but now you have three particular 'things' that we say make up "God".

Truth is only a concept, it is not a 'substance' that can be mixed with the 'substances' of consciousness and bliss in order to make up God. And even if it could, it still shows that whatever can be called "God" is made out of 'three' substances and not one. God is not one pure entity.

I seriously doubt that an explanation of “substance that God is made out of” was ever attempted in depth in Srila Prabhupada’s books. I think he tended to mostly give hints, like Narayana Maharaja; “there are no holes in his body“, etc. I’ve heard the term “concentrated Brahman” which sounds like some type of immovable and impenetrable light body (maybe with deep colors to filter out the deadly rays), but don’t remember if that is GV. Perhaps Bhaktisiddhanta elaborated on it in Sri Brahma-Samhita, or Kapoor.

Perhaps there is something of the Upanishadic “the more you think you know the more you have to learn” about it. But I don’t think that means common sense should be thrown out. How could that help if you are trying to understand Brahman? Common is supposed to be readily and locally available . Why would disposing of a pervasive faculty like common sense help in understanding the all-pervasive?

What is an 8-inch four-armed mega-man doing inside all the atoms? How did he get there? How are all these Paramatma expansions “all-pervasive”? Do they inconceivably overlap into a tangle of arms and weapons or (inconceivably) penetrate the impenetrable to fill all the holes making sure there is nothing but Vishnu? Is there anyone besides GV who has a concept like “all-pervading form”?

Why would a personal form want to be inside an atom, if it is stool? What is he doing there?

But I guess one big difference between Paramatma and Bhagavan is the former seems as un-animated, while the latter is very animated. Or perhaps as the wish-fulfilling bird Paramatma is also slightly animated, granting desires with a glance or a wave. An official representation, not really the big guy. All this reminds me of a purport (somewhere in the 6th canto) where Prabhupada explains that until one comes to a certain level in their devotion his/her worship of Radha-Krishna is not accepted as Radha-Krishna worship, but as Laxmi-Narayana worship. So perhaps the Bhagavan entity is out-of-bounds until you get off the idea of wanting stuff from God.

And, hmm, even though you’re a Krishna devotee, you’re not really a devotee of Krishna until you crave only his happiness. I think if you were living in a GV community having to dedicate your life to Krishna and hearing you were a mere devotee of Vishnu.. that would almost qualify as an abusive teaching. Not much ‘substance’ to that relationship.