How can God know everything AND be 100% good, and how do we even determine if God is "good"?

I'm afraid this question is based on a misconception of what God actually is.

Now while it is entirely impossible for me to fully express to you what God is in words. And since it is obvious that you have your doubts as well, which, while understandable, makes it even harder for you to understand, then there is no way for me to fully express the nature of God to you. But for the sake of answering your questions I will try and provide a basis of understanding by which to formulate my answer.

God is not a human being, he is not a person limited by the conditions of his own creation. So no, God cannot feel lust, cannot feel hatred, cannot know what it is like to be a well-off materialistic person. But that is not the full answer.

It has been said that God is omnipresent and Infinite, let us examine what this means.

Can something come from nothing? No. And yet we have the theory of the big bang in which, as far as our own knowledge allows us, must at some point begin from something coming from nothing. The ancient Indians also described the creation as happening in a similar way to the big bang. But their thought process worked in a different way, numerically speaking. Rather than beginning from an indivisible 0 and progressing positively as each thing was created, the Brahmins thought of it as beginning from an indivisible infinity, and progressing negatively as each thing was divided out of the whole in synchronized motion with the evolution of the chemical-electromagnetic structure in which the whole universe is built, and by its very nature both creates and observes what is unified in division, since it itself is divided. God is that infinity, and it doesn't really matter whether you say 0 or infinity, both are indivisible, and both are essentially, irrelevant to the dualistic universe (and remember we did get the concept of 0 from India, of course we westernized it).

It has been said in the Upanishads that God is like the salt in salty water, it cannot be seen, it cannot be removed from the water, but wherever we taste the water it is salty.

In a similar fashion God exists in the universe. And In the simplest way of explanation possible, God is essentially, pure Consciousness, he is where volition springs from and volition is essentially spirit, which identifies those things which are animate as alive and those which are inanimate as non-living (as opposed to dead, which suggests that volition has been removed) And volition over what? Over matter and the material creation, and each living things possesses this quality to some degree. But it cannot be seen, neither can it be seperated out once it is dissolved in the material creation like salt in salt water.

God is the experiencer, of everything, and he is experience itself, only the false ego keeps us from our natural state of unity with him, the ego being based off the idea that it is the body and mind that posses the faculty of volition, rather than that this volition is the ruler of the house itself. It is this illusion that causes us to fall prey to such things as lust and greed and hatred, because these emotions are essentially related to our belief that external matter has power over us, which it does if we believe and experience ourselves to be the mind and the body, which are also external to pure consciousness.

Since God is both the experiencer of all things and experience itself then yes, every time Joe Everyman felt envious of his neighbor for having a six bedroom house when he only had a four bedroom, when he glanced across the office at that new secretary in the short skirt and got an erection thinking of the things he would do to her, when he felt hatred for the opposite political party/religious denomination etc etc God was there, experiencing, feeling, because he experiences EVERYTHING. But God is not just experience, not just consciousness, he is PURE consciousness, and consciousness is only pure when it is not identified with matter, and remains in perfect equanimity to all that it experiences, when it is consciousness and only consciousness, not consciousness sullied by hatred/fear/lust/greed etc, not greed-consciousness hate-consciousness fear-consciousness lust-consciousness (because what are emotions but conditions of experience?) but simply consciousness itself, so while God experiences all these things, he is not affected by them, he does not need to react and thereby become conditioned by the chain of cause and effect, he simply watches, because that is what he is: awareness. Gods essence is Infinite Awareness, his nature is Infinite Equanimity.

Now, the wickedness part, it is only wicked to feel and do these things because it seperates US from pure consciousness, from equanimity, forces us into the illusion of identification with matter, binds us to the conditioning of cause and effect, and ultimately brings us to the cycle of happiness, misery, happiness, misery again and again and again depending on our particular material circumstances. The wickedness is first and foremost against ourselves. If we remained in the knowledge that we are not the body and not the mind then how could lust affect us, affect the body yes, perhaps the mind, but knowing that volition is the source and ruler of the house, then we reserve the right not to react, but to simply observe these passing manifestations of the chemical-electromagnetic structure of the universe.

So you see, the scriptures have only told us these things (do not envy, do not be full of lust, do not hate etc) to try and light the path to equanimity, and the emotional factor of equanimity is unconditional Love and Joy. Rather than the misery of being emotionally bound to the dice throw of the various impermanent manifestations of the material creation.

So you see, if God were a person living in the sky and was all-knowing and everywhere at the same time, and he created lust and then told everyone it was evil, and then looked at women (being all knowing) and was overcome with lust, then your question would make sense. But hopefully now I have shown you at least a tiny fraction of the true nature of God, and as such revealed to you that your question simply doesn't make sense, God is aware of all lust that occurs within the universe, but he MUST, by his very nature, remain in equanimity to what he experiences, since the second he does not remain equanimous, he becomes conditioned by cause and effect, and would be zapped to a single place as a single fragment of the material creation that has a certain reaction to lust (indulgence or aversion), but i shouldn't have to point out that that isn't possible, even if that did happen, God would still remain, and the conditioned being would no longer be part of God. And since there would be no awareness without him, because he is awareness he HAS to experience that lust, being an object of experience, but it is only the limited human being that is affected by these things, the system of morality is FOR us, to show us how to act selflessly and in unconditional equanimous Love. And I'm sure it must be obvious, with the limitation of identification with the illusory seperate self/ego, comes self interest, and with self interest comes the exploitation of initial conditions of the individual, be they better or worse than another, and with this comes chaos, immorality "wickedness" and inequality - the opposite of equanimity, the opposite of God -

In summary: If God was not equanimous, he wouldn't be God, it would be something else that is all knowing and if he wasn't aware of all that transpires he also wouldn't be God, since divided matter is simply unified consciousness viewed with the goggles of the seperating chemical-electromagnetic conditioning of consciousness called the human mind, which must try (and ultimately fail) to categorise and catalogue the different impermanent manifestations of that indivisible 0/infinity.
God being that consciousness, obviously he is aware of all that occurs within himself.

Disclaimer. I know God is neither he nor she or neuter but there isn't really a word for that, so generally I find it acceptable to just, if you're male say he, and if you're female say she, since it IS ultimately your deepest self your talking about

reply to post by arpgme

How can God know what these feel like if these feelings are wicked and God has 0% wickedness in him but only 100% goodness?

From the beginning to the end

the Alpha and the Omega.


How is wickedness or evil outside the realm of everything and anything?

Either God feels these things and he is not 100% good, or he does not feel these things and he is not 100% knowing.

He is 100% good and 100% bad all at the same time.


But good and bad are relative

I'm obviously asking the question to those who believe in an omni-benevolent (100% good) God.

Who are these people and what religion is that?

Cuervo

jaws1975
Is electricity good or bad, it kills people everday, and it saves lives every day. Same concept if you ask me.

There are no electricity cults claiming that electricity is wholly 100% morally just when it kills people.

He there is my new tax break, just need about 30 000 to follow me into this cult.


We can use Jamie Fox as an image of our GOD lets call him Electro

reply to post by Lotuschild


Edit (which didn't work when I tried to edit my previous post) - Gods Justice, as it should now be obvious is not the same as Justice vs Injustice or Good vs Evil

I really don't have another one of the above left in me atm, I'm at work and there just isn't time.

So it will suffice to say that - again while this is a feeble explanation, it is a start - You could say there is an evil man, and a good man, but someone can be good in heart, but bad at being good, in the same way someone can be "good" at deception or "good" at international banking conspiracies etc so Gods goodness is more in line with this definition than that of good vs evil, a transcendent justice if you will. Because God is the state of non-duality, and therefore cannot be limited by these dualistic attributes of the material nature.

The Personality Of Godhead, however, is infinitely compassionate for all, regardless of whether they are good or evil in worldly estimations. We just feel his compassion more when we act in accordance with the law of the single unity of all that exists and therefore realize that a kindness we do for another we actually do for ourselves so on so forth. The more we are equanimous to the reactions of indulgence and aversion to things in the material nature, the more we become "good" in both senses. Good and evil simply don't apply to God, he is both and neither, the laws, regulations, scriptures and guidances are all there for OUR benefit, placed there by HUMANS who found the path, so that we may approach that state where nothing can shake our Love and our Joy, and that path is walked on two legs, deepening awareness and deepening equanimity.

In fact, if it were possible, you could even say that God is MORE compassionate for those who generally come under the category of sinner, because he experiences all that they go through, all the self inflicted misery, and wants (again if such a thing was correct to say of him) nothing but for the individual entities to become merged in the peace of equanimity.

People often say "If God is Good and Just then why doesn't he just solve all the problems in the world and zap us up to Heaven" And in a similar tone someone once asked the Buddha "You are so compassionate, so wise, and so powerful, then why do you not take pity on those who are struggling to find the way and simply give them enlightenment?" but this is missing the points that A all the worlds problems are created by us, and can just as easily be solved by us, if Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama understood the principle that all things are one and acted with egolessness and compassion and equanimity (The path to Godhood), then wouldn't so many of the worlds issues be solved? Not to mention if everyone on the planet acted with these principles, earth would become a paradise, but we reject these ideas, we scoff at them and laugh at them and then ignorantly resume our miserable lives saying "Why God why wont you come and save us from this sadness and misert!?" You just answered that question for yourself, God has offered you a path, but YOU have to walk it. And B Life and the universe is not a static object but a changing phenomena, it is a school, saying the above is like saying "If education is good then why don't we just give four year olds PHD's?" Becuase you have to WORK for it, you have to make the effort YOURSELF. When you walk the path of selflessness and compassion then you see for yourself that it is good for you and all around you, not that you will sit and do nothing and some guy will come down from the sky and give you everything you want. This is the meaning of Gods Justice.

reply to post by Jesuslives4u

I am not trying to be mean.... but how can you say that God does not exist? Can you prove this theory of yours?

Well arent you a a nice christian person,


I would assume anyone can say what Athlon said just as you say the exact opposite,


How can you say God does exist? is it faith, could it not be faith that god doesn't exist?

Can you prove he does, if you cannot then that is evidence in favor of Athlons faith.

God is spirit, another words invisible to the naked eye.

But people see spirits,

What religion calls God a spirit?

I would recommend you go on youtube and review not one but all of the atheisim vs Christianity lectures and debates,

You should read the bible where it says to those that believe what God is, where God is and how God is.


Its the first paragraph.

Mr. HITCHINS spoke out against all religions and God. Isn't it peculiar he died of throat cancer at 62 years old?

About as peculiar as the guy down the road painting his fence pink had his cat run over by the mail man.


What is peculiar about a man dying at that age of throat cancer? was he smoker?

Or are you saying because of his actions and speaking out he was given cancer by God?

What did all the leukemia suffers under the age of 15 do to get a similar treatment from God?

reply to post by Jesuslives4u

Then is the prime of his "success" he comes down with throat cancer. NOT lung cancer (he was a strong smoker) but throat cancer. Which stopped him from speaking out. ???? Is this a coincidence? I do not believe in coincidences.

No its not a coincidence,

heavy smoking increases the risk of heart disease, lung, throat and tongue cancer and numerous other illnesses.

reply to post by arpgme


Sorry but just wondering why neither of my posts are being looked at, replied to or even included in the scope of the discussion? I feel like I basically answered a lot of the points which continue to be a source of confusion for the other people on this thread. Even if they didn't answer any of the points conclusively I still feel like I made a solid argument, why are the points I made not being taken into consideration? Or is it simply that people in the Religion section just like to argue and aren't actually interested in gleaning any conclusions from the discussion?

I mean I gave a solid answer to the OP and yet people are still fighting over points which I feel I have proven to be irrelevant to the argument or based on an ignorance of the true nature of God.


What's the deal people... ?

reply to post by Jesuslives4u

Up to his earthly death he did not know death as a man but he does now.

I thought "God" knows everything about everyone everywhere?

Death does not always translate into fear.

For lots and lots of people, though, it does. In this culture, at least. I know I sure hope my death isn't painful or torturous - but then again, they say that the brain emits chemicals/hormones to 'dull' the pain when it becomes overwhelming.

He has walked in our shoes, not just sat on a throne and judged.

How could a "judge" do well in his position if he hasn't the slightest idea what it's like to be in our shoes, though? I don't understand. I thought "God" is supposed to be omniscient.

You met him, you say? Interesting. What was that like?

Lotuschild
reply to post by arpgme

 

Sorry but just wondering why neither of my posts are being looked at, replied to or even included in the scope of the discussion? I feel like I basically answered a lot of the points which continue to be a source of confusion for the other people on this thread. Even if they didn't answer any of the points conclusively I still feel like I made a solid argument, why are the points I made not being taken into consideration? Or is it simply that people in the Religion section just like to argue and aren't actually interested in gleaning any conclusions from the discussion?

I mean I gave a solid answer to the OP and yet people are still fighting over points which I feel I have proven to be irrelevant to the argument or based on an ignorance of the true nature of God.


What's the deal people... ?

Maybe your giant ego is scaring off any responders

reply to post by Lotuschild

I mean I gave a solid answer to the OP and yet people are still fighting over points which I feel I have proven to be irrelevant to the argument or based on an ignorance of the true nature of God.

Well, I read your posts, and thought they were very interesting, fwiw; although I agree with you for the most part, it's not "proof", is it?

It seems to be your understanding of "God"; a Deist point of view....and well-spoken, but it's not "proof", and there are myriad ways to think of "God".

reply to post by InhaleExhale

Not meaning to come across like that at all buddy, but really it shouldn't matter anyway. So if you disagree with me then posit a counter argument. And I am curious as to what made that impression on you. I do have a tendency to put aside formalities when in an analytical mindset, but if anything that's proof of a lack of self image rather than an effort to keep it up.

If you read my post(s) and think I made a solid argument, then surely my own claim to having done so isn't egoic?

And if you read my post(s) and don't think I made a decent argument then posit a counter argument.

I was only pointing out that for instance, the poster above you said this "How could a "judge" do well in his position if he hasn't the slightest idea what it's like to be in our shoes, though? I don't understand. I thought "God" is supposed to be omniscient."

When in my first post I gave at least a logically sound response to that saying "Since God is both the experiencer of all things and experience itself then yes, every time Joe Everyman felt envious of his neighbor for having a six bedroom house when he only had a four bedroom, when he glanced across the office at that new secretary in the short skirt and got an erection thinking of the things he would do to her, when he felt hatred for the opposite political party/religious denomination etc etc God was there, experiencing, feeling, because he experiences EVERYTHING. But God is not just experience, not just consciousness, he is PURE consciousness, and consciousness is only pure when it is not identified with matter, and remains in perfect equanimity to all that it experiences, when it is consciousness and only consciousness, not consciousness sullied by hatred/fear/lust/greed etc, not greed-consciousness hate-consciousness fear-consciousness lust-consciousness (because what are emotions but conditions of experience?) but simply consciousness itself, so while God experiences all these things, he is not affected by them, he does not need to react and thereby become conditioned by the chain of cause and effect, he simply watches, because that is what he is: awareness. Gods essence is Infinite Awareness, his nature is Infinite Equanimity."

And yet it continues to be debated while everyone just skipped over mine, I was simply asking why my input wasn't taken into account? And I noticed the entire discussion has centred around these contradictions of Gods ominpresence and omniscience as opposed to his Justice in therefore having to experience and know of things which are "unholy" etc when my post at least made a start of reconciling the contradictions by explanation of the actual nature of God. So yeah, it did appear to me that since those contradictions have been being juggled around for 5 pages basically getting nowhere, and I posted a comment which offered a reconciliation of those contradictions which was completely ignored, that the people on here are just in it for the sake of argument and not for the sake of answers. And I'm not saying that I have the absolute correct answer either, just that alot of the discussion has been based on a misconception of the actual nature and essence of God. He CAN experience "unholy" things without becoming unholy himself, since he is Awareness in essence and Equanimity in nature. And the laws of morality are not there for his benefit but to show us the way that we can find peace in our own lives, by approaching that state of Godhood which is full awareness unsullied by conditions and reactions, Equanimous Awareness. Not laws put there by God but laws put there by humans who became unified with God and are now showing us the way. And whether you think i'm right or wrong, that IS a direct answer to the OP.



Does God know what it feels like to lust? ( lust is going after physical pleasure - evil) Yes since he is the experiencer of all

Does God know what it feels like to have hatred in the heart? (hate is absence of love - evil) Yes since he is the experiencer of all

Does God know what it feels like to be rich with a lot of money and material goods (putting the body over the flesh - evil) Yes since he is the experiencer of all

How can God know what these feel like

- because he is the experiencer of all -

if these feelings are wicked and God has 0% wickedness in him but only 100% goodness? -

because God is the silent observer and does not react nor be affected by what he observes -

Either God feels these things and he is not 100% good, or he does not feel these things and he is not 100% knowing.

He feels them because he IS feeling but does not act on them because he is in perfect equanimity to all that he experiences.

And he is "good" because when you become situated in full awareness and full equanimity, then there is nothing left but unconditional Love. And God IS full awareness and full equanimity.

I answered it, and no one even took it into consideration, and continued arguing the same points over and over, when I have at least provided the next stage of the discussion, that seemed a little odd to me, and so I asked why..


I don't see what's so offensive about that?

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Yeah not proof but at an answer to the OP, the only proof you can have is personal experience, which another person cannot give you. But what I did do in order to answer the question was speak from my own personal experience. Since I have pondered the very questions the OP put forward myself and the answer I gave is only as best wording as I could find for what I experienced in meditation as the answer to my own questions.

And yeah in a way you could say I am deist, but again God is non-dualistic, and while I must say personally I can't really understand the "Immanent" part, it has been said in the Ancient Indian texts, "The Upanishads" That God is both Immanent AND Transcendent, so both deist and theist are correct. I suppose it simply means that, everything is God, so he is fully present and active in the universe hence, Immanent/Theist point of view, and also that he remains in full equanimity to the universe and in a sense has no involvement in it, and since he is infinite and indivisible he remains that 0 point of all things hence the Transcendent/Deist point of view

reply to post by Lotuschild

I was only pointing out that for instance, the poster above you said this "How could a "judge" do well in his position if he hasn't the slightest idea what it's like to be in our shoes, though? I don't understand. I thought "God" is supposed to be omniscient."

When in my first post I gave at least a logically sound response to that

Yes, that was me. I hadn't read past the post to which I was responding yet.
I was posting that to someone else.

Do you find my statement offensive? If so, humble apologies. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

EDIT: Okay, I just saw your response to me. I understand what you're saying, and agree with it.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Haha don't worry I understand, that's generally a rule of thumb for forums anyway

And no no nothing you said was offensive in the slightest. I was just wondering if I had offended InhaleExhale by A) the points that I made and B) asking why they hadn't been taken into the scope of the discussion. Since he did say I have a massive ego that was scaring people off from answering me haha Which was not my intention at all.

But I guess I have my answer as to why no one replied to me, since my post WAS a direct reply to the OP and not part of the discussion at large.

I guess this will be removed since its off topic but I just wanted to clear that up.


I'm not meaning anyone any harm

these new emoticons really suck :/

reply to post by Lotuschild

. . . neither of my posts are being looked at, replied to . . .

arpgme, the thread starter person, hasn't been on the forum today yet.
I didn't notice you referring to the Bible so I'm not too likely to respond.
I think that you are probably right that it isn't likely that the people here want to all agree on one certain thing as a solution.

As to your actual content, I think that God is a bit incomprehensible to humans mainly by the complexity of the nature of God.
In this context, I would hesitate to say, "He", because this complexity that I am referring to has to do with the idea of a multiplicity of persons involved in what a "God" really is.
The point I wanted to make was regarding your comment about limitations of God, such as not being an actual person like we are.
I would disagree, in that I would say that there are persons within the godhead and those individuals could be very much like us other than the life and death cycle thing, so they don't do things in the material world to make provisions for those things, like finding wives to procreate others to take their places when they pass on, since they live forever.
That makes them impartial where humans can't because they are instinctively always looking after the material things.
So they can sense and experience, but it doesn't sway them.
I think there was a division between all the spirit beings at the creation of the physical universe, who would continue that way, and those who would partake of the material marriage of their souls.
Some are gods, and the others are us, who have our existence inexorably tied with the universe itself.

by the way: I did a Google search for "god is equanimous" and got your post as a hit, and the first (probably the only one) actual match, so apparently their aren't a lot of people saying that particular phrase on the internet.

bitsforbytes
God is good, just and fair. He supersedes time and space, He was before there ever was anything. He knows you better than you know yourself. He created us with free will. Otherwise he would of made robots. To have free will means to know good and evil. If no evil exists then how can we be good? Why did he make us weak and fallible to sin? What is said is an eternal reward awaits us if we follow and serve Him.

No you are wrong. God is nothing; it is a field of energy waiting for potencials. There is no 'He/She'. It hasnt created you yet in this format; and would only know you as a potencial ABSTRACT FORM, you discovered or uncovered (in this realm no physicality exists, just an ideaform); that comes later. To have free will means we have to know evil? No, evil is a byproduct or polarization of quantified knowingness; a sort of waste material/useless. Of course polarities exist, they discribe the edges of resistance or acceptance. Sin is a no word, its a concept entirely false.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well actually I agree with you there, being a devotee of Krishna I believe that the personal aspect of God is the highest point in the Godhead, this can be Christ, Rama, Krishna, Muhammad, Abraham etc etc etc In my tradition it is called "The Personality of Godhead"

Infact everything you said there is pretty much exactly what I believe, but I just didn't think it was relevant to this particular discussion since the second you mention a name like Christ or Krishna it becomes a discussion about which religion is correct etc etc whereas I felt that what was most relevant to an understanding of the answer to the OP's questions are better explained by an understanding of the impersonal God (Pre-Jesus conception of God, or in my tradition, the impersonal Brahman) Which is what I was talking about.

Also Srila Prabhupada teaches that while the impersonal Brahman can be explained using logic and reason, it is only by the grace of Krishna that a devotee comes to see and become associated with the personal aspect of God. This is something which is explained in the Christian tradition also, that while pre-Jesus philosophy and wisdom can be explained, it is only by the Grace of Christ that one comes to an understanding and faith in Christ, therefore in terms of trying to convey the confused precept of the OP i thought it counter productive to talk about the personal aspect in this particular thread. And again as you say, the Personality of Godhead is equally unmoved and unlimited by the conditions of material existence, so again the question of Justice vs Omniscience of God is again a confused idea, based on a misunderstanding of the nature of God in that he/she experiences all, therefore is omniscient, being experience itself, and yet is not affected or obliged to become partial to what he/she experiences. The OP has seen a paradox, and I have tried to explain to the best of my ability why there is no paradox.

While I may be the only one saying the particular phrase 'Gods Nature is Equanimity' It has indeed been put into different words in the bible where we are told many times that God does not favour any of his children above the others, he is impartial.

Romans 2:11 For one man is not different from another before God

while the equanimity of God is not the only meaning of the above, it is certainly one of them, and so i dont really think that the particular phrasing is too important.

Also, God is comprehensible to a certain degree by the mind, but yes I agree, not fully, but he IS fully comprehensible when he is experienced by the merging of the individual consciousness with the fundamental, primordial awareness that is Gods essence, and that is achieved through meditation.

Oh, and I never said God can't experience, and I never said he is expressly 'he' either, I just said there isn't a word for that, and its just easier to use he, and if you are female you are welcome to use she, as long as you are aware that God transcends duality and so both are only used for the sake of ease of language. Please go back and read my first 2 posts because I feel that we are in less disagreement than you think. Looking back I even mentioned the Personality of Godhead in my 2nd post..

reply to post by Lotuschild

. . . the fundamental, primordial awareness that is Gods essence . . .

I don't think that is God, if you mean this is referring to the impersonal.
I think it is just the universe, a created thing.

Interesting thread.

Since the smarter you are the better you can hide your crimes..... Gods the smartest being in (and out) of the universe, did he/she invent the devil to blame the bad things that happen and that people do on? Ultimate scapegoat!

For being all loving and nice, hes surely done some terrible things, tough love style? Certainly not 100% good.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well, again I can only relate this to my own tradition. We consider Krishna to be the first, the only, the entirety of all that is. That is, Krishna in his purest form as The Transcendent Personality of Godhead, who is completely and entirely transcendent to the universe. The fundamental, primordial awareness is his Brahmajyoti effulgence, something like the light that shines from the sun, while still being one with the sun, it pervades all the solar system bringing light, life and energy, while this light sustains all within the solar system, to actually enter within the sun means to be extinguished within the body of the sun, same goes for Krishna.

You could say that the light of the sun is created by the sun, not the sun, an expansion, an effect, secondary, a created thing. And in the same logic you could say that the impersonal fundamental light of pure impersonal consciousness that spans the entire creation is secondary to The Personality of Godhead, and you'd be right. So again, not in disagreement. But it is not a created thing in terms of the material universe, the universe sits within it, is woven in it, it is the sort of.. skeleton of all that exists within the scope of matter, but it is effectively un-creation or pre-creation in terms of what exists within the universe, nowhere you might look within the material creation will you be able to find this Brahmajyoti, for it is by its power that you are even able to look, and so the only way to find it is to look within, not without, and eventually, by discriminatory meditation, identify all that is not the Atman, or the "Self" a vedic aphorism for the fundamental, pure consciousness at the core of every being, once every single part of your own body and mind is experienced to be impermanent there comes a detachment of identification with these changing phenomena, an impartial observation of all that changes. Eventually the awareness is detached from all these things yet it itself remains, then you are merged with the Brahmajyoti, but this is not the final goal of full and total Enlightenment.

Since the universe springs from this Brahmajyoti in the same way that plants and trees spring from fertile soil, then yes, the foundation and existence of the universe IS that primordial awareness. And so again, we are not in so much disagreement.

The material universe itself is said to be the body of Krishna's Maha-Vishnu expansion, who sleeps upon the cloud of the Mahat-Tattva, or the material principle. The rain which falls from this cloud becomes the Ocean of Causality, and it rises to engulf the material principle and Maha-Vishnu with it. There are detailed accounts in the Puranas of the whole universe and which parts relate to which body parts of Maha-Vishnu, one atom of the body of Maha-Vishnu being equivalent to one single universe within the multiverse (which has been a concept in Vedanta for over 6000 years, but which modern scientists are only beginning to toy with) and I guess you could say that us living beings and the planets which we occupy are like the sub-sub-atomic particles which flash in and out of existence so quickly that it is nearly impossible to detect them... as above so below.

Again though, Maha-Vishnu is not considered to be the highest God, only an expansion of Krishna

I guess you might be able to relate the Brahmajyoti in some ways to the concept of dark matter, it is indeed similar...

P.S Krishna is not the only personality of Godhead, Christ, Abraham, Muhammad, several of the Sikh masters etc are said to be Personalities of Godhead, but all of them are expansions of Krishna, manifestations of him, though equal and non-different to Him, it is Krishna who is the first, the foremost (a statement that may rouse some controversy with many people on here, exactly why I didnt feel it necessary to mention the Personal aspect of God in this thread) The Original Personality of Godhead, as he is known by transcendentalists. The Buddha is also considered to be one, but I actually disagree on this point (something which can cause controversy with people from my own tradition) I believe that the Buddha was an ordinary human being, who had, through many, many lives, travelled the path of personal experience, all the time developing the karma to be born as Siddhartha Gautama, the perfect human being. If the Buddha was not an incarnation of Krishna, then that means he is like the pristine example for all of us, who are also normal humans, on how to follow the path to Godhead. I believe he experienced the human condition so profusely through his many lives, and all the way he compiled more personal experience until in his last birth he set down the Noble Eightfold Path, the ripened extract of all human experience, as a perfect path by which to engage in the pragmatic side of religion/spirituality, no matter what tradition of religious/spiritual theory and philosophy you belong to. Buddhism is not a religion, but the practical side of every religion (and by religion it should be obvious that I mean the original meaning of religion; Dharma; adherence to the eternal law of the inseperable unity of all things: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. NOT, westboro baptist, al-quaeda, landover baptist, muslim brotherhood type of religion, this mutated corruption of mankind which has been dubbed 'religion') But if the Buddha is said to be an incarnation of Krishna, then we are saying that he was perfect from the very beginning and all through his journey, and therefore we rob his teaching and his experience of any validity it might have as an example to us, the suffering, of someone from our own ranks escaping suffering.