LightGigantic:
I object to the greatness of a Krishna-esque "I am time, destroyer of worlds!" transcendent form. Upon this foundation: The existence displayed to Arjuna is temporal, spatial, and limited.
The logical perfection of existence is infinity in space and time. This implies a being who is not here, or there, but everywhere and who must necessarily be. This is not to be found in the Krishna account of the Bhagavad-Gita, although it is found in the Upanishads as Brahman.
Actually, one must ask whether this is possible at all. For that which is impossible cannot actually be imagined.
I'd charge that anything non-infinite is non-eternal by virtue of temporal spatiality being a contingent, and not a necessary, quality.
I object to the greatness of a Krishna-esque "I am time, destroyer of worlds!" transcendent form. Upon this foundation: The existence displayed to Arjuna is temporal, spatial, and limited.
The logical perfection of existence is infinity in space and time. This implies a being who is not here, or there, but everywhere and who must necessarily be. This is not to be found in the Krishna account of the Bhagavad-Gita, although it is found in the Upanishads as Brahman.
And I will still add that the localized form of eternity, immutability etc, as a more greater conception of god
Actually, one must ask whether this is possible at all. For that which is impossible cannot actually be imagined.
I'd charge that anything non-infinite is non-eternal by virtue of temporal spatiality being a contingent, and not a necessary, quality.