THERE’S LOT TO LEARN ABOUT PARAMATMA [ROOH] AND ISHWAR [ALLAH]

In one of the discussions on my friend Jagannath Reddy Jannareddy’s timeline wherein he had placed a direct question to me [Mohammad Alvi] whether Mahatma Gandhi would go to heaven or hell, there was one comment of another friend Ambreesh Mishra that has gone unanswered till now. Instead of answering him, I here place few more mundane questions before him, to initiate a healthy debate and in time we will together try to know the answer.

Ambreesh Mishra is of view that "Vedic monism is the very opposite of Semitic monotheism, which is wholly Aristotelian and dualist. Of course, only the Vedic ideas are true."

On Jagannath Reddy Jannareddy’s timeline, I had asked Ambreesh Mishra: “What arguments you have to prove that Vedic monism is the very opposite of Semitic monotheism, which is wholly Aristotelian and dualist?" Also what arguments you have to support your claim that only the Vedic ideas are true? Give examples. You may give clarification on either of your claim first so as to enable us to proceed with the discussion. Since this thread has already become long enough you may initiate the discussion on my timeline, if you so desire.”

In response, my friend Ambreesh Mishra made the following comment:

“Here are just two Mahavakyas from classical Hinduism that prove my point that Hindu monism and Semitic monotheism are as different as chalk and cheese:
1) Tat tvam asi - "Thou art That", meaning that you are the ultimate reality yourself (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda)
2) Aham brahmāsmi - "I am Brahman", or "I am Divine" (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)
I think in Islam, uttering these two Mahavakyas would be tantamount to Shirk and considered serious blasphemy, likely punishable by death. In Hinduism, they form the cornerstone of mystical inquiry, viz. Mayavaad, doctrine of Karma, etc. As for your queries, I would suggest you read the following:
Surendranath Dasgupta's masterpiece: A History of Indian Philosophy, (Vol. I, II, III, IV & V)
Also,
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan's masterclass: Indian Philosophy (Vol. I & II)
If you then disagree with me and still maintain that it's all the same (I vehemently argue that Semitic religions and Indic religions are radically different), we shall debate. Aristotleian `unmoved first mover' was utilised by Islamic philosophers to overcome the problem of infinite regrees when it came to the question of creatio ex nihilo. It is well-documented but still isn't good enough. As for dualism, that's what strict separation of the creation and the created in creationism is. That's not monism. As I suggested above, these things are detailed in far greater clarity in the works of Dasgupta and Radhakrishnan. I cannot even begin to think I can lend such lucidity or express command of the subject as they do.”

Now here is what Mohammad Alvi says: Quran says that God has revealed this book in an easy language so that human beings could fathom and understand. Quran criticises those who indulge in meaningless philosophical discussions related to God’s command when the message is clear and simple. I have shown in my post “THE TRUE CONTENT OF THE VEDAS” how the Hindu philosophers, some of whom have been quoted by my friend Ambreesh Mishra, who couldn’t understand the simple message of Vedas, Upanishads and Gita ended up doing meaningless and often non-fathomable discussion regarding the inherent philosophy. While the Divine Message was as simple as 2 plus 2, they tried to present those teachings as such high philosophy which common people were unable to understand. This is happening to this day.

My question is that if ‘God’s philosophy’ is so difficult that the educated man of today cannot understand, who has resources to all knowledge, present across the world, how could have people of yore understood those discussions?

In my post ‘THE TRUE CONTENT OF THE VEDAS’, while talking about the ‘great philosophical discussions’ that commentators and so-called philosophers had done about the 5 ‘elements’ and then showing that understanding the five was so simple but we couldn’t understand the meaning, I had written: “Irony is that unable to understand these vague explanations, we as well as the commentators, describe the Upanishads as philosophical treatises of such high order that it is not possible for common man, devoid of spiritual powers, to understand. And we take for granted that the so-called acharyas are knowledgeable enough to understand all this, despite it being philosophical discussion of such high order that we could not get to the head and tail of it. Henceforth, we start revering them as great persons. They are given asanas to sit as well as charity and dakshinas; a lot many of these revered persons are even carried on shoulders by their devotees, lest their feet would fell on the ground. Is all this the teaching of Gita and our religious scriptures?”

Fact is that several Muslim scholars (particularly those who are called adhering to Sufi cult) too have spoken sentences which are far close to “Tat tvam asi – ‘Thou art That’, meaning that you are the ultimate reality yourself (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda); and ‘Aham brahmāsmi’ – ‘I am Brahman’, or ‘I am Divine’ but I do not wish to indulge in those debates here which will become incomprehensible for people here on social media. [Kindly remember, our readers are educated and aware people from different walks of life and not philosophers, and the philosophy of the ‘great philosophers of scriptures’ is at times too difficult for even a nin com pooh like me to understand.] (I would like my readers to read my posts ‘The True Content of the Vedas’ to see how attempts have been made to complicate the simple message of Vedas, Gita and Upanishads.)

I am sure my friend Ambreesh Mishra would like to indulge in a big philosophical discussion about what ‘Tat tvan asi’ and ‘Aham brahmasmi’ mean. Mr. Mishra, you have often said that you are open to healthy debate. Let’s initiate one here.

I, MOHAMMAD ALVI, CLAIMS THAT WHILE WE CALL OURSELVES MEN OF PHILOSOPHY, WE ARE YET TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUE MEANING OF ‘PARAMATMA’ AND ‘ISHWAR’ AND THE RELATION OF ‘PARAMATMA’ WITH ‘DEVAS’ AND THE RELATION OF ‘DEVAS’ WITH HUMANS. WE ALSO DO NOT KNOW THE RELATION between ‘BRAHMA’, ‘VISHNU’ AND ‘MAHESH’. Yet, we indulge in philosophical discussion about ‘I am Brahman’. Yes, the Upanishads did say this and the sentence is correct. But we are far off from the understanding of this term. When we do not know who is ‘BRAHMA’ and what is his relationship with humans, how can we be justified in claiming ‘I am Brahman’.

Initiating this discussion is important for three reasons: 1) Only upon understanding the relationship we will know what does terms like ‘I am Brahman’ mean. 2) This will make us understand the CREATION PLAN why God has created us and what He expects from us. 3) During my discussion with friend Jagannath Reddy Jannareddy, when he asked me to tell whether people like Mahatma Gandhi would go to heaven or hell in one ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and I refrained to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ because I maintained that there were certain other conditions necessary for going to heaven, one of which is the identification of the ‘creation plan’ i.e. the rope that leads us to God and howsoever much we do good deeds in life, we cannot attain salvation without knowing the path-givers who are between us and God and who include the Devas and above the Devas, the Paramatma. Understanding the aforementioned relation will enable us to understand the path that would lead to Ishwar (also called Mahesh, Absolute God or Allah).

Therefore, I invite all my friends here who are interested in knowing the Divine Creation Plan and understanding the ‘rope’ (identification of which was so important that Brahmans of yore started wearing thread inside their garments, lest they forgot), about whose identity they know nothing. I invite friends like Ambreesh Mishra to answer WHAT MEANINGS HE GIVE TO TERMS LIKE ‘PARAMATMA’ AND WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF ‘PARAMATMA’ WITH GOD? WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF ‘PARAMATMA’ WITH ‘DEVAS’ OR ‘MANUS’ AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF ‘DEVAS’ WITH HUMANS?