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?

THE TRUE CONTENT OF THE VEDAS (PART-I)

When I pasted the fifth shloka 10th hymn of Book I of Rig Veda along with its translation, our friend Rahul Shastri, after doing meticulous study on the subject, made the following comments: (i) Rigvedic hymns have invocative powers and are recited in homes to invoke the blessing and protection of gods. (I will read ‘god’ as ‘devas’, as this is the most misunderstood term and the original Sanskrit text talk of devas, which have been translated by commentators as gods.) (ii) Prophecy is not their intent. (iii) Often, as in this case, they describe the benefits that flow from invocation. (iv) Rahul Shastri says that my translation is flawed and the first line of the shloka may be translated thus: उक्थम्-इन्द्र-अय शंस्यं वर्धनं पुरु-निष्षिधे, i.e.: Recitation of Indra’s good fortune, is desirable, to heaven elevates. (v) Rahul Shastri says that “the word शक्रः, seems to apply to Indra, who is so called because he is powerful (see Apte). It also means Lord, and fourteen. While Lord seems to make sense in the context of the benefits the recitation bestows, fourteen does not seem to make sense.” Let’s discuss these issues in detail:

We are all aware that the Vedas are replete with mention of Indradeva, Vayudeva, Agnideva, Vasudeva, etc. The Vedas, in actuality, are the real source of all information that we possess about these names and also formed the basis of all the myths and legends that came into existence subsequently, which were to find place in later period works like Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata. However, kindly remember that Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata are not revealed scriptures from God or devas and were mere compilations by common men like you and me. Therefore, what they say is not final, but what the Vedas and Upanishads, and what Gita says, is final indeed.

Rishi Dayananda Saraswati (to be called RDS henceforth) is considered one of the greatest commentators of Vedas, along with Sayanacharaya. It is Rishi Dayananda Saraswati’s commentary that we took up for study and hence would like to talk about it first.

A true reformist that he considered himself to be, RDS concluded that the Vedas talked of airplanes, cars and steam engines. It is said that RDS was perhaps distressed at the allegations raised by various Western scholars that the Hindu scriptures were merely mythology and ritual, which no longer had any living truth or force for the thinking minds and were therefore fit to be put away among the relics of the past as an antique record of semi-barbarous worship. This distress is also visible in the writing of Aurobindo Ghosh, who shared RDS’s view. Therefore, RDS re-wrote the entire commentary, saying that the names of Indra, Vayu, Agni, etc. that were so often used in the Vedas, and which have been taken as divine persons, or devas, by most commentators, actually meant material sun, air, fire, etc. and nothing else. In the course of his commentary, where Vayu and Agni were mentioned together, he concluded that steam engines were being discussed and so on. This was done with the purpose of making these scriptures fit for the thinking mind, without realizing that we were only leading to further deviation.

To tell you the truth, when we picked up the Vedas for study, we were of the opinion that if it is God’s revealed text, then it must be of the nature of a torchbearer, which would show that path to the human beings that would lead them to the worship of One God and save them from the scourge of sin and troubled existence. The moment we started reading it, it was apparent that this could not be digested, as it is beyond reason that God would use His energy and time, send Prophets and emissaries, to tell that in future there would be airplanes and steam-engines to carry us or tell us what oils to put in ritual fire, what kind of ladle to use during such oblations, and so on.

Our view was further substantiated when we read Manu, who is largely believed to be the first lawgiver after the Vedas, singing the glory of the Vedas in such un-ambiguous terms as:

The Veda is the source of all Dharma i.e. religion, morality, righteousness and good conduct.
(MANUSMRITI 2-6)

It is unfortunate that the later day translators of the Vedas inferred the value of Vedas from the value given to them by revered sages of earlier times, but forgot the true meaning of the Vedas. Instead of what Manu described Vedas to be, they found rites and rituals, electricity, steam engines and airplanes in the Vedas.

How foolish of us that we claim Vedas to be having a universal appeal due to the reason that they talk about future when steam engines would role and electric gadgets would be part of our life. The fact that several Vedic hymns talk in the future tense and carry words like Vayu and Agni made RDS and few others come to this conclusion. But have we ever thought that the same Vedas, of whose universal nature we are boasting of, would become redundant for the man of the period when they were revealed, in case we were to translate them in such a manner. Neither would they be of any further interest to the growing generations, to whom steam engines, et al are already things of the past.

We are sure your curiosity is aroused! Some of you may be thinking that only a handful of commentators like RDS have translated the Vedas with steam-engines and airplanes in them, whereas the rest of the commentators have certainly not done so. Maharshi Patanjali writes in the Mahabhasya, that there are 101 shakhas (schools of thoughts) of the Yajur Veda. All these commentaries are not available at present except the Kanva, Madhyandini, Taittiriya, Maitrayani, Kathak and Kapishthala. Only six available to us out of the 101 versions!

It can therefore be inferred that RDS’s commentary is either 105th, 110th or any such version but certainly not lesser than the 102nd. Since commentaries or schools of thoughts are based on the understood meaning, this would amount to saying that Yajur Veda alone (containing merely 1984 verses in comparison to Rig Veda’s 10,522) has been understood with at least 102 meanings. If this is so, then what is the real meaning that God intended? God surely must have talked about one straight path, even if He had to send His Messages through various Apostles and emissaries, and not diverse ones as the various Schools of Thoughts suggest.

Here we would like to say that since we believe the Vedas to be God’s words, we must be prepared to accept it as it is, without getting into a sort of inferiority or superiority complex on the basis of its content. The fact that RDS had to do another translation, to silence the criticism of British commentators, highlights his lack of faith in God. Why was he eager to give shape to the God’s words or mould them as per his choice? Why didn’t he accept whatever the Vedas were saying, instead of getting into an inferiority complex as regard to the existing translations, which were being labelled by British commentators as pre-historic or archaic? He should have accepted that since He is Creator and Knower of all that will transpire till the end of this world; His words cannot be termed as lacking foresight or wisdom.

If we believe that God has created us and it is He who has made arrangements for showing us the right path, if we believe that not a single leaf falls without His wish, and if we believe that we are like scrap in the smelting unit of an iron or steel factory that keeps moving on a chain towards inevitable destruction of its material form, then we must accept God’s Word as final, whatever it is. Yes, sincere endeavours to understand that Word in the true sense should be an endless pursuit.

Whether truth is in RDS’s inference or in that of commentators like Sayana and other Western scholars, all should be checked and rechecked on the basis of our reasoning, before we come to believe them. Nothing, not even the arguments put forth by Mohammad Alvi, should be accepted until we find them based on logic and reason, after a sincere study.

To be continued…