[Reader-list] Non-Dualist/Monistic, Monotheism and the Polytheism

[يا سر ~ ɹısɐʎ]

congratulations. best of all i can quote to you a couplet from a poem /nazm
from class /grade 2 ii think. since you have been interested both
in textbooks and poems. It is from a hamd, ie a poem about God. it is the
first chapter usually. i only remember the couplet. it goes simply:

har cheez mein nihan hai
har cheez mein pinhan hai

 ہر چیز میں نہاں ہے
ہر چیز میں پنہاں ہے
its a secret in every thing
it is hidden in every thing

judge for your self.

best
yasir



On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>wrote:

> "the conception of divinity in Islam is that it is everywhere and in
> everything."
>
> This is a new one for me. Very very new. It would be redeeming.
>
>
> --- On *Sun, 6/6/10, يا سر ~ ɹısɐʎ <yasir.media at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: يا سر ~ ɹısɐʎ <yasir.media at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Non-Dualist/Monistic, Monotheism and the
> Polytheism
> To: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Sunday, June 6, 2010, 12:20 PM
>
>
> I have always known that the conception of divinity in Islam is that it is
> everywhere and in everything. taking this to its
> literal-logical-interpretative extreme you get pantheistic arguments
> similar
> to Ibn-Arabi which may me the same or similar in conception with Dharma. on
> the other hand Platonistic, Aristotelean, and Parminedean arguments equate
> the primary cause and Being in many different combinations, including the
> possibility that the material world is an illusion.  this in fact goes
> perfectly well with the modern physics view of an ultimately unknowable
> divine reality or just reality, as it shows up in quantum phenomena and
> astrophysics. then again as you say in 'Advaitic SivA' the different names
> and forms of the ultimate reality become the 99 names of the divinity in
> islam. in fact the monotheistic tradition just keeps the ultimate reality
> separate from the manifestations and even names, images and
> representations.
> This happens more in the Muslim & Jewish worldviews although not always
> strictly, and certain Christian sects, certainly not all. i am afraid i do
> not buy your arguments. You ought to read the same subject matter in other
> traditions and not rely on the 'scientific' evidence  which is decidedly
> empirical and limited, in order to prove a metaphysical point.
>
> best
> yasir
>
> ps: are you bound in holy matrimony or is it contractual.
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Pawan Durani <pawan.durani at gmail.com<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=pawan.durani@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> > Non-Dualist/Monistic, Monotheism and the Polytheism
> > By
> > Rabinder Kumar Koul
> >
> > Objective:
> > Our world has many varied views of the ultimate reality/existent, some
> > based on the Dharma traditions of India, some based on the scientific
> > tradition of the modern world and yet some others on the religious
> > world view of the Semitic traditions. When we talk about reality and
> > ultimate existent, one looks at the modern science for guidance and we
> > ignore the truth claims made by Semitic religions (as these are
> > fundamentally contrary in their approach and attitude to the
> > scientific view). On the other hand when we talk of religious world
> > view, people lump Dharma traditions also in to that. The dominant
> > narration currently classifies the truth claim by religions and Dharma
> > traditions in terms of internal scheme provided by Semitic religions.
> > This classification is based on Monotheistic and polytheistic
> > categories that are internal to the Semitic religions.  The thrust of
> > this note is to show that this classification is incomplete and narrow
> > and can not capture wholly the different versions of reality that
> > includes scientific, Dharma based and religion based view points
> > simultaneously. An alternative classification is presented, that is
> > internal to the Dharma tradition, and it is shown to capture not only
> > the Scientific and Dharma view, but also the Semitic religious view of
> > reality in its classification scheme.
> >
> > Begin Digression:
> > Here I am distinguishing Dharma from religion, even though outsiders
> > have translated Dharma as religion for us. The reason for this
> > separation is the dilemmas this translation creates, when we apply
> > this translation in situations, where Dharma as a conceptual category
> > can easily applied and religion as a category cannot be used. Take for
> > example the commonly understood distinct domains.
> > .       Living
> > .       Humans
> > .       Animals
> > .       Plants and vegetables
> > .       Non-Living
> > .       Conceptual
> > In all the above cases the notion of Dharma is applicable. For example
> > my wife is called my "Dharma Patni", but I have no religious wife. My
> > dharma changes as to what aspect is under consideration. Similarly an
> > animal has his Dharma, but not religion. As do vegetables have Dharma,
> > but no religion. The non-livings too have their dharma, but no
> > religion. In fact the Dharma itself has Dharma, but religion has no
> > religion.  These dilemmas can be sorted out only when the Dharma is
> > understood in all its varieties, and must not be translated as
> > religion.
> >
> > In this note I use instrumental cause in the sense, say, of a potter
> > making a wheel. He becomes the instrumental cause here and the
> > material cause for the wheel is the mud that is used to make the pot.
> > Even though potter is the instrumental cause, he is not the efficient
> > cause. That cause will be assigned to his consciousness (Atman).
> > However sometimes the instrumental cause may coincides with the
> > efficient cause. Since these may coincide in the same agent, namely
> > 'God" in Semitic traditions.
> > End Digression
> >
> > Introduction:
> > Very often limitations of our language bind us and cannot let us see
> > beyond these limitations. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions are
> > bound by these inner constructs. They can only classify the world’s
> > spiritual traditions in to Monotheistic and polytheistic traditions.
> > These are the blinders put on them by the nature of their discourse.
> > This classification is not broad enough to encompass the
> > non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic wolrd views and traditions. This
> > classification based on Monotheism and Polytheism is internal
> > compulsion of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, because they
> > posit two separate classes of realities. First one of these two
> > realities is called God, and the other realities are every thing else
> > “that exists”, and is by its very nature different from God. In
> > general, God creates these other no-where and can vanquish these in to
> > non-existence. Technically the God is the instrumental cause and not
> > the material cause. There is no connection between the nature of the
> > God and the nature of the other realities. Thus, Judeo-Christian
> > reality is of many kinds. There is God, then there are angles, then
> > there are Men, women, then beasts and then in-animate things. All of
> > these are distinct from each other and are fundamentally different
> > existents, in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic worldviews. Such a model of
> > the reality is called the Polyistic model of the reality. God is just
> > one category of reality in their worldview (even though highest) but
> > in existence are many different kinds of realities, completely
> > dis-jointed from each other in a fundamental way. In other words, the
> > Judeo-Christian-Islamic view of the reality is a collection of
> > distinct and materially un-connected realities, which are
> > fundamentally different in Character from each other. Looking from
> > this perspective, their “reality view” is Polyistic worldview. The
> > highest of these Categories, namely God, has no material commonality
> > with the rest of the existents. The humans among the rest who are
> > endowed with a soul (another existent) has no commonality with God
> > either. Hence even in principal Christian/Islamic traditions have no
> > possibility of knowing or experiencing God directly, except through
> > the word of an individual, who is classified as prophet. Implicatively
> > this category of “God” is relegated to the mere belief.  And this
> > belief has to be maintained in the face of all the other evidence,
> > logical, material or experiential that may arise in due course. That
> > is irrational is relegated to a deserving and desirable status. Thus
> > these traditions, because of the very nature of their worldview, have
> > no possibility of substantiating their first category of reality they
> > call God/Allah etc. while living or dead. Therefore, the system is not
> > only Polyistic but also irrational faith. I.e. Ask no questions and I
> > will tell you no lies.
> >
> > On the other hand, the scientific worldview as propounded by the
> > modern Physics is Non-dualistic worldview. Based on the experimental
> > observations and the internal consistency arguments, it claims that
> > there exists one fundamental reality (principal) from which both the
> > space-time and matter along with their dynamics arises. This eventual
> > reality (principal), call it Grand-unified-Quantum-Gravitational
> > reality, is what is hinted at by the modern Physics. Even though this
> > ultimate description is not with us currently, but we have a large
> > portion of it already at hand. The success of the modern physics is
> > testimony to that. Thus modern physics emphasizes that the ultimate
> > reality is one from which all else comes forth and that all else is
> > fundamentally tied to this underlying existent through dynamics with
> > some symmetry breaking/phase transition processes. The diversity of
> > the states of mater and the geometry of the space-time arises out of
> > this principal by some symmetry breaking principals and “observational
> > principle”, inherently contained in the theory. This Scientific view
> > of reality is Non-dualistic fundamentally at variance from the
> > Judeo-Christian Islamic worldview. Its foundations lay in experience,
> > postulation and logical deductions. Fundamentally the world view
> > postulates that if some thing exists, then it can be experienced or
> > deduced from that is experincible. Even though a conscious observer
> > plays a fundamental part in the outcomes of experiments of this
> > theory, there is no explicit explanation or incorporation of the main
> > characteristic of this consciousness’ as observer, namely its
> > consciousness/awareness aspect in to the theory. However the
> > Non-dualistic world view rules in physics. This scientific worldview
> > of humans cannot be captured by the Monotheistic/polytheistic
> > classification scheme, but can be captured by monistic/Polyistic
> > classification scheme.
> >
> > Let us now consider Dharma traditions. These traditions are concerned
> > with the nature of “Sat” i.e. existence. You can ask this question of
> > the nature of “sat” from three different perspectives.
> > ·       You ask this question from the perspective of the externally
> > presented world. If you ask this question from the perspective of the
> > external world, there are two possible perspectives.
> > ·       You can ask the question from the perspective of an externally
> > manifested particular. That question is characterized by the famous
> > saying of Mahaarishi Vyaasa, “Athato Dharma Jignyaasa”. To understand
> > the nature of existent of particular, one has to understand the Dharma
> > of that existent i.e intense desire to know the “properties/qualities”
> > that support this particular existent, to be. That is we should
> > understand the Dharma of the entity under enquiry. This to the study
> > of Dharma.
> > ·       Instead of asking this question from the perspective of external
> > particular, You can ask this question from the perspective of the
> > universal existent as a whole. This again leads to another question
> > and maxim stated by Mahaarishi Vyaasa “Athato Brahma jignyaasa”. That
> > is intense desire to know Universal manifestation engulfing all
> > particulars and including all particulars. This path of enquiry leads
> > to irreducible existent and is characterized by the notion of
> > “NirguNa-Brahman”.
> > ·       Now a person can ask the same question from the perspective of
> his
> > individual self. Here one implies by self what ever you consider your
> > current state of self. Namely, you may think that I am Mr. X, I am so
> > much tall, I am handsome or I am ugly etc etc. What ever you think you
> > are, you start from there, and then enquire are you really that only,
> > or that alone or are tou something else. This path is characterized by
> > the question again Maharishi Vyaasa puts as, “Athaato Atma/Aham
> > Jignyaasa”. That is intense desire to know the Aham or Atman.  And
> > this study is following the study of Aagam-Tantra path. The path leads
> > to irreducible existent that is called “Shiva”/“Shiva-Shakti” in this
> > path.
> > ·       The fascinating part is that this Sat=Atman=Shiva=Brahman. Of
> > course
> > there are other names used by different variations of these main
> > directions of enquiry.
> >
> > I must also point out that even though my above description is based
> > on Monistic/ Monistic theism based traditions. However the arguments
> > go through (except the last point),with small alterations as we look
> > at these issues from the Dvaita-Vaad perspective. All that is needed
> > to realize is to maintain the efficient and the material cause is the
> > same. The difference between the non-dual vs dualistic traditions of
> > such genre (both efficient and material cause issue…) arises in
> > assumption, if the part contains the whole or part is only part of the
> > whole.
> >
> > Given the above summary, it is obvious that Indian traditions too,
> > cannot be captured by the classification categories of the Monotheism
> > and polytheism, since the tradition attempts to capture whole reality
> > like Physics tries in Natural Sciences. The Semitic classification
> > ignores the reality (existence) as a whole and is focused only on one
> > existent called God (the efficient cause of the rest but not the
> > material cause). Thus the monotheistic and the polytheistic
> > classification can not capture the Indian notion of existent/“Sata”
> >
> > Alternate Classification:
> > Indian traditions also provide an internal classification scheme that
> > is broad enough to capture all the above views of reality, be it
> > Judeo-Christian-Islamic, Indian, or Modern Scientific traditions. This
> > reality classification scheme is given as
> >
> > ·         Non-Dualistic Reality: It has tthree possibilities as given
> > below.
> > ·         No-Reality (Nihilistic view)
> > ·         Non-dualistic (Monistic) View (There is only one reality and
> > every thing else arises from it)
> > ·       Non-dual Monistic theism (as in Abheda Siva tradition or Abheda
> > Shakta traditions as in saundariya Lahiri..)
> >
> > ·         Dualistic Reality: There are at least two distinct realities
> > ·         Polyistic Reality: There are many distinct realities
> > materially fundamentally distinct from each other
> >
> > Indian Vedic, Agamic/Tantric, Budhist, Jaina and Sikh traditions are
> > all fall in to one of these as shown below.
> >
> >
> >
> > Non-Dual Tradition
> > No- Existent    Budhism
> > Only One Existent that appears as many  Advaitic Traditions / Modern
> > Scientific view
> >
> > Dualistic traditions    Nyaya/Yoga/VaishishkA/Dvaita Shiva, Vaishnava
> > Traditions/ Sikhism
> >
> > Polyistic Tradition     Judeo-Christian-Islam
> >
> > Even though Advaitic traditions posit only one kind of reality, there
> > is more than one variety of Advaita. The difference is in the details.
> > The consciousness plays a central role in the Advaitic traditions of
> > India and every thing else eventually is shown either to be evolutes
> > from it or only an appearance. Hence it also incorporates the aspect
> > of Consciousness as observer that Modern physics does not address even
> > though it plays a central role as an observer. This part is on-going
> > work in Physics. In Advaitic traditions too, in my perspective a
> > modern understanding of the evolutes of the TatvAs have to be better
> > understood. That is a different story.
> >
> > It can be seen that this classification provides complete
> > classification scheme for the Scientific, Dharma and Semitic religious
> > world view. But in principle is a complete in the sense that any new
> > world view will take its place within this scheme, so long we can
> > enumerate its categories.
> >
> >
> > Connection to Polytheism: Let me address this from the non-dualistic
> > point of view.  In Advaitic SivA, the ultimate reality becomes all
> > different names and forms. Thus, all form are equally sanctified and
> > sacred and worthy of worship, since these all arise and return to .
> > Here in lay the true roots of, what is called, Polytheism. Notice,
> > even here when one worships no aspect of the existence is ignored. The
> > Polytheism arises directly from the deep experience of the
> > non-dualistic tradition. Monotheistic tradition falls far short of
> > that and is completely oblivious towards the nature of all other
> > existent reality. In fact, it is in direct contradiction of the
> > messages from the modern physics since it considers all different
> > existents as de-separate.
> >
> > On the other hand, if that non-dual reality posits reality as
> > appearance only, then the foundation of this appearance of the form is
> > the one ultimate reality in that form. In that case, one is always
> > worshiping that ultimate principal in a given form.
> >
> > Therefore the attempts to show that Hinduism is monotheistic are
> > misplaced, for its roots lay far deeper experiential ideals, and deals
> > with the reality as a whole. For Non-dualistic traditions may contain
> > (but not necessarily) the monotheistic aspect but in reality
> > transcends it. The attempt to show otherwise is indicative of
> > mis-understanding of Indian traditions.
> >
> > Ravindra
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net>with
> > subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net<http://us.mc572.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=reader-list-request@sarai.net>with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>