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

[Pawan Durani]

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  be easily applied, the religion as a category cannot be applied.
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 worldviews 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
called God/Allah etc. while living. Therefore, the system is not only
Polyistic but also irrational identified as faith. Hence the notion of
Self-realization in Dharma tradition is entirely different from the
nature of salvation. As salvation in Semitic traditions can come only
after death, if at all, by either going to heaven(yet another
category).

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. One could ignore
the “particular” external and ask the question in terms of the
existent as a whole. Let us call this whole as external universe. So
this question can be asked about this external whole. On the other
hand we could ask this question from the point of view of the
“particular” aspect of the external whole. Let us say a about “a
table”, about “ tree”, or about “a star”. But only about that
particular.

·	When you ask the question from the perspective of the universal
existent as a whole. This leads to well know question and maxim stated
by Mahaarishi Vyaasa in Brahma Sutra  “Athato Brahma jignyaasa” (The
Sutra 1 of Brahma Sutra Bhaasya). 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”.

·	If instead one asks the question from the perspective of an
externally manifested particular. Then one is asking about the
properties and the source of this particular. The source that sustains
this particular in all its different aspects. The desire and intent to
understand the particular in the above sense can be presented as
“Athato Dharma Jignyaasa” a statement analogous to the previous
statement of Mahaarishi Vyaasa. (My Guru in these matters, Prof BVK
Sastry gave this formulation to me, during one of the sessions of
studying Maalini-Vijayottara-Tantra; main text of Abheda Shiva
tradition). For to  understand the nature of any particular existent,
is identical  to saying,/understanding the Dharma of that existent.
That is we should understand the Dharma of the entity under enquiry.
As it turns out that process again leads to an irreducible existent
that is eternal and source of all the particulars that are presented.
The answer to the first question and the second question both lead to
the same irreducible “sat”.

·	Suppose one switches from the object (particular or universal) to
the subject the individual self. And person asks the same question
from the perspective of his individual self. Here by self is not
implied any thing more than the following. Every one has some
understanding of say; what he or she is? It could be as simple as;
“that my name is X, I am of a given complexion, my height is so sand
so, I am of this or that profession etc”. What ever you think you are,
you start from there, and then enquire are you really that only, or
that alone, or are you something else. This enquiry in to the nature
of ones self is to enquire in to the nature of Atma/Aham. Now if one
replaces “Brahma” in celebrated Vyaasa’s statement you end up with
“Athato Atma/Aham Jignyaasa”. This replacement can be justified on the
grounds of “Atma=Brahman” or “Aham Brahma asmi”.  This leads us to
“Athaato Atma/Aham Jignyaasa”. That is intense desire to know the Aham
or Atman. This study leads to the study of Aagam-Tantra path. This
enquiry leads to realizing that ones very self  is what we call
“Shiva”/“Shiva-Shakti”. (This aspect was also taught to me by My Guru
ji Prof BVK Sastry).
·	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; like Vedanta and Abheda
Shiva of Kashmir, the arguments goes through (except the last point),
with small alterations as we look at these issues from the Dvaita-Vaad
perspective. All that is needed to maintain the conclusion, is to have
identity of the efficient and the material cause. 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 cannot capture the Indian notion of existent/“Sat”

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 three 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
Shaakta traditions as in saundariya Lahri..)

·         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, Buddhist, Jaina and Sikh traditions are
all fall in to one of these as shown below.


 	
Non-Dual Tradition	
No- Existent	Buddhism
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 is 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

The author may be contacted at :  arrk00 at ameritech.net