|BHAJA GOVINDAM, BHAJA GOVINDAM
Firstly, I would like to know your view, your opinion, or your philosophical position to give my responses. When you share concepts proposed by others, it poses a problem to interpret them for I may not know the context in which such concepts exist. If you state your own position, I will be able to ask you for clarification. I examine concepts to find their relevance to my existence in world that I live today.
Shankara’s views on ‘Advaita’ have to be shared in the context of his instruction popularly known as ‘Bhaja Govindam’. This instruction is based upon understanding Regulative vs Constitutive Dualism. Man’s Individual Soul or ‘Jeevatma’ may have the same Constitution and hence identical with Supreme Soul or ‘Paramatma’. But, man has no ‘Regulative’ Power to operate, govern, or rule his own body while the Soul is embodied. The reality of ‘Advaita’ cannot save man, and man has to surrender to Supreme Soul if he has to save himself prior to end of his mortal existence.
Kindly explain Bheda-Abheda. What is the reason for difference? Is it one of kind, or one of degree?
The chemical composition of a drop of sea water can be the same as that of Sea and they are identical. I can easily swallow that drop of water but it will not establish the reality of Sea while my sensory experience of Sea is entirely true. Your suggestion that I may be trying to know reality through my sensory experience is not based upon information that I shared.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
On Friday, February 19, 2016 2:21 AM, Devinder Singh Gulati wrote:
|>>> Firstly, I have yet to arrive at proper understanding of man and the world in which he exists before my time comes to depart.
‘Let us account for things that exist today’ is a good place to start. As you come across roadblocks to the understanding, you can modify your theory. It is a sensible approach indicating willingness to learn.
What we can know through the senses is only conditioned reality. That is what l take the Gita is saying. And mind is a sense. It is termed the sixth sense. And yet mind is a light that leads. It is not the true light that shows the entire truth. It is a shadowy light that shows half-truths. ‘Let us account for things as they exist’ is the mental approach that will throw up its own shortcomings. And if you are prepared to modify your understanding, another direction will show itself. We all must begin with some position but then examine its truthfulness.
I am mentally prepared to change my understanding of things provided someone presents a convincing argument. I have pointed out where yours are not convincing. You have a kindered soul in Devinder Singh Chahal who has a greater fixity than you. And Rawel singh, who l agree with on many issues, has a still greater fixity. He calls me deluded but does not explain why. He believes in the infallibility of mind; his own mind.
His fixity derives the idea that Sikhism is a monotheistic religion but he is unable to reconcile it with the dualism of the Chaldean faiths (the three semitic religions) that hold the creator and creation to be ever separate. Half his difficulty would recede if he acknowledges that Sikhism is in tune with Vedanta, one of the six classifications of vedic religions, particularly with one subclassification of Vedanta called bhedabheda, among four subclassifications, the other three of which are Advata, Qualified Advata, and Dvaita. The problem; he is infilling to study the classifications.
Here is a description of Bheda-abheda. He may comment in what manner Sikh metaphysics differs from this:
According to the Bhedābheda view, Brahman converts itself into the created, but yet maintains a distinct identity. Thus, the school holds that Brahman is both different (bheda) and not different (abheda) from creation and the individual jīva.
The philosophical persuasion that has produced the most commentaries on the Brahma Sūtra is the Bhedābheda philosophy. Textual evidence suggests that all of the commentaries authored prior to Śaṅkara’s famous Advaita commentary on the Brahma Sūtra subscribed to a form of Bhedābheda, which one historian calls “Pantheistic Realism” (Sharma, pp. 15-7). And on natural readings, it appears that most of the remaining commentators (but for the three famous commentators) also promulgate an interpretation of the Brahma Sūtra that falls within the Bhedābheda camp.
|What is Predestination?
Predestination is a doctrine that claims everything is determined by God from the beginning. There are five causes in the accomplishment of any kind of work; these are, 1. The Place of Action, 2. The Doer, 3. The Senses, 4. The Endeavor, and 5. The Supersoul or Supreme Will.
The concept of Prakrit, material modes of nature or Gunas and man’s interactions with living and nonliving have to be reconciled with the doctrine of Predestination called Fate, Destiny, Vidhi, Niyati, or Daivam. God may elect or predestinate the circumstances of a person and make a choice on God’s own initiative on the basis of God’s knowing in advance the reaction of the person to His Supreme Will. My concerns are not about the beginning or origin of life or of universe. My concern is not about as to what happens at the end of preesent cycle. Firstly, I have yet to arrive at proper understanding of man and the world in which he exists before my time comes to depart.
Let us account for things that exist today.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 2:58 PM, Devinder Singh Gulati wrote:
|‘The creator separated himself from his creation to perform his creative function,’ that is why.
This he did by creating his environment, called prakriti.
Then he set up a barrier between himself, purusha, and his environment.According to the Sānkhya system, the cosmos is the result of the mutual contact of two distinct metaphysical categories: Prakrti (Nature), and Puruha (person). Prakriti, or Nature, is the material principle of the cosmos and is comprised of three gunas, or “qualities.” These are sattva, rajas, and tamas. Sattva is illuminating, buoyant and a source of pleasure; rajas is actuating, propelling and a source of pain; tamas is still, enveloping and a source of indifference (Sāṅkhya Kārikā 12-13).
Purusa, in contrast, has the quality of consciousness. It is the entity that the personal pronoun “I” actually refers to. It
is eternally distinct from Nature, but it enters into complex configurations of Nature (biological bodies) in order to experience and to have knowledge. According to the Sāṅkhya tradition, mind, mentality, intellect or Mahat (the Great one) is not a part of the Puruṣa, but the result of the complex organization of matter, or the guṇas. Mentality is the closest thing in Nature to Puruṣa, but it is still a natural entity, rooted in materiality. Puruṣa, in contrast, is a pure witness. It lacks the ability to be an agent. Thus, on the Sāṅkhya account, when it seems as though we as persons are making decisions, we are mistaken: it is actually our natural constitution comprised by the guṇas that make the decision. The Puruṣa does nothing but lend consciousness to the situation (Sāṅkhya Kārikā 12-13, 19, 21).
The starting point of Sankhya is consciousness or pure existence. It is the creator. To you consciousness is what is seen in interaction of animate matter. It describes, and dwells on processes. It is all about how. The why you just mentioned. Identity and creation and adaption. Interaction between inanimate matter, chemical or otherwise, you say produces consciousness. You cannot say how. So there is a missing link here.
The theism of Rāmānuja’s Viśishtadvaita shows up in his insistence that Brahman is a specific deity (Visnu, also known as “Nārāyana”) who is an abode of an infinite number of auspicious qualities. The organismic aspect of Rāmānuja’s model consists in his view that all things that we normally consider as distinct from Brahman (such as individual persons or jīvas, mundane objects, and other unexalted qualities) constitute the Body of Brahman, while the Ātman spoken of in the Upaniṣads is the non-body, or mental component of Brahman. The result is a metaphysic that regards Brahman as the only substance, but yet affirms the existence of a plurality of abstract and concrete objects as the qualities of Brahman’s Body and Soul (Vedārthasaṅgraha §2).
You regard cryptoplasm as the only substance that gives rise to inanimate matter, life, animate matter, mind, that is consciousness which can be studied by observation, but cannot say how plasma arose. It is to you the primal existence of the Vedas or soul that you describe as
“immortal, immutable, imperishable, indestructible, unborn, and even uncreated principle that is distinct from human body that is explained as perishable, insensible, inert, illusion, or even unreal.” You also say “ln my analysis, the division or separation of man into Imperishable Soul, and Perishable Body is fundamentally flawed.”
There is an unbridgeable gulf between your understanding of consciousness and mine as also on the why question. Yes matter(plasma) is immortal in the present cycle of creation, but there are periods according to tradition when creation is withdrawn. When that happens you can’t explain recreation, but Vedanta can on the basis of pure existence. Samkhya also tells about the why of creation:
The contact of Prakṛti and Puruṣa, on the Sāṅkhya account, is not a chance occurrence. Rather, the two principles make contact so that Puruṣa can come to have knowledge of its own nature. A Puruṣa comes to have such knowledge when sattva, the illuminating guṇa, assumes a governing position in a bodily constitution. The moment that this knowledge comes about, a Puruṣa becomes liberated. The Puruṣa is no longer bound by the actions and choices of its body’s constitution. However, liberation consists in the end of karma tying the Puruṣa to Prakṛti: it does not coincide with the complete annihilation of past karma, which would consist in the disentangling of a Puruṣa from Prakṛti. Hence, the Sāṅkhya Kārikā likens the self-realization of the Puruṣa to a potter’s wheel, which continues to spin down, after the potter has ceased putting energy to keep the wheel in motion (Sāṅkhya Kārikā 67).
|SPIRITUALITY SCIENCE – BIOTIC INTERACTIONS AND CONSCIOUSNESS
The term ‘Consciousness’ used in the context of describing cognitive functions tends to vary from organism to organism depending upon the size, form, structure, and functional organization of given organism. If cell is used as a model or building block of life, each living cell is aware or conscious of its inner environment and outer or external environment. Human life begins as a single, fertilized egg cell or zygote and as it grows and develops into a very complex organism, its contents of consciousness become varied.
To study the behavior and nature of organisms, we have to know about Biotic Interactions. Every living organism uses a barrier to separate itself from its external environment to perform its living functions and to define its identity. To the same extent, Creator separated Himself from His Creation to define His Identity and to perform His Creative Functions.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE
On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 5:15 PM, Devinder Singh Gulati wrote:
|>>> There is no ‘Pure Existence’ as man’s existence is always conditioned. What is described as ‘Pure Existence’ is in fact Conditioned Existence, but can be stated as ‘Conditioned Reflex’ actions or behaviour.
There were several repeated attempts to explain life materially and all of them have repeatedly come full circle, because, physical sciences mostly deal with questions that begin with “what?” and “how?” On the other hand, biological sciences will be incomplete without addressing the functional questions of purpose that begin with “why?”
The commonly practiced linear causal explanations in physics and chemistry are insufficient to address the network and circular causality of an organic whole. The immensely complex organic whole does not allow reductionism to unravel all the causal relations of a functional dynamic integrated biological phenomenon
Aristotle’s four aspects of causes  will be a good explanation to demolish the great brick wall that we often come up against the attempt to understand living organism from a non-reductionist viewpoint. Let us consider the ‘brick wall’ example (which is an example for external teleology) in the context of Aristotle’s four aspects of causes. If someone asks why a ‘brick wall’ was built then following a reductionist approach we can only address the two causes from Aristotle’s four aspects of causes: (1) the material cause – that out of which ‘brick wall’ is made and (2) the efficient cause – the natural laws that are important in the art of ‘brick wall’ construction. However, the simplistic reductionist approach cannot address another two subtle causes: (1) the formal cause – the form or the shape of the ‘brick wall’ (which was in the mind of the architect) and (2) the final cause – the end or the purpose (external teleology) for which the ‘brick wall’ was built. This is a major limitation of reductionist approach commonly practiced in physical sciences.
Consciousness always means consciousness of something. The living entity can be conscious of objects in the environment and at the same time when it becomes the object of its own consciousness, it is called self consciousness. Trees, plants, creepers and grass are examples of living entities having covered consciousness (ācchādita). These living entities have almost no sense of their own conscious existence, yet their identity as living entities can be inferred from the six transformations of life as observed in living entities: (1) birth, (2) sustenance, (3) growth, (4) maturity, (5) declination and (6) death. According to Manu-saṁhitā the trees have feelings of pain and pleasure similar to ours and their souls are not of a lower standard However, their consciousness is not yet developed to the extent of animals and the still higher category of human beings. Terewavas has argued that plants display sentient qualities like sensory perception, information processing, learning, memory, choice, foresight and predictive capacity.
Animals, birds, crawling and creeping entities like reptiles, snakes, insects and fishes living in water are all examples of different degrees of shrunken consciousness (saṅkucita). These organisms have a more developed sense of their conscious existence. They distinctly display the characteristics towards satisfying their immediate biological needs like eating, sleep, fear, willful migration and travel, fighting with others due to a sense of self, display of anger when they see injustice, and so on. But they have no sense of self inquiry (athāto brahma jijñāsā – Vedānta-sūtra 1.1.1) and they are fully engrossed only in immediate existence.
So can you answer the ‘why’ question?
|“Aaye hain so Jaayenge Raja, Rank, Fakir”
Existence refers to the act, state, or fact of continuance of being; life, and living. It refers to entity, or thing that exists. The term ‘Conditioned’ means subject to conditions, depending on certain conditions that are proper or desired. In the context of ‘Existence’, the term ‘Conditioned’ describes ‘Dependence’, the condition or fact of being dependent. The phrase ‘Conditioned Existence’ refers to a being or entity that is influenced, controlled, or whose fact of existence is determined by somethingelse. Being ‘Conditioned’, the living entity is dependent upon support, or aid from an external source. Man’s conditioned existence is fundamentally about subordination or lack of freedom for man is essentially dependent. In Physiology, the term ‘adaptation’ refers to a change in structure, function, or form that improves the chance of survival for an animal or plant within a given environment. However, there is no physiological mechanism or adaptation to avoid consequences of eternal Law of Aging. If man has arrived here, he is sure to depart.
Modes of Material Nature or Gunas describe actions and behavior in response to external environmental stimuli. The ‘GUNAS’ as such do not ‘Condition’ human existence. As Kabir Das mentioned, there are three kinds of men characterized by their Gunas; 1. Raja, man of nobility, passion, rajas, and vigor; Rank, 2. Slave, servant, ignorant, subordinate, not capable of initiative and independent action, serves his master, and 3. Fakir, man of wisdom, good nature, with mental or emotional poise and stability, man of mental balance, mental equilibrium, mental equanimity, mental composure, calm, undisturbed, man with evenness of temper or disposition. All of them lead a ‘dependent’, conditioned existence. Their ‘Gunas’ may condition their actions and behavior and the term used in Physiology is ‘Conditioned Reflex’. Their ‘Gunas’ do not condition their Existence.
There is no ‘Pure Existence’ as man’s existence is always conditioned. What is described as ‘Pure Existence’ is in fact Conditioned Existence, but can be stated as ‘Conditioned Reflex’ actions or behavior.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 1:12 AM, Devinder Singh Gulati wrote:
|Human existence is conditioned by the trigunas. It is when pure existence projects itself into time-space (which is its own creation) the gunas come into play. As human you are gifted with imagination. Can you conceive of an existence before the tribunes. That is pure existence.
Yes, mind cannot know this reality. You have to experience it. Which means you have to stop being human. If you experience that reality, neither you nor your mind exist in that reality and this external reality of the earth’s motion where you are now embedded has no meaning there because motion is in time-space and time-space ceases in that reality. You as the embedded observer here now, also cease because you are completely identified with the ‘pure existence’ and are viewing reality – which is not a conditioned reality – from that standpoint. This does not involve the mind at all because mind is composed of the trigunas and that from which you then is free of the trigunas. In that state of reality, there is no protoplasm or motion or non-motion.
|THE CONCEPT OF MAYA OR ILLUSION AS BASIS FOR EXISTENCE
To make my response very brief, I have to state that there is nothing called ‘Pure Existence’ as human existence is always conditioned. Unless you explain and account for the nature of this ‘conditioned’ existence, you will not be ready to present hypothesis on ‘Pure Existence’.
Kindly examine the issue of human existence in the context of Earth’s Speed( both Angular Velocity and Linear Velocity). Man lives on surface of Earth for there is no direct sensory experience of Earth’s Motion apart from illusion of Sun’s Motion across sky, experience of Sunrise, Sunset, and alternating periods of Light and Darkness called Day and Night. In reality, Sun shines all the time and man cannot directly perceive Sun’s true motion in Milky Way Galaxy. There is no human experience including any kind of mental experience without operation of ‘ILLUSION’ that blocks mind from knowing reality of Earth’s Motion. Your ‘Tantric’ view of Pure Existence is not consistent with external reality of Earth’s Motion. If you experience that reality, your mind will not be able to think, and there is no chance of formulating a ‘Tantric’ view on existence. The word or term ‘JAGAT’ means always moving and hence there is no ‘Static Silence’. The silence of thoughts, moods, feelings, emotion, etc., does not mean that there is no motion. As mentioned before, Living Matter, Living Substance, Living Material called protoplasm or cytoplasm always exists if and only if it maintains its constsnt motion. Existence is conditioned for there is no escape from Motion. Living is always a Dynamic function while in Physics we may describe objects at rest.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 9:57 AM, Devinder Singh Gulati wrote:
|I agree with you entirely on nirgun on Rudra. It is as Sri Aurobindo points out “only one side of the Truth; it is the knowledge of the Supreme as realised by the spiritual Mind through the static silence of the pure Existence. It was because he went by this side only that Shankara was unable to accept or explain the origin of the universe except as illusion, a creation of Maya. Unless one realises the Supreme on the dynamic as well as the static side, one cannot experience the true origin of things and the equal reality of the active Brahman… It is only if you approach the Supreme through his double aspect of Sat and Chit-Shakti, double but inseparable, that the total truth of things can become manifest to the inner experience. This other side was developed by the Shakta Tantriks. The two together, the Vedantic and the Tantric truth unified, can arrive at the integral knowledge.”
The “pure Existence” is nirguna. Here there is not yet Sat, the consciousness of existence and Chit-shakti, or consciousness force.
Sri Aurobindo says further “It is already indicated in the Gita’s teaching of the Purushottama and the Parashakti (Adya Shakti) who become the Jiva [Purushottaama becomes Jiva] and uphold [Parashakti upholds] the universe. It is evident that Purushottama and Parashakti are both eternal and are inseparable and one in being; the Parashakti manifests the universe, manifests too the Divine in the universe as the Ishwara and Herself appears at His side as the Ishwari Shakti. Or, we may say, it is the Supreme Conscious Power of the Supreme that manifests or puts forth itself as Ishwara Ishwari, Atma Atma-shakti, Purusha Prakriti, Jiva Jagat. That is the truth in its completeness as far as the mind can formulate it. In the super-mind these questions do not even arise: for it is the mind that creates the problem by creating oppositions between aspects of the Divine which are not really opposed to each other but are one and inseparable.”
Thus Jiva, our individual existence is simultaneous with Purushottama who is to be distinguished from lshwara of the apara prakriti.
He says further”There are several forms of Indian philosophy which base themselves upon the One Reality, but they admit also the reality of the world, the reality of the Many, the reality of the differences of the Many as well as the sameness of the One (bheddbhedd). But the Many exist in the One and by the One, the differences are variations in manifestation of that which is fundamentally ever the same. This we actually see as the universal law of existence where oneness is always the basis with an endless multiplicity and difference in the oneness; as, for instance, there is one mankind but many kinds of man, one thing called leaf or flower but many forms, patterns, colours of leaf and flower. Through this we can look back into one of the fundamental secrets of existence, the secret which is contained in the one Reality itself. The oneness of the Infinite is not something limited, fettered to its unity; it is capable of an infinite multiplicity. The Supreme Reality is an Absolute not limited by either oneness or multiplicity but simultaneously capable of both; for both are its aspects, although the oneness is fundamental and the multiplicity depends upon the oneness.”
This is entirely the same as Sikh metaphysics. I see no difference at all.
Sri Aurobindo again “There is possible a realistic as well as an illusionist Adwaita. The philosophy of The Life Divine is such a realistic Adwaita. The world is a manifestation of the Real and therefore is itself real. The reality is the infinite and eternal Divine, infinite and eternal Being, Consciousness-Force and Bliss. This Divine by his power has created the world or rather manifested it in his own infinite Being.
http://motherandsriaurobindo.in/#_StaticContent/SriAurobindoAshram/-09 E-Library/-01 Works of Sri Aurobindo/-01 English/-02_Other Editions/On Yoga 2 – Letters on Yoga – Tome One/-03_INTEGRAL YOGA AND OTHER PATHS.htm
As regards sargun you say Rudra Garu, “God whose power, form, and attributes are manifest in physical world can be perceived by individuals but such perceptions are subjective and have no universal validity. ”
Now your God is plasma, or plasmic matter. Can it be perceived by all?
Again although you deny it, you are applying mechanical principles, or the laws of physics to the study of manifestation of life.
|NIRGUN vs SAGUN
The concept of “NIRGUN” may not include any attributes like consciousness, power, and even existence. We cannot attach or describe attributes and then make an attempt to empty the contents of those attributes and give new descriptions like impersonal, etc., If God is Nirgun and ‘Unmanifest’, detached, or separate, man can only use the principle of devotion without attachment to God. I call it ‘Detached Devotion’. If God is Unmanifest, I still have no choice for I do not control, govern, or regulate my existence. It still compels me to show respect and obedience for I am the living subject whose existence is conditioned. With Unmanifest God, I use the method of Detached Devotion. God whose power, form, and attributes are manifest in physical world can be perceived by individuals but such perceptions are subjective and have no universal validity. God when viewed as ‘Sagun’ is a ‘Personal God’ and each and every living being can choose a ‘Personal God’ of one’s own choice without getting condemned by others who have the right to their own ‘Personal God(s)’. The problem, conflict, or friction arises when one individual tries to describe attributes of another person’s ‘Personal God’.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE
From: Devinder Singh Gulati
|Guru Nanak seems to have realised the nirgun braham or the impersonal God. Is the realisation of sargun, or God with personality a lesser realisation? Sri Aurobindo says they are two separate realisations:
“All the trend of modern thought has been towards the belittling of personality; it has seen behind the complex facts of existence only a great impersonal force, an obscure becoming, and that too works itself out through impersonal forces and impersonal laws, while personality presents itself only as a subsequent, subordinate, partial, transient phenomenon upon the face of this impersonal movement. Granting even to this Force a consciousness, that seems to be impersonal, indeterminate, void in essence of all but abstract qualities or energies; for everything else is only a result, a minor phenomenon. Ancient Indian thought starting from quite the other end of the scale
arrived on most of its lines at the same generalisation. It conceived of an impersonal existence as the original and eternal truth; personality is only an illusion or at best a phenomenon of the mind.
We have said, however, that personality and impersonality, as our minds understand them, are only aspects of the Divine and both are contained in his being; they are one thing which we see from two opposite sides and into which we enter by two gates. We have to see this more clearly in order to rid ourselves of any doubts with which the intellect may seek to afflict us as we follow the impulse of devotion and the intuition of love or to pursue us into the joy of the divine union. It is well therefore to discharge ourselves of them as early as may be by perceiving the limits of the intellect, the rational philosophic mind, in its peculiar way of approaching the truth and the limits even of the spiritual experience which sets out from the approach through the intellect, to see that it need not be the whole integrality of the highest and widest spiritual experience. Spiritual intuition is always a more luminous guide than the discriminating reason, and spiritual intuition addresses itself to us not only through the reason, but through the rest of our being as well, through the heart and the life also. The integral knowledge will then be that which takes account of all and unifies their diverse truths. The intellect itself will be more deeply satisfied if it does not confine itself to its own data, but accepts truth of the heart and the life also and gives to them their absolute spiritual value.
Both the ideas of the intellect, its discriminations, and the aspirations of the heart and life, their approximations, have behind them realities at which they are the means of arriving. Both are justified by spiritual experience; both arrive at the divine absolute of that which they are seeking. But still each tends, if too exclusively indulged, to be hampered by the limitations of its innate quality and its characteristic means. We see that in our earthly living, where the heart and life followed exclusively failed to lead to any luminous issue, while an exclusive intellectuality becomes either remote, abstract and impotent or a sterile critic or dry mechanist. Their sufficient harmony and just reconciliation is one of the great problems of our psychology and our action.
http://motherandsriaurobindo.in/#_StaticContent/SriAurobindoAshram/-09 E-Library/-01 Works of Sri Aurobindo/-01 English/-03_CWSA/-23-24_The Synthesis of Yoga/-51_Chapter V The Divine Personality.htmBut nirgun braham is also described as the experience of the illusion of the world, “shunya” or “Nirvana” where the sole reality is the featureless braham. This braham is passive or static.
The sargun braham on the other hand is active. This experience leaves one with the realisation that the ONE is in all, and this is the realisation Nanak reported. So which realisation did he have?
From: Durgashanker Nagda
|God made man and man made many gods, many versions of Vedas, many many scriptures, many religions, nations, and what not. Man is great.
Braham is in every creation of this world. NIRGUN Braham is every where, it is in dirt, stone, air, water, insects, animals, humans, etc. It is not of much use unless one knows the SARGUN Braham. Only through SARGUN Braham one can think of NIRGUN Braham.
To know Braham and have Brahamjyaan is not possible without SARGUN Brahamjyaani. Nanak Devji was not Ph. D. or highly scholar of Vedas. But he knew the Braham hence a Brahamjyaani.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Prem Sabhlok
Vedas were revealed by nameless and formless Nirguna Brahman as divine guidance. Sad Darshan (Six Schools of Indian Philosophy) are based on understanding of Vedas by learned human beings. Since human mind is a logic inventing machine, many learned people interpreted Vedas in a different manner which ultimately destroyed the main teachings/guidleines and thoughts contained in Vedic Brahmjnan. When dreaded materialists Charvakaas came and they even abused the Rishis and Munnies of yore who discovered Vedic Brahmjnan through Transcendental Meditation (TM).
Guru Nanak Dev ji totally ignored what learned people said about Vedas through Sad Darshan and explained Vedic Brahmjnan to people in simple straight forward manner. Thus Guru Nanak Dev ji’s Brahmjnani is vastly different than the great philosophers/metaphysicists/Spiritual scientists of Sad Darshna. It is rightly said in Shri Japji Sahib that ” Durlabh hai Brahmjnani”. Brahmjnan is harmonised divine, spiritual and material knowledge and covers comprehensively MIRI and PIRI of divine Guru Gobind Singh ji.
Sad Darshan have divided the followers of Vedic Sanatan Dharma into various Sects, Gurudom and other branches and now hardly any one knows what is contained in Vedas. This is leading to wide spread anti Vedic pious forgeries. Revival of Vedas truthfully can only arrest these Pious Forgeries.
From Devinder Singh Gulati:
|The Vedas are variously interpreted by the various traditions in India. They are the underlaying fact of all of lndian traditions.
There are some traditions, the so called nastik traditions that deny the authority of the Vedas.
But even the atheist traditions subscribe to monism or one unifying entity for all creation.
I am still examining where Sikhism is placed in relation to the six darshans of Indian thought.
While darshanas are the traditional Indian classifications, monism and monotheism are new western terms.
The term “monism” was introduced in the 18th century by Christian von Wolff in his work Logic (1728), to designate types of philosophical thought in which the attempt was made to eliminate the dichotomy of body and mind and explain all phenomena by one unifying principle, or as manifestations of a single substance.[wiki].
Pantheism was popularized in the modern era as both a theology and philosophy based on the work of the 17th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza, whose Ethics was an answer to Descartes’ famous dualist theory that the body and spirit are separate. Spinoza held that the two are the same, and this monism is a fundamental quality of his philosophy. He was described as a “God-intoxicated man,” and used the word God to describe the unity of all substance [wiki]
Pantheism is the belief that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God, or that the universe (or nature) is identical with divinity.Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal or anthropomorphic god. By this definition Sikhism would seem to be pantheist I.e. monist
except that universe as ‘identical with divinity’ is in doubt by some interpretations. I am by persuasion a monist and so is Rudra Narsimham except that our ‘substance’ differs. For me it is spirit, for Rudra it is matter. Matter is not permanent in the lndian tradition including Sikhism.
But Sikhism describes itself as monotheist, or dveta (dual).
Dvaita Vedanta, a dualistic understanding of the Vedas, espouses dualism by theorizing the existence of two separate realities.
Dvaita Vedanta is not similar to Western dualism, which posits the existence of two independent realities or principles. Madhva’s dualism acknowledges two principles; however, it holds one of them (the sentient) as being rigorously and eternally dependent on the other. Because the existence of individuals is grounded in the divine, they are depicted as reflections, images or even shadows of the divine, but never in any way identical with the divine. Moksha (liberation) therefore is described as the realization that all finite reality is essentially dependent on the Supreme. [Wiki]
This is how Rabinder Singh in a post following your’s describes his understanding of Gurbani.
It would help this discussion if he can offer specific views on the classification of Sikhism and whether he considers the Veda (samhita) as its underlying structure.