Tat Asmi Prabhu – Fifth Mahavakya – God is Infinite Being. Man is a ‘Finite’ Being and his ‘Conditioned’ Existence points towards ‘Infinite Being’ who exists beyond limits of man’s reasoning abilities.

In my analysis ‘Monotheism’, belief or doctrine that there is only ‘ONE'(“1”) God is not consistent with God who is ‘Infinite’, lacking limits or bounds, extending beyond measure or comprehension. The concept of ‘Infinite’ demands existence of something greater than any ‘finite’ number. In Mathematical Science infinite refers to indefinitely large. The doctrine of ‘ONE’ God can be easily contested by a doctrine that may claim existence of two or more Gods. When God is viewed as ‘Infinite’ or ‘Ananta’, there is no other ‘finite’ number greater than what is stated as ‘Infinite’. Number 1 is not consistent with mathematical concept of ‘Infinite’.

We have other religions that proclaim ‘One God’ doctrine. Where do these Gods of Monotheism exist? Do they share a common Heaven? Do they even know each other? Do they speak same language? Is there any correspondence between the theory and reality of world? The doctrine of ‘One God’ is redundant, irrelevant, and is inconsistent with doctrine of God that proclaims God as Infinite Being.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA

On Wednesday, February 24, 2016 1:21 AM, Devinder Singh Gulati wrote:

Sikhism affirms both. That God is one. That God is infinite.
Here is what a Sikh writer says:
The Gurus repeatedly emphasize that He is One and we only give Him different names. But it would be highly inappropriate to confuse the Gurus’ concept of sargun and nirgun (i.e. One Transcendent cum Immanent God) with the Advaitic connotation o these terms as also of Ishvara. These Advaitic concepts have distinct connotation of phases, stages or transformation. These have been clearly repudiated by the Gurus by their concept of One God. Shankara deems Ishvara to be a lower stage of God which has to be transcended to reach the higher stage of Brahm. For Ramanuj a God is virtually pantheistic. The world, souls and Ishvara are three eternal principles. The world and souls are the body and qualities of Brahm. The three eternal principles of Ishvara, souls and the world constitute the Brahm, which is an entirely different concept from that of the One Creator, God of the Gurus, who is simultaneously Transcendent, Immanent and Everything. The Gurus never accept the Advaitic concepts of sargun and nirgun. Similarly in the hymn of Sach khand, the Guru calls the nirankar as One who resides, deliberates, creates and directs. He is Benevolent, Gracious and is delighted to see His Creation. But nirankar literally means the “Formless One” and similarly, has distinct Advaitic meanings. The hymn referred to above repudiates all those concepts and adds that Sach khand, the abode of God, is full of endless numbers of forms, universes and regions. [ Daljeet Singh: The concept of God]It is possible this idea flows from inadequate reading of the Guru Granth saheb or misunderstanding of advaitic concepts of Hinduism.
In another article Daljeet Singh writes:


From: R.Rudranarasimham:


The Incommunicable Attributes of God: God is Infinite | Shayna George

I have yet to understand basic presumptions about philosophy of Sikhism. We have three schools of Indian Thought founded by Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva. I agree and disagree with all of them. In respect of Sikhism, I cannot perform similar analysis to find accuracy and consistency by comparing statements about philosophy of Sikhism to an external reality. I need to hear from others who studied Sikhism and interpret its philosophy. If there is any given statement attributed to Sikhism, I have to know as to how it is interpreted by two different readers of the same statement. Firstly, I have to know if Sikhism supports the doctrine called ‘Monotheism’, the doctrine about ‘One God’. Is this the same doctrine shared by ‘Islam’??? If the doctrines are same, I have to reconcile it with the fact of execution of Sikh Gurus and their followers by Mughals who claimed belief in ‘One God’.

An infinite God . . . . A.W. Tozer quote | sayings | Pinterest

In Indian tradition, God is ‘Infinite’, or ‘ANANTA’ which means limitless or endless in space, extent, or size, impossible to measure or calculate. There are several terms that convey similar meaning; boundless, unbounded, unlimited, limitless, never-ending, interminable, immeasurable, uncountable, inestimable, innumerable, numberless, incalculable, untold, myriad, and countless.

The infinity of God is not mysterious, it is only unfathomable; not ...

Kindly tell me as to which of the following statements represents God as defined by Sikhism:

1. God is ONE.

2. God is INFINITE.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:44 AM, Devinder Singh Gulati wrote:

Rudra: l don’t see the connection you make between monotheism and ‘unique physical being’. The problem of monotheism to me remains the separation or non separation of two principles permanently. In the first case it is dualism, in the second a unity – as in the monism of advait.
Your entire approach is from the lower end monism of matter, my explanations are from the higher end monism of spirit, which is also self-existent consciousness. In your approach it is derived consciousness or observed consciousness.But some scientists have been able to put out theories without observations, simply ideating it. This scientist was able to access the blueprint of human physiology from the pure mental world of ideas where it resides – not from observation a classification and derivation:
“One person who thought differently, though, was the Danish scientist Nils Jerne – a brilliant thinker who had little interest in carrying out experiments. In 1955, he published his hypothesis – that at birth, the body has already created all the antibodies it is ever likely to need. He proposed instead that when the body encounters a new invader, it scans its ‘catalogue’ of antibodies and selects the correct one to deploy for the task of defeating it.

The ‘self-molecule’ that you refer to does not denote individuality to me in the sense of ‘person’. No doubt it is individual in the sense that it is distinct, but individuality here is part of ‘personality’ not ‘person’.

The ‘person’, such as purush in Samkhya is a person that throws out infinite personalities in nature. The self-molecule is a functional aspect of putting out a distinct body associated with a distinct personality – just one of the many infinite personalities – that is to be realised in nature.

The purush of the yoga system is a ‘Karta purakh’, (as in Sikhism), as opposed to inactive purakh of the Sankhya system where nature is the active agent.

Thus self-molecule is function of nature directed at expressing individual personality that is one of the infinite personalities that the true person; Jivatma, those out in the course of its self expression in nature.

The centre of identification is always the person, never the personality.
“We can experience our central or true being as a kind of vertical axis at the core of our being. Above all the planes and worlds, it is the jivatman, who eternally and immutably presides over our nature. On the lower levels, it is our psychic being (antaratman, chaitya purusha) who has descended, as the delegate of our eternal Self, into the “world of becoming.” Sri Aurobindo uses the word “Self” for our transcendent, immutable essence, both in its universal form (paramatman, atma), and in its individual form (jivatman). He uses “Self” also as the translation of “purusha”, the center of our conscious existence on any level.

Sri Aurobindo uses the word “soul” for our evolving, psychic center. Initially this psychic center is only a small, almost point-like psychic entity, of which one can feel at best a psychic influence. Gradually, as it brings more of the nature under its influence, it becomes a full-fledged psychic being, which one can feel as a psychic presence.

The true being may be realized in one or both of two aspects — the Self or Atman and the soul or antaratman, psychic being, chaitya purusha. The difference is that one is felt as universal, the other as individual supporting the mind, life, and body. When one first realizes the Atman one feels it separate from all things, existing in itself and detached. When one realizes the psychic being, it is not like that; for this brings the sense of union with the Divine and dependence upon It and sole consecration to the Divine alone and the power to change the nature and discover the true mental, the true vital, the true physical being in oneself. Both realisations are necessary for this yoga.
(Sri Aurobindo, Letters on Yoga, p. 277).


From: R.Rudranarasimham


TAT ASMI PRABHU – FIFTH MAHAVAKYA – DEFENS…Man defends his existence by using his Immune System which deploys unique molecules or polymers that describe ‘Molecular Individualism’. Man comes into existence..
View on Bhavanajagat.com Preview by Yahoo
Tat Asmi Prabhu – Fifth Mahavakya – God is Infinite Being for He defends plurality and diversity of all living organisms.

The doctrine called ‘Monotheism’ is fundamentally flawed for man’s individuality is defined by unique molecules demonstrating God’s Infinite Nature to create plurality and diversity.


Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA

On Sunday, February 21, 2016 8:57 AM, Devinder Singh Gulati wrote:

In manifested nature there is only personality. The individual, the true individual, Jivatma, lies above manifestation. In the manifested world what it throws out it is not individuality but personality. The same individual in different lives takes different personalities to express its range of personalities, or to develop the personalities it holds in potential.

Man as a created being has been known to experience God as the creator of all, the ONE in all. Any concept exists in the abstract mind, which is a sense organ of man. The soul is also a sense that remains non functional in most men as a guide but functional for itself in sensing the actions of the man it is embodied in.

“The Jivatma or spirit is self-existent above the manifested or instrumental being — it is superior to birth and death, always the same, it is the individual Self or Atman; the eternal true being of the individual.

The soul is a spark of the Divine in the heart of the living creatures of Nature. It is not seated above the manifested being; it enters into the manifestation of the self, consents to be a part of its natural phenomenal becoming, supports its evolution in the world of material Nature. It carries with it at first an undifferentiated power of the divine consciousness containing all possibilities which have not yet taken form but to which it is the function of evolution to give form. This spark of Divinity is there in all terrestrial living beings from the earth’s highest to its lowest creatures.

The psychic being is a spiritual personality put forward by the soul in its evolution; its growth marks the stage which the spiritual evolution of the individual has reached and its immediate possibilities for the future. It stands behind the mental, the vital, the physical nature, grows by their experiences, carries the consciousness from life to life. It is the psychic Person, caitya purusa. At first it is veiled by the mental, vital and physical parts, limited in its self-expression by their limitations, bound to the reactions of Nature, but, as it grows, it becomes capable of coming forward and dominating the mind, life and body. In the ordinary man it still depends on them for expression and is not able to take them up and freely use them. The life of the being is animal and human, not divine. When the psychic being can by sadhana become dominant and freely use its instruments, then the impulse towards the Divine becomes complete and the transformation of mind, vital and body, not merely their liberation becomes possible.

“It all depends upon where the consciousness places itself and concentrates itself. If the consciousness places or concentrates itself within the ego, you are identified with the ego

Published by Bhavanajagat

Whole Man - Whole Theory: "I am Consciousness, Therefore I am" is my proposition to examine the reality of Man and the World in which he exists.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: