God in Vedas and Upanishads

Krishna_abcd: Oh, I forgot in the seriousness of Vedant. You description of urstruly`s God as X-mark is not only true but hilarious!!

Re: # 167, Krishna_abcd:
I had seen #166 yesterday but I deliberately waited to have your assessment of urstruly submittals.

I have interacted with him for about three years. He is an earnest Muslim. But as your assessment states here that is not enough.

As an intelligent and probably a well informed person you wanted information direct from Koran facilitated by a believer. However, while urstruly is an ``informed`` Muslim, I use the format of the preceding phrase advisedly, he is considered by many a more ``formally educated`` Muslims, like Mantolives and tahmad32, as a near-Mullah and a simplistic Muslim.

You see you can only ask a certain type of questions from him- or, for that matter as I believe from any Muslim on the issues that you had interest in. That is where the idea of Upanishadic supaatra comes in. I do not know if you saw urstuly`s ``deep`` reference by Maududi. It is nothing but rigmarole.

As I have indicated in the article as well as the discussions, the monotheistic religions, e.g., Semitic religions are an approximation to the psycho-philosophical gamut of the Upanishads. Even the Vedas do not reach that level of the Upanishads. That is why the Upanishads are called Vedant. The Vedas, and all three Semitic religions are like Euclidean Geometry. You accept their axioms without challenge and thinking and then follow the simple but limited logic, and you get A working system, though admittedly at a lower level of sophistication. Vedant can be compared to spherical geometry which is closer to the truth in the World.

I do not know whether urstruly did mean a few sentences in his #166, viz.: ``There is only one assumption in this model, which is that there is One God. If one assums this assumption to be true then everything in universe falls into its place. `` I never thought until now that urstruly will ever think of Allah as an assumption. I never expected him to be so intellectually aloof.

Finally, I wish you luck in your search but I doubt if you will ever get information at the same level as ``“Whoever worships a deity thinking that to be one and himself another - he does not know.” (Brihad Aranyak Upanishad Part I.Chapter IV,10) ``

#166 by Urstruly

[Krishna and Inquirer

I understand your dilemma.]

You have got the attitude down pat. The attitude of an assured, learned person who has the benefit of superior knowledge, sauvely holding forth on subjects quite elementary to him, but difficult to us earnet, but simple folks.

The reality, however is quite different. In your post you have come off as the back-bencher and chronic low-grader who doesn`t have a clue about the tough questions staring him in the face in an exam paper, and who puts an ``X`` as an answer to each question, because he doesn`t have the foggiest notion about how to solve the tough exam questions, and has no idea about the answers.

The ``X`` in your case, of course, is ``God``.


[Actually, this dilemma is common across the board among non-Muslims who would want to understand the model that Islam puts forth for the universe. Probably, you were expecting a long winding polemic argument pondering the answers to age old question that man has, i.e. who is he and where did he come from.]

No, I was expecting exactly what I asked of you - quotes from the Koran, with translations, and explanations.

But you are trying to wriggle out of that.

[THere is a philosophical principle that states that `` Given a choice between two explanations, choose the simplest -- the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions``; this principle is called Occam`s Razor. If we look at the Model of universe that Islam has presented we see that Islam presents the most simplistic model of the universe ever. There is only one assumption in this model, which is that there is One God. If one assums this assumption to be true then everything in universe falls into its place. This is a model that even the lowest common denominator of human intelligence can understand.

There is another principle in philosophy that is called the Principle of Parsimony, according to which ``This principle stipulates a criterion for deciding among scientific theories or explanations. One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic``. If I could take the liberty to modify this principle a bit, I would state it as ``One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of faith. In Islam there is only one leap of faith and that is ``There is One Absolute God`` ]


I don`t need a general discourse on philosophy - you might be surprised at how much I can lecture you back on philosophy - I need exact quotes from the Koran, their translations, and their explanations.

Is this too hard to understand?



[There is a whole plathora of philosophical literature in Islam that discusses in detail the Islam`s model of universe.]


Maybe. But I need quotes from the Koran, their translations, and their explanations.

I am not interested in winged creatures or hellfire or other profound stuff like that. Just the philosohy will do.

Looking forward to your answer to be finally posted.

Thank you.

Krishna and Inquirer

I understand your dilemma. Actually, this dilemma is common across the board among non-Muslims who would want to understand the model that Islam puts forth for the universe. Probably, you were expecting a long winding polemic argument pondering the answers to age old question that man has, i.e. who is he and where did he come from.

THere is a philosophical principle that states that `` Given a choice between two explanations, choose the simplest -- the explanation which requires the fewest assumptions``; this principle is called Occam`s Razor. If we look at the Model of universe that Islam has presented we see that Islam presents the most simplistic model of the universe ever. There is only one assumption in this model, which is that there is One God. If one assums this assumption to be true then everything in universe falls into its place. This is a model that even the lowest common denominator of human intelligence can understand.

There is another principle in philosophy that is called the Principle of Parsimony, according to which ``This principle stipulates a criterion for deciding among scientific theories or explanations. One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of logic``. If I could take the liberty to modify this principle a bit, I would state it as ``One should always choose the simplest explanation of a phenomenon, the one that requires the fewest leaps of faith. In Islam there is only one leap of faith and that is ``There is One Absolute God``

There is a whole plathora of philosophical literature in Islam that discusses in detail the Islam`s model of universe. A couple that bear the status of classic in literature is Kashaful Mahjoob by Ali Hajveri of Lahore written some 9-11 centuries ago and the other one is Mujadid Alif Saani the famous Muslim cleric who was prisoned by Emperors Akbar and Jehangir when he protested their apostasy and invention of Deen-e-Ilahi. There might be other sources on the net as well but here I have used the Occam`s Razor as well and provided you with the simplest of all that there is. As a matter of fact the first link, that is , the illustrated one, should be read in reverse order i.e. starting from the last chapter. In the end the author presents the big picture and then funnels it down to the minute details in first chapters. (going in reverse order).

urstruly, Krishna_abcd:
By the way, urstruly`s non-deep site: http://www.islam-guide.com/
is more meaningful, though it naturally presents and interprets the evidence
selectively to prove its points. There are questions about its validity but at least it is not rigmarole.
Since all religions are ``elementary science,`` each one can gin up info like the quoted site.

#162, Krishna_abcd:
Monotheistic religions of Abrahamic tradition are an approximation to the Vedantic Philosophy, though that does not mean that they are deficient in any practical way. As far as the practice is concerned like any other simplification of a complex situation they are more user-friendly. Nevertheless, they do not stand at the same footing as the Vedant.

Each one of them makes certain definite starting assumptions. These are their axioms as it were, just like the Euclidean Geometry. Once you accept their axioms, there is a logic that is built within their axiomatic formulations. This logic REQUIRES that you repudiate all other schools of thought.

The motivation for doing this arises from the desire to convert adherents of other schools of thought to extract the benefit from them. Islam has done this by developing a caste system within the converteds - ashrafs, moguls, arabs etc. Christianity did that by developing the caste system based on the colonial policies. The means of assuring the benefits is the same in both religions, though Christians are not as crude as the Muslims. Now I am not talking about hte philosophical ones in both religions but the Mullahs and Missionaries.

Both Islam and Christianity have deliberately kept this caste system out of their religious philosophy for the practical reasons of enforcing their caste system without the pricks of conscience among the thoughtful of their members and also due to the fact that the framework of their religions are inadequate to accomodate this temporary, ad hoc development.

On the issue of Vedas I completely share your views, thanks for stating them. We, as Hindus, need to de-emphasize the Shruti nonsense and develop framework to modernize and condense the the religious literature. I do not recommend abandoning the ground literature rather the emphasis should be on dveloping a working set for the common average ability Hindu, and by developing a workable system with coherence we shall be able to make our own society more just, coherent and strong. As I have said earlier, Indian Democracy is doing this in a diffuse way but slowly and it is often impeded by the political exigencies.

#157 by Urstruly

[I would like to suggest two sources to address your question.]

I appreciate your pointing me in the right direction. But please don`t. I would appreciate it if you did what I originally requested - provided me with 1) ACTUAL QUOTES FROM THE KORAN ALONG WITH 2) THEIR TRANSLATION AND 3) THEIR EXPLANATION.

And as I have mentioned, ``I am only interested in the philosophical aspects. Where there is some kind of discussion on the nature/origin of the universe, on the nature of consciousness, on the meaning of life and existence etc. ``

As a knowledgeable Muslim who keeps insisting that Islam should be taken seriously by the intellectuals of this world, could you kindly help me out here.

Thanks.

#153 by Inquirer

[I am not a Muslim but I can tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. ]

This could be an illuminating exercise in human psuchology.

[I do not think that Islam concerns itself with the philosophical aspects of epistemology. Like other Judeo-Christian religions, it starts with the given assumption that Allah created the world and its inhabitants like a kumhaar, if you understand the Hindi term.

Above all Islam is, much more so than Christianity, a politico-social strategy. Upto that point it was very effective in introducing reforms in arbitrary and ritual laden West Asia and Northern Africa, even in India due to exploitative caste system. ]

That`s what I meant when I said that I ``came up empty``.

[Even the Vedas are not philosophical despite the quotation from Rig Veda given in the article above. It is the unique charateristic of the Upanishads that you are trying to find the analog of in the Islamic Koran and it is nowhere to be found other han the Upanishads. ]

The vedas are considered sruti - that which is learnt by ear. For hundreds/thousands of years, nobody wrote them down. So finally when they were written down, they were a hodge-podge of different people`s impressions and additions. So when you read the Vedas, you see that a whole lot of it is quite banal, consisting of rituals and invocations to God asking for more grains or more rain or this or that. But once in a while you will find a passage that absolutely stands out from the rest - by its depth of analysis and breadth of scope - where the thoughts and the thought-processes of some long-ago introspective mind is evident.

And yes, the Upanishads contain much more philosophical content. But the Upanishads are not strictly distinct from the Vedas. The Khandogya-upanishad actually belongs to the Sama-veda. Together with the Brihad-aranyaka, which belongs to the Yagur-veda, it has contributed the most important materials to what may be called the orthodox philosophy of India, the Vedanta (Vedanta meaning - the end, or the the true purpose of the Vedas).

Re: # 160: What is the connection between the three platitudes you have enumerated and
http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/quran/understand.html ?

Re: # 158

I don`t think that the approach demands a complete submission before treading into understand the philosophy. As a matter of fact the Moulana have made it very clear in the very beging that there are three ways to get to the truth, but only one way will take you to it:

1. One way is to tread on the journey towards truth by committing to oneself that since the object of my pursuit is all a lie and falsehood therefore the purpose of my journey is to confirm my preconcieved notions.

2. The second way is to tread on the journey towards truth by committing to oneself that since the object of my pursuit is absolutely true therefore the purpose of my journey is to reaffirm my preconcieved notions.

3. The third way is to tread on the journey towards truth by committing to oneself that the object of my journey is to find out the truth and I do not know whether it is the right path or the wrong one; but I will find out.

But one does not have to be a Moulana to understand that only the third way is the valid and correct way for learning. This is called an open-mind approach.

Re: # 156, Swarrier:
Thanks for showing interest in those papers. Unfortunately I do not have them and I tried to locate them on the internet but did not succeed.

Re: # 157: I hope krishna_abcd finds help reading your input. I looked at the ``deeper`` article and find that it merely repeats the demand to accept, without understanding, the arbitrary statements that are quite routinely purveyed by Mullahs.

#151 abcd-Krishna.

I would like to suggest two sources to address your question. Please keep in mind that when Allah chose to communicate with human beings thruough a conduit named Mohammad (pbuh) the addressee were all possible range of people. On one hand there were people who were already aware of the message of Islam. Those were the oldest surviving Mulims who had started calling themselves Jews and Christians and on the other hand there were polytheists, animists, Naturists, and of course the atheists. Qura`n uses a different argument for each of these categories of people to convince them and bring them to their true Creator. So an atheist if reads the arguments meant for polytheist may not find them convincing and vice versa.

The first source is quite general but does address the question regarding the philosophical basis of Islam. The core addressees of the argument presented here are atheists, secularists and people of the book. If you have short attention span, and would like to feel just the gist of the philosophy visist this:


A BRIEF ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING ISLAM

http://www.islam-guide.com/



But if you would really want to go into the relatively deeper philosophical argument then visit this:

An Introduction to the understanding of the Qur`an


http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/quran/understand.html


Please let me know if you have any questions.

Re: # 155

Is it possible to get some of those papers on Thugee? I had read somewhere else that the British also over-did the hype on them.

Christians are no strangers to genocide. The Crusades were a power consolidating, money grabbing exercise sanctioned by the Pope Urban. And weren`t the Mafia dons good Catholics to a man.

[Ultimately, the acceptability of any practice hinges on the where withal to support it.]
Very true. I agree it is easy to blame things on religion. And sometimes people end up believing it too. People should be always be vigilant against the purveyors of inhuman cruelty.

Re: # 154, swarrier:
You have the right attitude toward religious practices. I agree with it.

You mentioned Thuggee. My father had published several research papers on that subject. He established that it was not a part of Hindu religion. Due to a general collapse of societal structure between 1700 and 1800, there was a widespread unscrupulousness then. Many a crooked organizations just adopted an easy way of robbing the travellers who had proliferated due to amassing of wealth away from homes and the British misinterpretted them attributing their casual and shallow signalling system to be originating from religious practices. Attributing Thuggee to Hinduism is just like attributing sea-piracy to Christianity.

Child-sacrifice is simply irresponsible parenthood into which the hapless couples blundered in. Since there were no laws to protect a child - until recently women and children all over the world were regarded as proerty of the man who had to gather resources to bring them up. Ultimately, the acceptability of any practice hinges on the where withal to support it.

Re: # 153
Inquirer
In my opinion no religion is perfect. All of them have imperfections because I believe they are man-made. There is no need to sanctify things that will creep into a religion such as Hinduism because of it`s accomodating nature.

The cult of the Thuggee is one such example, child sacrifice is another . There have been other esoteric cults that have been practiced various tribes in the past, I can look them up in some of the books that I have back in India. Now a lot of these have fallen by the wayside because people have taken strong objections to them. We should continue to do so.

Besides some rituals , beliefs etc made sense years ago. There is no need to hang onto them when they outlive their time, especially when our religion has not been created from some divine revelation.

We must never stop questioning our beliefs. I`m thankful that Hinduism can accomodate my agnosticism very well. It does not make me laugh at my mother`s belief in fasting on specific days of the week , going to all neighbourhood temples etc. . But I will criticise when somebody brings up something that justifes caste based discrimination or worse.

Again these are my opinions. We can argue about them, as they aren`t perfect either. -)