qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw

RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS OF A HINDU BROTHER ON ISLAM

ANSWRING HINDU OBJECTIONS ON THE NATUREOF HOLY QURAN

[Pick the date]AHLUSSUNNAH VAL JAMAA-AH

REVISED AND MODIFIED

1

2

3

4

5

2

2

BISMILLAHIR RAHMAN IR RAHIM

I WAS INFORMED THAT A HINDU BROTHER HAS MADE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS ON THE UNCREATEDNESS OF QUR’AN. I WAS ASKED TO MAKE A THOROUGH REFUTATION OF HIS BASIC ARGUMENTS.

THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED TO READ HIS OBJECTIONS ARE REQUESTED TO VISIT THE PAGE:=

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/page-2

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/page-3

NOTE1: WE HAVE SELECTED THOSE OBJECTIONS WHICH WE HAVE FOUND RELATIVE TO THE TOPIC AND THE SCOPE OF THE WORK. IRRELATIVE OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN NEGLECTED. THE SCOPE OF THIS TOPIC IS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS RELATIVE TO THE ETERNITY OF QUR’A:N.

NOTE:2 BOTH CASES HIGHER AND LOWER ARE USED. DEPENDING UPON THE EMPHASYS ECT. SIMILARLY

A COLOUR SENSITIVE SCHEME IS ADOPTED FOR SAKE OF EMPHASYSING.

NOTE : 3 ,AFTER PUBLISHING IT , IT CAME IN KNOWLEDGE THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY LIKE SOME COMMENTS ON THE VIEWS OF PANDID DIYANAND , AND SOME EXPLANATION IN ADDITION. SO THEY ARE SUPPLIED.

NOTE: 4 , SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS ARE ADDED ALONG WITH OTHER INFORMATIONS.

SOME PREREQUISITS:=

SOME TERMS ARE STATED:=

1] OBJECTION MAKER [ MU”TARID:] : ONE WHO MAKETH AN OBJECTION.

2] QUESTION:= A QUESTION IS NOT AN OBJECTION.

6

9

10

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

192021

22

23

242526

27

28

29

30

31

3

3

3] ANSWER:= THE WORD ANSWER MAY BE USED AS A REPLY TO A QUESTION OR AS A REFUTATION OF AN OBJECTION.

4] CLAIM:= POSATIVE OR NEGATIVE STATEMENT.

5] PREREQUSIT:= A STATEMENT IF IT IS FALSE THEN IT IS IMPLIED THAT THE CLAIM IS ALSO FALSE, EVEN IF THE CLAIMENT HATH NOT STATED IT.

6]PRELIMINARY:= THE STATEMENTS FROM WHICH A CLAIM IS PROVED.

7] AXIOM:= A STAEMENT WHICH CANNOTBE PROVED . [ INDEPENDENT AXIOM] BUT MAY BE USED TO PROOF A CLAIM ASSUMING TO BE TRUE ,YET NOT NECESSARILY TRUE [‘AL ‘US:U:L ‘AL MAUD:U:”AH]

OBJECTION#1:=Can we here consider the issue as to whether the Quran was created by Allah or is it the uncreated eternal word of Allah? I personally believe that the Quran cannot be an uncreated phenomenon unless it is propositioned that the Quran is Allah. 

ANSWER:= THE OBJECTIONER MAKER IS JUST REPEATING AN OLD ARGUMENT THAT A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS IDENTICAL TO DIVINE ESSENCE [Z:A:T].

IF QURAN IS NOT A CREATION THEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IT IS ALL-H [I.E IT IS IDENTICAL TO DIVINE ESSENCE] SINCE AN DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS IDENTICAL TO DEITY [I.E DEITY’S ESSENCE]

BUT ACCORDING TO MAJORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE NEITHER IDENTICAL TO ESSENCE NOR SEPARATE FROM ESSENCE “ LA “AIN VA LA GHAIR”

HOW EVER A MINORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH DO AGREE THAT ALL THE DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY ARE IDENTICAL TO DEITY. THIS OBJECTION REQUIRES TO PROVE THAT ANY THING IF UNCREATED THEN IT IS IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE. THIS CLAIM IS ONE OF THE WEAKEST CLAIM . MUTIZILITES ALSO ATTEMPTED TO PROVE THIS CLAIM BUT NO ONE HAVE [PRESENTED ANY CONVINCING PROOF . NOT A SINGLE ONE.

OBJECTION#2:=

Is this tantamount to saying that Quran, Allah's words, are not eternal? If the Quran is not eternal, it is not the truth – for truth has necessarily to be eternal.

ANSWER:=

1]IF VEDAS ARE NOT ETERNAL THEN ACCORDING TO THE OBJECTIONAL MAKER THEY MUST NOT BE TRUE.

A NUMBER OF HINDUS BELIEVE THAT VEDAS ARE TEMPPORAL [ NOT ETERNAL]

BUT IS GITA ETERNAL . IF NOT THEN IT IS NOT TRUTH. THE SAME QUESTION IS ABOUT MAHA BAHRATA MANU ETC.

ANY HOW THE CLAIM THAT “” FOR TRUTH IST IS NECESSARY TO BE ETERNAL”” IS FALSE AND A FALSE DOGMA.

3233

34

3536

37

3839

40

414243

4445

4647

4849

5051525354

55

5657

58

5960

61

6263

6465

4

4

WHAT ABOUT THE HUMAN BODY OF KRISHNA . IS IT ETERRNAL OR NOT.

2] IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A THING TO BE TRUTH, THAT IT MUST BE ETERNAL. ETERNITY IS JUST THE SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR A THING TO BE TRUTH , NOT NECESSARY.SO THIS OBJECTION IS IN CORRECT.

3] IF GITA IS NOT ETERNAL THEN ACCLORDING TO THE OBJECTION MAKER IT IS NOT TRUTH EVEN IF IT AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. SINCE ONENESS OF ESSENCE CAN NOT MAKE ANY THING TRUE OTHERWISE THERE CANNOT BE ANY BOOK/THING WHICH IS FALSHOOD. THIS IS CONTRARY TO OBSEVATION.

4] NOT-ETERNITY IMPLIETH NOT FALSEHOOD.

Thus the claim that “truth has necessarily to be eternal” is with out any proof what so ever.

OBJ3ECTION#3:=

If the Quran is Allah's words and Allah is eternal, then His words are eternal. It makes absolutely no sense to draw a distinction between God and God's words. The same can be said for God and God's thoughts. Are

God's thoughts not eternal because that would violate the "only God is eternal" axiom? Of course not. You cannot separate these two things in the same way that you cannot separate God from His power.

ANSWER:=

1]IT MAY NOT MAKE ANY SENSE TO SOME PERSONS BUT IT DOES MAKE PERFECT SENSE TO LARGE A NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS ,LOGICIANS,PHILOSOPHERS WHETHER THEY SUPPORT IT OR NOT:

IF THOUGHTS OF DEITY ARE ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY THEN THIS IMPLIETH NECESSARILY THAT THOUGHT OF DEITY IS NOT THE DEITY [THOUGHT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSECE.]

SAME IS TRUE FOR OTHER DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.

TO CLAIM THAT IT DOETH NOT MAKE ANY SENSE IS FALSE.

A BETTER CLAIM WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT IT IS THE SENSE OF CONTRADICTION , RAITHER THAT IT IS WITH OUT SENSE..MU”TIZILAH HAVE MADE THIS CLAIM THAT THERE IS A CONTRADICTION OR A CONTRADICTION IS IMPLIED . BUT NO CONVINCING PROOF HAS BEEN PRESENTED SO FAR.

IT IS A PROOFLESS DOGMA THAT IT MAKETH NO SENSE AT ALL.

THE SENSE IS CLEAR . EACH DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS ETERNAL AND NO DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE [ I.E DEITY]. EACH DIVINE ATTRIBUTE DOETH SUBSIST IN DIVINE ESSENCE. TO THE CLAIM THAT IT ABSOLUTELY DOETH NOT MAKE ANY SENSE IS FALSE AND UNTRUE. AT MOST IT CAN BE CLAIMED THAT THIS CLAIM IS EITHER A CONTRADICTION OR IT SOME HOW IMPLIETH A CONTRADICTION. BUT THIS REQUIRETH A PROOF. WE ASK FOR A PROOF.

BUT THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL FOR THE CLAIM ABOVE. ALL THE POSSIBILE ASPECTS AND WAYS OF THE ALLEGED PROOFS HAVE BEEN STUDIED.SO THIS IS A FALLACY. DIVINE POWER MAKETH NO

66

676869

70717273

74

75

76

77

78

79808182

83

848586

8788

89

90

919293

94

9596979899

100101

5

5

EXCEPTION. ALSO NEITHER SEPARATE NOR IDENTICAL IS NOT SEPARATE, LAW OF EXCLUSION OF MIDDLE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS REGARD.

A GENERAL DISCUSSION:-

IT IS REQUIRED TO SHEW THAT THIS DOES MAKE APERFECT SENSE SO THAT ONE MAY SEE THAT THE CLAIM THAT IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MAKE A SENSE IS FALSIFIED.

A DISCUSSION ON THE AXIOM:=

IF A STATEMENT IS AN AXIOM THEN EITHER IT IS AN INDEPENDENT AXIOM OR NOT. IF IT IS NOT THEN ACTUALLY IT IS A THEOREM WHICH IS POVEABLE BUT , IT IS TAKEN WITH OUT ANY PROOF. IF IT IS AN INDIPENDANT AXIOM THEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE IT IN THE SYSTEM . WE SHALL USE THE WORD AXIOM AND ITS DERIVATIONS IN THE SENSE OF INDEPENDENT ONE FROM NOW ON.

IF A STATEMENT IS TAKEN AXIOMATICALLY THEN IN A SYSTEM IT CANNOT BE PROVED. IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT AN OTHER PERSON TAKES AN OTHER STATEMENT AS AN AXIOM.

THE AXIOM “ ONLY GOD IS ETERNAL “ IS THE AXIOM OF MUTIZILITES. EVEN PHILOSOPHERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM ON THE ISSUE. ON THE CONTRARY MAJORITY OF RELIGIONS REPLACES THIS AXIOM

BY AN OTHER AXIOM WHICH IS GIVEN AS FOLLOW:=

ONLY DEITY IS AN ETERNAL ESSENCE.

ACTUALLY THE CLAIM THAT DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE NOT THE DEITY DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE IS DERIVED FROM THIS AXIOM. THIS CONTRADICTS THIS AXIOM THAT IS THE REASON IT IS CLAIMED THAT THIS MAKE NO SENSE ABSOLUTELY. AS IT DOES MAKE A PERFECT SENSE , BUT THIS SENSE CONTRADICTS THE STATED ABOVE AXIOM, THERE FORE IT IS INCORRECTLY CLAIMED THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE OBJECTION MAKER HAS USED THE WORD AXIOM IN THE CLASSIC MEANING WHICH MAY BE STATES AS FOLLOW:=

An axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.

BUT IF THIS IS MEANT BY THE OBJECTION MAKER , WE REJECT IT. A LARGE NUMBER OF RELIGIONS ,PHILOSOPHERS REJECT IT AS

A SELF EVIDENT TRUTH, RATHER IT IS A SELF EVIDENT FALSEHOOD.

AT BEST IT MAY BE A LOGICAL AXIOM:=

A LOGICAL AXIOM IS A STATEMENT :

that is assumed to be true without any proof in a System of statements, and is impossible to be proved in the system. If a different system is chosen there may be an axiom contradicting this axiom.

If these objection makers axiomatize their system they may use it as an independent axiom. But every thing stops here.

102103

104

105106

107

108109110111

112113

114115

116

117

118119120121122

123124

125

126127

128

129130131132133134

135

6

6

2] THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL IS AT MOST A THEOREM OF MU’TIZILITE AND JAHMITE SYSTEM, IF THEIR RESPECTIVE SYSTEMS OF BELIEVES ARE AXOMATIZED. BUT ACTUALLY IT IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT AXIOM, BUT A THEOREM,AND THAT IS THE REASON THEY ALSO ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT. THEY INDEPENDENT AXIOM IS THERE IS ONLY ONE ESSENCE THAT IS A NECESSARY EXISTENT .FROM THIS IT IS ATTEMTED TO PROVE THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL. BUT THE CLAIM “THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL ESSENCE CAN BE PROVED. IF A DUEL SYSTEM IS TAKEN, WHERE “THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL ESSENCE WHICH EXISTETH” IS TAKEN AS AN INDEPENDENT AXIOM, EVEN THEN IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK TO PROVE THE CLAIM “ THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL” IN THE SYSTEM.

CONCLUSION:= THIS IS NOT AN AXIOM.

SOME REASONS:=

IT IS TRIED TO MAKE THE SENSE CLEAR:=

1]DivIne Attributes are Not The Deity Since there is atleast a logical DISTINCTION [If not a Real Distinction] Of Divine Attributes from the Divine Essence [i.e Deity]- Thus a Logical Plurality .Thus in this sense All Attributes of Deity are the Deity.

This is “ Singularity is Plurality and Plurality is Singularity. But Divine Essence is Absolute Singularity , which contradict all sorts and types of plurality with out any exception what so ever.

2[ If there is an Absolute Singularity then the Divine Essence is Only Itness and nothing but Itness. Now if All Divine Attributes Are Divine Essence i.e Deity then each one of the Attribute Of Deity is nothing but Itness. There fore Divine Omniscience ceaseth

Similarly Omnopotence becometh Itness etc.

No Plurality Of Attributes just words used for Pure Itness in the Divine Case.

3] Suppose the Divine Essence reduces to Omniscience and only Omniscience , and nothing but Omniscience, then It is Absolute- Impossible that Omnipotence is Deity [i.e Divine Essence]. Hence Omnipotence becometh Absolute-Absurd Upon Divine Essence.

4] If it is accepted that there are two types of Singularities. A] One that is Plurality [in Some Sence]

B] One that is not Plurality In Any Sence with out Exception what so evrer]

Then Deity is Absolute Singularity the type B stated above.

[] Further discussions Omitted for sake of brevity . But this is In Shaa ‘All-h Sufficient to convey the sense and the concept

To those who think it meaningless. Since whether accepted or rejected, whether true or untrue but it is meaning ful not meaning less, and ABSOLUTTELY NOT ABSOLUTELY MEANING LESS].

OBJECTION #4:=

136137138139140141142143144

145

146

147

148149150

151152

153154155

156

157

158159160

161

162

163

164165

166167

168

169

170

171

7

7

Allah created by willing creation into existence. Since Allah is eternal, his power to will would also be eternal. So what He has willed once he can always will again. Quran accepts this when it says that though you and I would die, Allah would will us back to life on the day of judgement - and then we would live forever, either in heaven or hell. Therefore if Allah is eternal, his creation is also eternal.

Therefore if Allah is eternal, his creation is also eternal.

This notion of separateness (‘maya’ in Hindu parlance) exists as a part of Allah’s celebration of Himself (‘leela’ in Hindu parlance). 

ANSWER:=

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD.

SINCE DEITY ALL-H IS NOT A CREATION. DEITY IS ETERNAL AND CREATION IS NOT ETERNAL.

ETERNAL AND NON ETERNAL CANNOT BE SAME SINCE IT IS NOTHING BUT CREATION IS NOT A CREATION.

DEITY IS NOT A CREATION , AND A CREATION IS NOT A DEITY.

EVEN ARYA SAMAJIS ALSO AGREE ON THIS POINE. SO THE OBJECTION MAKER IS A PANTHEIST. NO THING NEW, HE REPEATS AN OLD ARGUMENT.

IF DIVINE CREATIONS ARE ETERNAL THEN THEY ARE NOT CREATIONS. THE BASIC AXIOMS ARE AS FOLLOW:=

1] GOD\DEITY IS NOT A CREATION.

2] DEITY IS ETERNAL

3] CREATION IS NOT ETERNAL.

4] CREATION IS NOT DEITY/GOD.

SO THIS CLAIM REDUSES TO THE CLAIM EVERY THING IS DEITY . THERE IS NO CREATION

WHY TO CALL A THING A CREATION IF IT IS ETERNAL.

THUS EVERY THING REDUCES TO THE BELIEVE :=

EVERY THING THAT DOES EXIST IS GOD .

THIS IMPLIES ONLY ETERNAL GODS EXIST AND ONE THAT IS NOT ETERNAL IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXIST AT WORST OR DOETH NOT EXIST AT BEST.

NOT EVEN ALL HINDU SECTS AGREE WITH SUCH A BELIEVE AND THIS IS A BELIEVE OF JUST A MINORITY OF HINDUS [ONE LIKE THE OBJECTION MAKER] REJECTED BY A GREAT MAJORITY OF HINDU CULTS AND SECTS. THE RESULT STATED BELOW IS NOT FOLLOWED FROM THE PRREMEISSES.

“Therefore if Allah is eternal, his creation is also eternal.”

172173174175176

177

178179

180

181

182

183184

185

186187

188189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198199

200201202203

204

8

8

Similarly it is Impossible and Absurd to claim that “Therefore if Allah is eternal, his creation is also eternal”.

It is Absurd and Impossible That UNCREATED and CREATION ARE ETERNAL.

IT IS MORE INCORRECT THAN THE CLAIM THAT IF DEITY IS INFALLABLE THEN EACH AND EVERY THING WHICH IS ONE IN ESSENCE IN DEITY IS INFALLABLE . OR IF DEITY IS NOT A CREATION THEN HIS CREATIONS ARE NOT CREATIONS OR IF [ THE] DEITY IS A NECESSARY BEING THEN HIS CREATIONS ARE NECESSARY BEINGS.ETC.

OBJECTION#5:=

This conundrum would not arise in Hinduism because of its vision of the creator and created being one in essence.

ANSWER:=

THIS CONUNDRUM IS INVALID:=

QUR’AN IS ETERNAL JUST LIKE OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY LIKE OMNIPOTENCE , OMNISCIENCE ETC.

THE OBJECTION THAT QURAN IS COMPOSITE REQUIRETH SOME DETAILS. THAT SHALL BE GIVEN SHORTLY.

LET THE OBJECTION OF TWO DEITES [ TWO ALL-H s , AL AYAZ BILLAHI TA’ALA] IS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO IT.

THE OBJECTION SEEMS TO BE AS FALLOW:=

IF QURAN IS ETERNAL AND NOT IDENTICAL TO THE ESSENCE OF DEITY THEN IT IS A DEITY.

THUS THE NUMBER OF DEITIES BECOMETH TWO.

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT QUR’AN IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY. A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE DOETH SUBSIST NECESSARILY IN THE DIVINE

ESSENCE.

DIVINE ESSENCE [ I.E DEITY ] IS PER SE SUBSISTENT AND A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS NOT PER SE SUBSISTENT BUT IT SUBSISTETH IN

DIVINE ESSENCE. ONLY DIVINE ESSENCE IS DEITY. SO PLURALITY OF DETIES IS NOT IMPLIED.

THE AXIOM THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL IS FALSE. IT IS REPLACED BY THE AXIOM THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL

ESSENCE. REASON CITED:=

IT APPEARETH THAT THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITION ACCORDING TO THE OBJECTION MAKER IS TO BE A DEITY

\DEUS\THEOS IS .TO BE ETERNAL. BUT THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM.

[ MONO- ETERNALISM IS DIFFERENT FROM MONOTHEISM]

COUNTER ANSWER:=

205206

207

208209210211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225226

227

228229

230

231232

233

234235

236

237

238

9

9

This conundrum consists of five statements. If this conundrum is not valid on Hinduism just because some Hindu sects [Not

All] believe that “” God and His Creations Are One In Essence”” then this means that If God [Barmh\Brahman] and His

Creations are One In Essence then Each one of the statements of Conundrum is invalid in the said case.

Is the Qur'an eternal or created?......[Part One Of Conundrum].............P-1

If the Qur'an is created, then it is subject to corruption just like all of creation.----[Part Two Of The Conundrum]

-------------P-2

If the Qur'an is eternal, is it Allah or not-Allah?............................P-.3

If it is Allah, then God is a composite……………………………….P-4

If it is not-Allah, then there are two Allahs……………………………P-.5

But if a thing [say β or thingβ] and God are One In Essence then the Conundrum is Invalid for the thing β regardless of the

case whether β is Created or Uncreated……………………… BS-1

This is all what Respectable Objection Maker did say:=

But this is not correct. If it is correct then this can be used for Quran as well. Consider the example of Four Vedas.

The Question is as follow:=

Are Vedas Vedas Creations Or Not……………………..[1]

LET IS BE SUPPOSED THAT ALL VEDAS ARE CREATIONS. [THIS IS SUPPOSITION] ONE……………………..S-1

If ALL VEDAS ARE CREATIONS [S-2] THEN EACH ONE OF THE FOUR VEDAS IS A CREATION.

But according to the Objection Maker this Conundrum is invalid in the Case

God and His Creationsare One In Essence,[ Refer Basic Supposition………………….BS-1]

This Means The Statement #1 is invalid in the if Each One Of The Four Vedas Is A Creation, as according to the Objection Maker,

Just Because Creation Of God [Bramh or Brahman] are One in Essence.

If statement #1 is invalid for four Vedas in the case stated above under the Supposition Vedas are Creations then it is implied

239240

241242

243244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252253

254

255

256257

258

259

260261

262263

264

265266

267268

269

270271

10

10

that :=

If Each One Of The Four Vedas Is A Creation, and If All Vedas and God are One In Essence then Each One Of The Four Vedas Is

Not Subject To Corruption. [This is result one] ……………………….R-1

Thus S-1 IMPLIES R-1 according to the believes of the Objection Maker . [Under the given SuppositionsConditions etc.]

LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT EACH ONE OF THE FOUR VEDAS ARE ETERNAL………………………….S-2

Then according to the views of the Respectable Objection Maker [ SEE C- Of The Conundrum] :=

Each One Of The Veda is Either God / Bramh or No Veda is God/Bramh.

LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT EACH ONE OF THE VEDAS IS GOD. ……………………….C-2

If Each One Of The Veda is Composite then God Brahmh /Brahman is Composite.

But the P-4 of Conundrum is Invalid because according to the Objection Maker Vedas and God are One In Essence.

If Each One Of The Four Vedas Is Composite and If Each One Of The Four Vedas Is God namely Barmh or Brahman Then God

Brahman / Barmh is Not Composite……………………….R-2.

Since each One Of The Four Vedas and God are One In Essence .

Thus S-2 IMPLIES R-2. [UNDER THE CONDITION GOD AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE and EACH ONE OF THE VEDAS IS

GOD]

P-4 Of the Corundrum Is Invalid In The Case.

LET IS BE SUPPOSED THAT NO VEDA IS GOD………………………C-3

If None Of The Four Vedas Is God Barmh /Brahman then under S-2 and P-5 there are five Gods [ Brahmans or Barmhs].

Each One Of The Four Veda is a God and God , thus Five Gods /Brahmans/ Barmh.

But once again the Conundrum is invalid just because Each One Of The Four Vedas and God are One In Essence as according to

Respected Objection Maker.

272

273274

275

276277

278279

280281

282

283284

285286

287288

289290

291

292

293294

295

296

297

298299

300301

302303

304

11

11

Thus If Each Veda Is Eternal and No Veda Is God Then There is One God Barmh/Brahman, Since Each Vedas and God are One

In Essence……………….R-3.

Thus C-3,S-2,P-5 Implies R-3

In All of These Discussion an Independent Axiom Is Used Which is Stated As Follow:=

IF A THING AND GOD ARE ONE IN ESSENCE , NO STATEMENT OF THE CONUNDRUM IS VALID REGARDLESS OF THE CASES WHETHER

THE THING IS CREATED OR ETERNAL.

NOTE : For the sake of brevity we the case that some Vedas are creations and some Vedas are Eternal is not discussed.It can

be shewn that in this case the Conundrum is Invalid for those Vedas which are Eternal and for those Vedas which are

Creations.

It is left as an Exercise for those readers and studiers who are interested do so.

GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE CONUNDRUM ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD OF OBJECTION MAKER.

There are Four Types Of Things:-

1] God.

2] Attributes Of God

3] Acts or Doings Of God

4] Creations Of God.

If God , Attributes Of God , and Acts/Doings Of God are ONE IN ESSENCE,NATURE,GODHEAD,OUSIA ETC. then the

Conundrum is Invalid for any One That is God or An Attribute Of God Or An Act Of God, Regardless of the cases

Whether God and His Creations Are One In Essence or Not.

LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT :=

CREATIONS AND GOD ARE NOT ONE IN ESSENCE …………………………1

QURAN IS A CREATION………………………2,

305306

307

308

309310

311312

313

314315

316317

318

319320

321322

323

324

325

326

327

328329

330331

332

333

334

335

12

12

THEN UNDER THESE TWO SUPPOSITIONS THE CONUNDRUM IS VALID UPON QUR’AN.

LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT:=

QURAN IS EITHER A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OR A DIVINE ACT…………………….3

GOD ,DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AD DIVINE ACTS ALL ARE ONE IN ESSENCE,NATURE,GODHEAD,OUSIA ETC.

THEN

The Conundrum is INVALD on Quran.

A POSSIBLE OBJECTION :=

IF GOD, ATTRIBUTES OF GOD AND ACTS/DOINGS OF GOD ALL ARE ONE IN ESSENCE THEN IT IS IMPLIED THAT GOD AND CREATIONS

ARE ALSO ONE IN ESSENCE.

REPLYING THE OBJECTION:=

There is no such implication. It is certainly not implied . Thus the claim of this type of Implication is False

And Untrue.

As there is no alleged Implication , the the conundrum if correct is only Valid if :=

1] QURAN Is A Creation.

2]Quran and God are Not One In Essence.

But If Quran Is An Atrribute Of God / Deity or If Quran Is An Act Of Deity /God then the Conundrum becometh

Invalid Since :=

Attributes Of God ,Acts Of God and God All Are One In Essence.

HINDU SECTS AND CULTS:=

There are several Hindu sects and cults and the do differ about the Eternity of Vedas, Oness Of Essnce God

and His Creations etc. So Not All Hindus Agrree with the objection makers.

Some Muslims How Ever Believe That God and Creations are One In Esse.

If the Objection /Conundrum becomes invalid if God and Creations are Supposed to be One In Essence, It Is

336337

338

339

340341

342

343

344

345346

347

348

349350

351

352

353

354

355356

357

358

359

360361

362

363

364365

13

13

Absolutely Logical that the Objection /Conundrum becomes Invalid if God and His Creations Are One In

Esse.

Some Muslims believe that God is the Essence of all of His Creations, Attributes, Acts Since:=

[In these cases such conundrums do become become invalid. ]

DEITY Giveth sustenance to All Things, The Existence of each and every Sustained thing right from its Creation. In other words, we willhave to admit that the World and Every Thing In The World Is Sustained By God\Deity Hence Deity Is The Essence Of Every Creation. So Deity Is The Essence Or Esse Or Both Of A Thing to Which Deity Giveth Sustenance.Not In The Sense /Meaning Deity Is A Creation.Note :=-ALL THE MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT DIVINE ESSENCE AND DEITY ARE IDENTICAL I.E ONE AND THE SAME. In Other Words Godhead Is God and God Is Godhead. THE FLAW IN THE CONUNDRUM:= If the Objection Maker have incorrectly assumed That Either Qur’an Is An Essence Or The Essence Of Quran Is Distinct FromThe Essence Of Deity only then this Conundrum may haves some signifience. That is probably the reason the objection maker thought that “if Quran is Eternal and Not Deity then It is an other Deity. Quran is neither an Essence nor Its Essence is Distint from the Essence of Deity.Essence of Quran is Essence Of Deity Since like All Attributes Of Deity , It Subsists In The Divine Essence.Divine Essence is Per Se Subsistant. It Only Subsists in Itself and It Subsists Only In Itself.So if Quran Is Eternal , it is Absolutely Not Implied that Quran is An other Deity. [Also See page 20]AN OTHER RESPONSE:=1] THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF DIVINE CALAM [SPEECH] . 1] ‘AL CALAM AL LAFZI. 2] ‘AL CALAM AN NAFSI.IF IT ‘AL CALAM ‘AN NAFSI IS SUPPOSED TO BE IDENTICAL TO DIVINE ESSENCE, AND AL CALAM AL LAFZI IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CREATION CREATED BY DEITY, THE OBJECTION CEASES. SINCE IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF CORRUPTION FOR EACH AND EVERY CREATION, THEN THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE POSSIBILITY , AND AN ABSOLUTE POSSIBLE CAN BE RELATIVE ABSURD OR RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE. IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE ABSURD OR ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBLE.THEABSOLUTE POSSIBILITY OF BEING SAVED FROM ANY TYPE OF CORRUPTION BY THE DEITY CANNOT BE DENIED.HOW EVER THIS SAVING IS RELATIVE NECESSITY, NOT A N ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. THE CONUNDRUM BECOMES INVALID.Note : P-2 OF THE CONUNDRUM IS DISCUSSED IN ANSWER TO OBJECTION #13. PLEASE SEE IT THERE.

NOTE: EACH ONE OF THE TWO CALAMS IS TERMED AS QUR’AN.

NOTE: AL CALAM AN NAFSI IS NOT COMPOSITE LIKE DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE OR DIVINE OMNISCIENCE..

366367

368

369370

371

372

373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408

409

410

411

14

14

THE CONUNDRUM IS IN CORRECT EVEN UPON THE SYSTEM OF THE OBJECTION MAKER. HE ADMITS THAT CREATIONS ARE :=

1] NOT EQUAL TO DEITY EVEN IF THEY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE.2]CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE AND DEITY IS INFALLABLE.

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE BUT NOT CORRUPTIBLE, THIS IS AN UNACCEPTABLE CLAIM NOT EVEN WORTHY OF A REFUTATION. [SEE OBJECTION#8, ]

IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT ALL THINGS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE WITH DEITY, EVEN THEN ONLY DEITY IS UNCURRUPTRABE AND IMMUTABLE. TO CLAIM THAT CREATIONS ARE ALSO UNCORRUPTABLE AND IMMUTABLE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED EVEN IF THEY ARE ONE WITH DEITY IN DIVINE ESSENCE.

A COUNTER CONUNDRUM FOR THE OBJECTION MAKER AS ACCORDING TO HIS THEOLOGIGAL BACK GROUND:=

If Creatons Of Deity and the Deity are One in Essence then Either the Creation is Eternal or Not.

If the Creation Is Eternal Then It is either The Deity Or Not.

If it is the Deity then there are two problems.

1] It is not the Creation, Since Deity is not the Creation, Other wise it is implied that the Creation is not the\a Creation . An Absolute Absudity.. So the Creation is not a Creation in the Divine Essence.

2] As Vedas are composite it is implied that Deity is Composite in His Essence.

If it is not the Deity then it is an other Deity in the Essence. This implies two or more Deities in one Essence. That is a number of Deities One In ESSENCE.

A POSSIBLE ATTEMPT TO SCAPE FROM THE CONUNDRUM.

It may be argued that Plurality Of Deities occur if there is a Plurality Of Essences. As there is only one Essence Plurality of Eternals On In Essence does not imply Plurality Of Deities.

ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

This answer is not according to the Theological Concepts Of the Objection Maker.

The Objection Maker believes that Plurality of Eternals implies Plurality Of Deities.

He does not believe that plurality of Deities requireth Plurality of Divine Essences.

Since he makes this objection On Quran. Up till now Ihave seen no Muslim who believeth that Quran is an Essence. All Muslims Believe that Qur’an Is an Attribute.

So Oneness of Essence does not save is philosophical believes ,.

OBJECTION#6:=

I understand, it just doesn't sit well in my brain, when I imagine an eternal text i.e. one that existed before man existed and will do after he is gone, I see it as being a sort of timeless narrative or set of teachings, whereas

in the Qur'an I see speeches being given by the Prophet to people about specific things in specific times - which doesn't fit for me, but perhaps that is just me being odd. 

ANSWER:=

412413

414415

416417

418419420

421

422

423

424

425426

427

428429

430

431432

433

434

435

436

437438

439

440

441442443

444445

446

15

15

THIS OBJECTION IS INCORRECT. SINCE THE RESPECTED OBJECTION MAKER DID NOT PROVEDTHAT SUCH A THING IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD , SO THAT IT MUST EXCLUDE DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE.

IF IT IS NOT ABSURD AND NOT IMPOSSIBLE THEN IT IS POSSIBLE AND CONTINGENT.

AT BEST THE OBJECTION MAKER MAY SAY THAT SUCH THINGS ARE POSSIBLE AND CONTINGENT BUT IMPROBABLE.

BUT DEITY HAS OMNIPOTENCE OVER POSSIBLES AND CONTINGENTS EVEN IF THEY ARE IMPROBABLE. BUT IT IS JUST A PERSONAL INCLINATION TOWARDS IMPROBABILITY ,EVEN IMPROBABILITY IS NOT PROVED. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE WORK TO INDULGE IN THE MAKER, SINCE IN IS A NON ENDING AND USE LESS WORK TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL MINDS AND BRAINS, LIKENESS INCLINATIONS ETC.

IT MUST BE KNOWN THAT A THING [ IN THE MOST GENMERAL SENSE WHICH INCLUDETH EXISTENTS AND NON-EXISTENTS] IS OF THE FOLLOWEING TYPES.

1] ABSOLUTE –POSSIBLE [ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE]

2[ ABSOLUTE –IMPOSSIBLE [ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE]

3] ABSOLUTE –NECESSARY [ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY]

4] RELATIVE NECESSARY [ RELATIVELY NECESSARY]

5] RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE [RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE]

IF QURAN IS CREATION THEN CCORRUPTION IS RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE.

A RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE NEVER OCCURS IN THREE TYPES OF TIME I.E PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE.

SINCE DEITY IS THE SAVIOR OF AL QUR’AN AND SAVING OF QURAN IS RELATIVE-NECESSARY [RELATIVELY NECESSARY]. CORRUPTION OF QURAN IS NOT RELATIVE NECESSARY. DEITY IS AN ABSOLUTE FREE AGENT AND DEITY CHOSETH THE CONSERVATION AND SAVING OF THE QURAN .

SO EVEN IF CORRUPTION OF QURAN IS POSSIBLE IT IS A SUBJECT OF POSSIBILITY OF CORRUPTION, NOT OF THE OCCURRENCE OF CORRUPTION. IF QURAN IS A CREATION EVEN THEN IT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF CORRUPTION IN THE LINE OF ACTUALITY.

NOTE:= THE OBJECTION MAKER SAYS:=

In the Qur'an I see speeches being given by the Prophet to people about specific things in specific times - which doesn't fit for me, but perhaps that is just me being odd. 

IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN VERSES IN VEDAS WHICH INDICATE THAT VEDAS ARE NOT ETERNAL. FOR EXAMPLE IN RIG VEDA [8:849:2] IT IS SAID THAT “…….. LIKEWISE AS IN ANCIENT TIMES THE YOURS ELDERS WHO WERE UNBAISED AND SUPPORTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS HAD PASSED AWAY AND HAD FOLLOWED ME AND RELIGION MADE BY ME ,YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE RLIGION SO THAT YOU MAY HAVE

447448449

450

451452

453454455456457

458459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466467

468469470471

472473474475

476

477478

479480481482483

16

16

ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF VEDIC RELION…….”.[ ONE MAY SEE THE VEDIC VERSE HIMSELF ,IF HE\SHE WANTS TO SEE THE ENTIRE VERSE].

DOES THIS NOT SHEW THAT VEDAS ARE NOT ETERNAL?

THIS DOES SHEW THAT SOME GENERATIONS HAD PASSED WHEN VEDAS SAID THIS TO THE AUDIENCE GENERATIN. THIS DOES SHEW VEDAS ARE NOT ETERNAL. IF THE GENERATIONS ARE LI:LA [ CELEBRATIONS} IN DIVINE ESSENCE EVEN THEN THEY ARE NOT ETERNAL. ASTLEAST ONE WHICH IS THE AUDIENCE OF VEDAS. THIS DOES IMPLY NON-ETERNITY OF VEDAS ACCORDING TO THE STANDERD OF THE LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER.

ANSWERING THE OBJECTIONS ON URL:=

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/page-2

OBJECTION#7:=

THIS OBJECTION MAY BE DIVIDED IN TWO PARTS:=

1] Allah cannot create anything eternal for the simple reason that eternal means uncreated.

2] This is similar to the error in the Quran when it says Allah created life. (This issue I had taken up in another thread, where you had participated prominently. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/63041-did-allah-create-life.html) .

Life cannot be created because if there was no life at one point of time, who would have been alive to have done any creation? Allah islife. And life in many forms is the existence of Allah. This is exemplified by the imagery of the dancer and his dance.

You cannot separate the dancer from his dance. Likewise with the creator and creation.

Likewise with Allah and his word. Quran is eternal but its form would change as it had changed previously. Forms are corruptible. But the spirit is reborn in another form. 

ANSWER-1:=

RESPONSE TO PART ONE:=

AS FOR THE FIRST PART , IT IS CORRECT THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ASBURD AND IMPOSSIBLE TO CREATE AN ETERNAL.

RESPONCSE TO PART TWO:=

THERE IS CERTAINLY A MISCONCEPTION ABOUT QURAN IN THE MINDS OF OBJECTION MAKERS:=

DIVINE LIFE [ DIVINE VITA] IS UNCREATED AND ETERNAL. THE LIFE WHICH IS UNDER DISCUSSION IS THE NON -DIVINE LIFE. IT SIMPLY MAY BE SEEN THAT LIVING THING [ VITAL THINGS] BORN AND DIE. LIFE OF A LIVING CREATED SUPPOSITUM IS CREATED SINSE EVERY ATTRIBUTE OF A LIVING

484485

486

487488489490491492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499500501502

503

504505506

507

508509

510

511

512513

514

515

516517518

17

17

CREATED THING OR VITAL CREATED THING IS CREATED. ONE MUST DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE ETERNAL LIFE OF DEITY , AND NON ETERNAL LIVES OF ALIVE CREATIONS.WHEN IT IS SAID DEITY MADE LIFE IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEITY MADE ALL LIVES INCLUDING HIS OWN LIFE. SIMILARLY OF IT IS SAID THAT DEITY DID MAKE ALL ESSENCES , IT DOES NOT MEAN DEITY MADE HIS OWN ESSENCE AS WELL. THERE IS A RATIONAL NECESSARY EXCEPTION FOR THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. IF IT IS NEGLECTED THEN DEITY CANNOT EVEN BE OMNOSCIENCE SINCE THERE IS A STATEMENT

X= NO ONE KNOWETH THAT X IS A TRUE STATEMENT. IT IS ARGUED THAT THIS STATEMENT CONTRADICTS DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. THE ANSWER IS THAT DEITY’S OMNISCINCE IS A SELF NECESSARY EXCEPTION FROM THIS SENTENCE.

LIFE OF DEITY IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY AND EXISTENCE IS AN OTHER ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY. A NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS MAKE A SEPARATE CASE OF THE EXISTENCE /ESSE OF DEITY.

SINCE IF IT IS SAID THAT” THE ETERNAL ESSENCE IS NOT ALIVE BUT EXISTS” IT THOUGH IMPLY ABSURDITIES BUT MORE ABSURDITIES ARE IMPLIED IF IT IS SAID “ ETERNAL ESSENCE DOES NOT EXIST, BUT IS ALIVE.

PROBLEM OF DANCE AND DANCER:

DANCE IS AN ACT OF THE SUBJECT DANCER. THE WORD SEPARATE IS USED IN DIFFERENT MEANINGS:=

IT MAY BE USED IN THE SENSE OF TWO INDEPENDENT THINGS, IT MAY BE EVEN USED FOR THE DISTINCTION OF

AN ATTRIBURE FROM AN ESSENCE , OR AN ACCIDENT FROM A SUBSTANCE.

NEITHER AN ATTRIBUTE IS PER SE SUBSISTENT NOR AN ACCIDENT IS PER SE SUBSISTENT. BOTH OF THEM SUBSIST IN SOME THING PER SE SUBSISTENT. THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT SUBSTANCES ,ACCIDENTS,ESSENCES AND ATTRIBUTES . INTERESTED PEOPLE MAY SEE SUCH DISCUSSIONS WHICH ARE PRESENT IN THOUSAND AND THOUSAND OF PAGES. TO DISCUSS HERE IS JUST TO WASTE THE TIME OF THE REDERS. INTERESTED PEOPLE MAY SEE THESE TOPICS FROM PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS BOTH CLASSICAL AND MODRERN. ONE EVEN USE A GOOD SEARCH ENGINE TO STUDY THE TOPIC AS WELL.

HOW EVER ASSUMING THAT THIS TOPIC MAY BE NEW TO SOME OF THE READERS A VERY BRIEF DISCUSSION IS GIVEN BELOW:=

1] A SUBSTANCE IS A THING WHICH SUSTAINS AND SUBSISTS ONLY IN IT SELF.

2] A SUBSTANCE IS A THING WHICH CAN NOT BE PRADICATED TO ANY THING EXCEPT IT SELF. [ NOTE THE NECESSARY EXCEPTION].

3] ACCORDING TO SPINOZOA:=

A SUBSTANCE IS ONE THAT IS CONCIEVED IN IT SELF BY IT SELF.

ACCIDENT:=

1] AN ACCIDENT IS A THING WHICH SUBSISTS AND SUSTAINS IN SOME THING ELSE.

519520521522523524

525526527

528529

530531532

533

534535

536537

538

539540541542543544545

546547

548

549550

551

552

553

554

555

18

18

2] AN ACCIDENT IS A THING WHICH CAN BE PRADICATED TO A SUBSTANCE.

3] AN ACCIDENT IS ONE THAT IS NOT CONCIEVED IN ITSELF BY IT SELF.

THEOLOGIANS DIFFER WHETHER THE WORD SUBSTANCE CAN BE USED FOR DIVNE ESSENCE OR NOT.

A LARGE NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS BELIEVE THAT SUBSTANCE DETERMINES AN ESSENCE IN NON DIVINE CASES.SOME THINK THAT DIVINE ESSENCE AND DIVINE SUBSTANCE / OUSIA ARE ONE AND THE SAME. A NUMBER OF THINKERS EVEN DENY SUBSTANCES OR ACCIDENTS. THERE ARE VARIETIES OF THOUGHTS ON THE ISSUE.

ANY HOW AN ACT IS AN ACCIDENT WHETHER IT IS THE ACT OF DANCING OR ACT OF RUNNING ETC.

IN WHAT SENSE IT IS SEPARATE FROM THE SUBJECT IS THAT IT IS NOT THE SUBSTANCE BUT THE SUBJECT [ DOER/ACTOR\AGENT] OF THE ACT IS A SUBSTANCE.

STRANGELY THE OJECTION MAKER DISCUSSES THE ISSUE AS IT IS A NEW OBJECTION , WHERE AS IT HAS BEEN DISCUSS SINCE AGES.

PROBLEM OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES:=

THE STATEMENT GIVEN BELOW HAS MANY PROBLEMS:=

You cannot separate the dancer from his dance. Likewise with the creator and creation.

Likewise with Allah and his word. Quran is eternal but its form would change as it had changed previously. Forms are corruptible but the spirit is reborn in other forms.

FIRST:= THE PROBLEM OF SUBSTANCE AND ACCIDENT STATED ABOVE.

SECOND:= ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY AND ESSENCE OF DEITY [GODHEAD\DIVINITY]

ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY ARE NOT SEPARATE AS IF EACH ONE OF THEM IS A DISTINCT ESSENCE. THESE ATTRIBUTES ARE SELF ASSOCIATED WITH THE DIVINE ESSENCE , SUBSISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE , ARE SUSTAINED IN DIVINE ESSENCE AND ARE INSEPERABLE FROM IT.

YET THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ESSENCE IN THE SENSE AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF DEITY. OTHER WISE IF EACH ONE OF THE ATTRIBUTE IS THE ESSENCE OF THE DEITY THEN ALL THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE THE ESSENCE OF DEITY, IMPLYING PLURALITY IS SINGULARITY AND SINGULARITY IS PLURALITY. A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION. SINCE SINGULARITY IS NOT PLURALITY AND PLURALITY IS NOT SINGULARITY.THAT IS THE REASON A NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS REJECT THE CLAIM THAT THE ESSENTIAL ARRIBUTES OF DEITY ARE IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE. BUT AN OTHER NUMBER OF THEM ACCEPT THE IDENTITY.BUT THEY DO NOT SAY THAT IT IS MEANING LESS RAITHER THEY ATTEMPT TO PROVE IDENTILY PROVIDING ATTEPTED PROOFS AND THE DEBATRE GOETH ON. ONE SHOULD TRY TPO PROVE THE CLAIM INSTEAD OF CLAIMING THAT THIS IS MEANING LESS. EVEN THE MEANINGS IMPLYING CONTRADICTIONS ARE NOT MEANING LESS.IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER TO SAY THAT ITS MEANING IS OF A CONTRADICTION OR ITS MEANING IMPLIES A CONTRADICTION RAITHER THEN TO CLAIM THAT IT IS MEANING LESS. AT LEAST NOT IN ARGUMENTS OR DEBATES.

IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER BELIEVES THAT CREATIONS EXIST AND SUBSIT IN ALIO, IN THIS CASE SUBSIST AND EXIST IN DIVINE ESSENCE I.E DEITY.

556

557

558559

560561562563

564565

566567

568569

570

571

572

573574

575

576

577578579

580581582583584585586587588589590591592

593594

19

19

BUT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE.

MEANING OF CREATION:=

ABILITY TO CREAT I.E CREATIVITY IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE AND ONE THAT IS CREATED IS A CREATURE . THE WORD CREATION IS SOME TIME USED IN THE MEANING OF ABILITY TO CREATE , WHICH IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.

SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE MEANING OF ONE THAT IS CREATED .

SIMILARLY THE WORD SEPARATE IS ALSO USED IN DIFFERENT MEANINGS AND SENSES.

DEMAND:=

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. IF SOME ONE BELIEVES THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE , THEN THE NECESSARY PREREQUISIT OF THIS CLAIM IS “ IT IS POSSIBLE THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. ONE HAS TO PROVE THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE?

A POSSIBLE OBJECTION:=

IT MAY BE RESPONSED THAT IT IS THE IMPOSSIBILITY WHICH REQUIRETH PROOF NOT THE POSSIBILITY. SIMPLY THE ABSENSE OF PROOFS OF IMPOSSIBILITY PROVES ITS POSSIBILITY.

NOTE THERE IS NOTHING NEW:=

Aristotle there are 10 categories into which things naturally fall. They are AS FOLLOW:=

1] SUBSTANCE.

2] ACCIDENTS like Quality, Quantity, Relation,Action,Passion,Time ,Space,Arrangement,Rainment. So to discuss what so ever is discussed since centuries as if it is some thing new is not correct. Every Student Of Philosophy Knows that Substance is not Accident and vice versa, now call it Separate or coin an other word for it , the meaning is same.

Note :A large number of theologians and Philosophers do divide creations in two types.

1] Essences. 2] Attributes.

If Creations Exist in Divine Essence then Created Essences also Exist In Divine Essence.This implieth plurality Of Essences in Divine Essence.

This is impossible since Divine Essence is Per Se Exclusive to Essences to be in It.

THE CLAIM IS BASED ON A FALSE ANALOGY. IT IS INCORRECT TO ANALOGUE DANCE AND CREATION. IT IS JUST TO

NEGLECT THE INTRINSIC CHARACTERSTICS OF TWO DIFFERENT ACTS.ALSO IT IS AN INCORRECT TO SUGGEST AN

ANALOGY BETWEEN THE RELATION OF DEITY AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTE AND RELATION OF CREATION OF DEITY AND

DEITY.

595

596

597598599

600

601

602

603604605606

607

608609

610

611

612

613614615616617

618

619

620621

622

623624625626

627

20

20

NOTE: Nature is described as:=

 The intrinsic or indispensable quality or qualities that serve to characterize or identify something: 

Some time the term Essence is also used in this meaning. But in this work the Term Essenceis not used in this

meaning.

ANSWER-2:=

A RESPONSE TO THE SECOND PART.

1] WE REJECT THIS THEORY AND OPT FOR A PROOF ON EACH ONE OF THEM.FIRST PROVE THE DOGMA THEN ARGUE BY THE DOGMA. [ THIS IS THE MATHEMATICAL APPROACH ]

2] IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT ABSENCE OF PROOFS OF IMPOSSIBILITY IS A PROOF OF POSSIBILITY IN GENERAL, EVEN THEN IN REGARD TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE THERE IS A NECESSARY EXCEPTION.

3]IF DEITY AND CREATIONS EXIST AND SUBSIST IN ONE AND THE SAME ESSENCE , EVEN THEN IT IS ACCEPTED THAT DEITY IS INFALLABLE AND CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE AND DEITY AND CREATIONS ARE NOT EQUAL] 4]MATHEMATICALLY: DEITY=/= CREATIONS.

5] LET DEITY AND ANY ONE OF THE CREATION SAY C ARE IN ONE ESSENCE. A MORE POWERFUL AND STRONGER CASE THAN THEY ARE JUST ONE IN ESSENCE.

NOW THERE ARE JUST TWO OPTIONS:

1] CREATION C IS DEITY .

2] CREATION C IS NOT DEITY.

IF CREATION C IS DEITY THEN AS CREATION C IS FALLABLE THE DEITY IS FALLABLE.

IF CREATION C IS A SUBJECT OF FALLABILITY THEN THE DEITY IS ALSO ITS SUBJECT. BUT THIS IS DENIED BY THE OBJECTION MAKER.

IF CREATION C IS NOT THE DEITY AND IS FALLABLE THEN IT MEANS THAT THINGS SUBJECT TO FALLABILITY AND CORRUPTION CO-EXIST WITH DEITY IN ONE AND THE SAME ESSENCE. THE EXISTENCE IN ONE AND THE SAME ESSENCE DOETH NOT MAKE CREATIONS INFALLABLE AND UNCORRUPTABLE.

WHAT SO EVER IS TRUE FOR THE STRONG CASE IS DEFINITELY TRUE OF THE WEAKER CASE THAT CREATIONS AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. SO IF CREATIONS AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE EVEN THEN CREATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CORRUPTION AND FALLIBILITY. THIS REFUTES THE PART OF CONUNDRUM .

If the Qur'an is created, then it is subject to corruption just like all of creation.----[Part Two Of The Conundrum]

BY THE EXCUSE OF ALLEGED HINDUISM AS FOLLOW:=

This conundrum would not arise in Hinduism because of its vision of the creator and created being one in essence.

Now the entire conundrum is valid even for Hinduism. If Vedas are Creations then this part of the Conundrum is valid even if Vedas and Deity are Supposed to be one in essence. If Gita is a Creation Or Manu is a Creation , even then this conundrum is valid. If Bodies of Krishna are Creations then this part of the Conundrum is valid to each body of

628

629

630631

632

633

634635

636637

638639640

641642

643

644

645

646

647648

649650651652

653654655656

657

658

659660

661662663

21

21

Krisna/Krishna, whether it has two hands or four. This Part of Conundrum is valid of S-RTI AND SMR-TI if they are creations , even if they and Deity Are One In Essence or even in the stronger case , they all are In One Essence. Thus being Homousia does not save them from this part of the conundrum.Further this implieth that all the Fallibilities and Corruptions Subsist and Exist in Divine Essence whether Directly or Indirectly. This is Impossible. It must also be noted that Deity is beyond Parts so it is Impossible that Creations are parts and parcels of Deity.There is no such Possibility. One who claims such a possibility is asked to provide proofs [ at least one ] for the possibility or contingency or both of this.

[ See stated above Reason for the demand of proof].

DEITY AND CREATIONS CANNOT BE ONE ON THE STANDARD OF THE OBJECTION MAKERS:=

IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE THEN THERE ARE FOLLOWING 4 CASES:=

1] THE ESSENCE IS NEITHER CREATIONS NOR DEITY.2] ESSENCE IS CREATIONS.3] ESSENCE IS ONE OF THE CREATION4]ESSENCE IS THE DEITY.IF THE ESSENCE IS NEITHER THE CREATIONS NOR THE DEITY THEN THIS IS INCORRECT.SINCE THE OBJECTION MAKER THINKS THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE TO CONSIDER DIVINE ATTRIBUTES SEPARATE FROM DEITY. SO THE OBJECTION MAKER IS COMPEL NOT NO SEPARATE DIVINE ESSENCE FROM THE DEITY AN HE MUST THINK THAT IT PRIMERILY MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL TO MAKE A SEPERATION BETWEEN DIVINE ESSENCE AND DEITY.IF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS ALL OF THE CREATIONS OR ONE OF THE CREATIONS THEN IT IS A CREATION.IF A CREATION THEN IT CANNOT BE THE ESSENCE OF THE DEITY.IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DIVINE ESSENCE AND DETY ARE ONE AND THE SAME ,THEN THE STATEMENTDEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE REDUCES TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:=DEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE IN IN DEITY HIMSELF. SUCH A STRONG STATEMENT IMPLIES THAT DEITY IS ALL OF HIS CREATION. THIS IMPLIES THAT DEITY IS A CREATION. IF DEITY IS A CREATION THEN THE DEITY IS NOT THE DETY SINCE DEITY IS UNCREATED NECESSARILY.

DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF THE WORDS SEPARATE AND SEPERATION:=

THE WORD SEPARATE MAY BE USED IN DIFFERENT MEANINGS.IF IT MAY MEAN A DISCTINCTION OR IT MAY MEAN NOT THE SAME OR EVEN AN INDEPENDENT SEPERATION.IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE OR ARE IN ONE ESSENCE YET CREATIONS ARE NOT EQUAL TO DEITY, CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE WHILE DEITY IS NOT , THEN THESE ARE SOME DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS. THE WORD SEPARATE MAY BE USED EVEN FOR THIS TYPE OF DISTINCTION.

664665666667668669

670

671672

673

674675

676677678679680681682683684685686687688689690691692693

694

695696697698699700701

22

22

AS OUR DISCUSSION IS JUST ON THE QURAN NOT ON ITS FORMS IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DISCUSSION TO DISCUSS ITS FORMS. HOW EVER IT IS LIKELY TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEM OF FORMS LATTER.

BUT IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE WORD FORM I USED IN VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS. SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE MEANING OF ESSENCE , SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE MEANING OF OUSIA, SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE MEANING OF NATURE WHETHER THE NATURE IS PER SE SUBSISTENT OR NOT, SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE MEANING OF ESSENCE, SOME TIME IN THE MEANING OF A CREATED SUBSTANCE, SOME TIME IN THE MEANING OF SHAPE OR FIGURE ETC. ONE NEED TO SPECIFY THE MEANING TO THE WORD PRIOR TO THE USE OF IT IN THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS.

ANSWER#3:= IF THE LEARNED OBJECTON MAKER HAD STUDIED THE HYMN OF CREATION IN VEDA HE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THIS OBJECTION. IT BEGINS AS FOLLOW: [IN THE BEGINNIG] THERE WAS NEITHER ASAT NOT SAT. THIS IMPLIES THAT SAT IS NOT ETERNAL. IN ETERNITY IF THERE WAS NO SAT THEN SAT IS CREATION. ETERNITY WITH OUT SAT. IS SAT ETERNAL OR IS DEITY NOT SAT? IF SAT IS CREATED THEN SAT IS MORE PRIME [RELATIVELY PRIME TO] THEN VITA [LIFE] . SO VEDAS SUPPORT QURAN ON THIS ISSUE,I.E IF SAT IS CREATED THEN VITA IS ALSO CREATED. IF SAT IS ETERNAL THEN THIS CONTRADICTS THE LITERALMEANING OF THE HYMN OF CREATION. IF THE OBJECTION MAKER INTERPRET THE TEXT OF HYMN AND IF HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO SO , THEN OTHERS HAVE ALSO THIS RIGHT, I.E RIGHT TO INTERPRET TEXTS OF THEIR HOLY BOOKS .

OBJECTION#8:=

I understand that in the sense that God is one with His energies, therefore we are one with God.

However, this is not to say that we are equal to God in all respects.

Nor do I subscribe to the monist philosophy that says all individuality is Maya and therefore the ultimate reality is a single, homogenous Self or Brahman. We are eternally individuals, part and parcel of God.

God is achyuta (infallible) whereas we are fallible, as we can currently see.

REPLIERS NOTES:=1]THE WORD “WE” MEANS CREATIONS ,CELEBRATIONS ETC.

2] PLEASE NOTE THAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL IS DEITY IN SOME REGARDS THEN IT IS DEITY IN ALL REGARDS SINCE EITHER A BEING IS A/THE DEITY OR NOT DEITY. IF THERE IS A SINGLE CONDITION OF BEING DEITY NOT FULFILLED BY AN INDIVIDUAL THEN THE INDIVIDUAL CEASES TO BE A/THE DEITY.

3] IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT CELEBRATIONS OR CREATIONS ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE DEITY EVEN THEN THEY ARE NOT THE DEITY , IT ONLY MEANS THAT NOT-DEITIES ARE PART AND PARCEL OF DEITY. [MAY DEITY FORBID].

ANSWER:=

1]THIS IS IN A CLOSE APPROXIMATION TO ONE OF THE SEVERAL APPROCHES TO SPINOZA:

Only the Being of DEITY is Substance. All things are accidents or in the attributes of God. This is one approach to Spinozism.

702703704

705706707708709710711

712713714715716717718719720721

722

723

724

725726

727

728

729730731732

733734735

736

737

738

739740

23

23

NOTE: THIS DIRECTLY IMPLY THAT CREATIONS ARE NOT THE DEITY SINCE CREATIONS ARE NOT THE SUBSTANCE. THIS IS VERY ANALOGOUS TO THE OBJECTION MAKER’S VIEW.

WHAT THE OBJECTION MAKER SAID IS A TYPE OF PANTHEISM.

THERE ARE SEVERAL TYPES OF PANTHEISM.

THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

DIFFFERENT FORMS OF PANTHEISM AGREE ON THE FOLLOWING COMMON POINTS IN GENERAL:=

1] Beneath the apparent diversity and multiplicity of things  there is one only One Existent ,which is Absolutly Necessary, Absolute ,Eternal, Infinite and Independent.

NOTE: THIS DIRECTLY IMPLY THAT CREATIONS ARE NOT THE DEITY SINCE CREATIONS ARE NOT THE SUBSTANCE. THIS IS VERY ANALOGOUS TO THE OBJECTION MAKER’S VIEW.

Note:= If a Creation is Composite, If the Creation and Deity are One In Essence and If the Creation is Eternal ,then the Creation is the Deity, This Implieth

That THE DEITY IS COMPOSITE RIGHT IN DIVINE ESSENCE [In other words God Is Composite In His Godhead].

A very incorrect Result.

Pantheism in general states that:=

 God and the world are one. NOTE : IF ONE THEN ONE IN ESSENCE.

Whether One says All Created Things are One In Essence With God Or Say World is One In Essence With God are almost one and same thing with some slight differences.

. The   doctrine   is found in Ancient Egyptian Religion and early   Indian   philosophy ; it appears during the course of   history   in a great variety of   forms, in the strictest sense, i.e. as identifying   God   and the world. Some types of   Pantheism are simply   Atheism . Many   forms of Pantheism   generally involves   Monism , but the latter is not   necessarily   pantheistic.   Emanationism may easily take on a   pantheistic meaning and as pointed out in the   Encyclical   "Pascendi dominici gregis", the same is   true   of the modern   doctrine   of   immanence .

IT APPEARS THAT THESE OBJECTION MAKERS DO BELIEVE THAT CREATIONS EXIST IN ALIO , I.E CREATIONS OF DEITY EXIST AND SUBSIST IN THE ESSENCE OF DEITY. BUT THIS IS INCORRECT AND IMPOSSIBLE. ANY THING WHICH SUBSITETH AND EXISTETH IN DIVINE ESSENCE IS PROCEEDTH AND ISSUETH IMMENENTLY AND NECESSARILY WITH OUT ANY POSSIBILITY OF NON IMMENECE AND UNNESSACITY. THUS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE OF ANY CREATION TO BE IN THE DIVINE ESSENCE. AS EVENTS ARE ALSO CREATION IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

741742

743

744

745

746747

748749

750751

752753

754755

756

757

758

759

760761

762

763764765766767768769

770771772773774775

24

24

THAT AN EVENT OCCURS IN DIVINE ESSENCE. THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF AN EVENT IN DIVINE ESSENCE.

It may be noted that if Divine Essence is also the Essence of Creation even then the self of a creation cannot exist in the Divine Essence. So it is Distinct from the Divine Essence. So the selves of creations exclude Divine Essence even if Divine Essence is also the Essence of the Selves of Creations.

Note1: If the creation has no Existence a part From Deity it is not implied that the creation subsists in Deity or in Divine Essence. The same is true for the Divine Essence, since Majority Of Theologians, and Philosophers believe that Divine Essence and Divine Existence are One and the Same.That is why they do not include Existence as an Attribute Of Deity but as the Essence Of Deity in every regard.

NOTE2:- If the Divine Essence is the Essence Of All Creations, then the Self Of Each Creation Becometh a Non –Essence in It self, which reduceth each Creation to an Accident . This implieth that No Creation is an Essence. Now as Essence of Any Creation is Not a Creation, the accident either Subsisteth in the Divine Essence or It is Distinct from the Divine Essence. Former requireth that there are possibilities of Bringing the Accidents stated above from Non Existences to Existence, in the Divine Essence. But there is no such possibility in the Divine Essence. A APossibility of Bringing a thing from nothingness to thingness and DivineEssence Exclude Each Other.

NOTE3:=

IF IT IS ARGUED THAT ALL NON ETERNAL THINGS SUBSIST , OCCUR AND EXIST IN DIVINE ESSENCE THEN ITS PREREQUISIT IS THAT THEIR SUBSISTENCE ,OCCURRENCE , EXISTENCE AND SUSTAINMENT ARE POSSIBLE AND CONTINGINT IN DIVINE ESSENCE. BUT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLESINCE ANY THING WHICH EXISTETH OR SUBSISTETH ETC IN DIVINE ESSENCE SUBSISTETH OR EXISTETH WITH INTRINSIC NECESSITY AND IT IMMENENTLY SUBSISTETH WITH OUT ANY [POSSIBILITY OF NEGATION OF NECESSICITY ,SUBSISTENCE [SUBSISTENS] ETC.

NOTE 4:=

IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT DEITY IS INFINE AND IF A CREATION EXISTETH OUT OF DEITY THEN THERE IS A LIMIT OF DEITY AND DEITY BECOMETH FINITE.

ANSWER. DEITY IS NOT INFINITE IN THE SPETIAL SENCE OR IN THE VOLUMATERIC SENCE AS IT IS ASSUMED IN THIS OBJECTION.

DEITY IS INFINTE IN EVERY KIND OF DIVINE PERFECTION, AND EACH PERFECTION IS INFINTELY PERFECT’. THE INFINTY OF DEITY REQUIRETH A SPECIAL DISCUSSION BUT IT IS INFINITELY INCORRECT TO ASSUME THAT DEITY OCCUPY THE INFINITE SPACE INFINITELY.

776777

778779780781

782783784785786787

788789790791792793794795796

797

798799800801802803804

805

806807

808809

810811812813

25

25

A VERY WRONG INTERPRETATION OF INFINITY OF DEITY.

NOTE:#5:= IT IS NOT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THAT DEITY IS INFALLABLE AND CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE, BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER DIFFERENCES. SOME OF OTHER DIFFERENCES ARE GIVEN BELOW:=

5,1] DEITY IS INVULNERABLE ,AND CREATIONS ARE VULNERABLE. VULNERABLIES OF

CREATION ARE UNDENIABLE.

5,2] CREATIONS ARE ANNIHALATABLE AND PERISHABLE BUT DEITY IS NOT.

5,3] DEITY IS ABSOLUTE AND INFINITE. CREATIONS ARE FINITE AND NOT ABSOLUTE.

5,4] DEITY IS IMMUTABLE BUT CREATIONS ARE MUTABLE.

5,5] CREATIONS ARE CREATION BUT DEITY IS NOT A CREATION.

5,6] DEITY IS OMNISCIENT BUT CREATIONS ARE NOT.

5,7] DEITY IS OMNIPOTENT BUT CREATIONS ARE NOT.

5,8] DEITY IS THE LORD OF CREATIONS, BUT CREATIONS ARE NOT THE LORD(S) OF DEITY. ETC.

5.9] THE CLAIM THAT THE DIVINE SELF IS “Homogenous “is proof less , it is Non Homogeneous. It is Absolutely Simple. Perhaps the capacity of celebrations in the Divine Essence is termed as Homogeneity .

This is very close to claim that Divine Self\Essence\Ousia is NOT ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE BUT INFINITELY COMPLEX AND ULTIMATELY COMPLICATED.

Another form of Pantheism is as follow:=

 Pantheism is the view that God is everything and everyone and that everyone and everything is God. Pantheism goes beyond polytheism to teach that everything is God. It teaches that there is no Created thing.

.A pen is God, a statue is God, an animal being is God, the sky is God, the sun is God, you are God, etc. No thing is a Creation.

What these objection makers have said is different from UPNISHADS.

CHANDOGYA UPNISHAD SAYS:=

VERILY THIS WHOLE WORLD IS BRAHMAN. TRANQUIT , LET ONE WORSHIP IT AS THAT FORM WHICH HE CAME FORTH ,AS THAT INTO WHICH HE WILL DISSOLVE.--------- ONE SHOULD REVERENCE THE THOUGHT “ I AM THE WORLD”.

SVETASVATARA UPNISHAD SAYS:=

THOU ART DARK BLUE BIRD, AND GREEN PARROT WITH RED BLUE EYES.

THESE TWO EXAMPLES SHEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE OBJECTION MAKERS ARE NOT ACCORDING TO THE RELIABLE HINDU WORKS OF UPNISHADS..

814

815816817

818819

820

821

822

823

824

825

826

827828829

830831

832

833

834835

836837

838

839

840841842

843

844

845846

26

26

THIS MEANS THAT THE WORLD IS DEITY, EACH AND EVERY THING IN THE WORLD IS DEITY, EACH AND EVERY PART OF THE WORLD IS DEITY, FROM THE MINUTEST SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES TO THE LARGEST HEAVENLY BODY ,EVERY THING IS DEITY. IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE WORLD THEN EACH WORLD IS DEITY.

THESE OBJECTION MAKERS SAY:=

I understand that in the sense that God is one with His energies, therefore we are one with God.

However, this is not to say that we are equal to God in all respects.

POINT TO BE NOTED:=

1] THESE STATEMENTS CONFESS THAT THERE IS A PLURALITY OF ENERGIES OF DEITY, NOT A SINGULARITY OF ENERGY. NOW IF THESE ENERGIES ARE DEITY THEN ONCE AGAIN THE CONTRADICTION PLURALITY IS SINGULARITY IS IMPLIED.

2]WE ARE NOT DIVINE ENERGIES BUT CREATIONS. SO IF DIVINE ENERGIES ARE ONE IN ESSENCE WITH GOD IT IS NOT IMPLIED THAT WE ARE ONE IN ESSENCE WITH GOD.

3] UPNISHAD SAY :=

A] WHOLE WORLD IS BRAHAMAN. AS BRAHMAN IS GOD, THEY WHOLE WORLD IS GOD.

IF WHOLE WORLD IS GOD \BRAHMAN THEN THE WORLD IS NOT JUST EQUAL TO GOD / BRAHMAN BUT THE VERY GOD/ BRAHMAN HIMSELF.

B] IT IS NOT JUST THE WORLD BUT EACH AND EVERY THING IS GOD AND GOD IS EACH AND EVERY THING FROM A DARK BLUE BIRD TO A GREEN PARROT ETC.

ONE MAY NOTE THAT THIS IS ALSO THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER.

NOW WE COME TO SEE THE PROBLEMATIC VIEW OF THE OBJECTION MAKERS.

HE SAYS:-

Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes. [SEE OBJECTION 16, Also see objection#5]

THIS MEANS THAT DEITY AND CREATION ARE NOT JUST TWO DISTINCT BEINGS OR TWO MUTUALLY DISTINCT HYPOSTASES IN ONE AND SAME ESSENCE BUT THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. AND ONE AND THE SAME BEING. IF THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME BEING THEN THE ESSENCE IN THE BEING IS ALSO ONE AND THE SAME… IF IT IS INTERPRETED AS FOLLOW:=

TWO TYPE OF BEINGS ONE CREATED [ CREATION] AND OTHER UNCREATED [DEITY] ARE ONE IN ESSENCE , NATURE ETC. THEN THIS IS INCORRECT AND UNACCEPTABLE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE RATHER NOT PER SE POSSIBLE THAT TWO BEINGS ONE CREATED [ CREATION] AND OTHER UNCREATED [DEITY] ARE PART AND PARCXEL OF ONE AN OTHER.

A CONUNDRUM:=

If Two or more things are one in Essence then they are either In One Essence or Not.

If they are then the Essence is some thing other then ALL OF THEM.

847848849

850

851

852

853

854

855856857

858859

860

861

862863

864865

866

867

868

869870

871872873874

875876877

878

879

880

27

27

In this case the Essence in Which Deity and Creations are in,is some thing other then the Deity. In other words Godhead Of the God is other than the God.

As this is a Separation, and the Learned Objection Maker does not believe that Divine Attributes are Separate from Deity, it is likely that he shall not believe that Divine Essence is Separate from the Deity on Primary Grounds.[Also See page 10]

If All Creations and Deity are not in one and the same Essence then EITHER some of the CREATIONS AND DEITY are In One and the Same Essence , while some Creations and the Deity are not in One and the Same Essence OR NONE OF THEM are in One and the Same Essence..

In the first case some of the creations and the Deity are are not one in Essence.

In the Second case they are not One In Essence.

A Possible Argument

Creations and Deity are One in Essence but not in One Essence.

ANSWER TO THE POSSIBLE ARGUMENT:=

THE CONUNDRUM DOES WORKS SINCE IT PROCEEDS AS FOLLOW:=

IF CREAION ARE ONE IN ESSENCE THEN THERE ARE ONLY TWO CASES. :1] THEY ARE IN ONE ESSENCE. 2] THEY ARE NOT IN ONE ESSENCE. [SEE THE CONUNDRUM]

NOW SEE THE STATEMENT WHICH IS GIVEN BELOW:=

THE OBJECTION MAKER SAYS:=

I agree [with ] such statements because they imply that Allah, Krishna etc. are only names of the same

phenomenon. We verily have no existence independent of God because we are God in essence. The enquiry after

God is as well accomplished by the enquiry of the "I" which we are.

ANSWER

A]IT IS CORRECT THAT NO CREATION HAS ANY EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT OF DEITY BUT IT IS EQUALLY INCORRECT

THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE , OR DEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS DWELL IN ONE AND SAME

ESSENCE.SUPPOSE THAT DEITY IS THE ESSENCE AND ESSE OF ALL OF HIS CREATIONS EVEN THEN NO CREATION IS

IN THE DIVINE ESSENCE BUT DISTINCT FROM THE DIVINE ESSENCE.

To depend upon Deity Doeth Not Imply to be in the Essence of Deity.

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IN PANTHEISM DEITY IS IMPERSONAL , AND THE SAME IS THE VIEW OF THE OBJECTION

MAKERS,

SINCE A PERSONAL DEITY MUST BE DISTINCT FROM ALL CREATIONS AND ALL CREATED WORLDS.

NOW COME TO THE POINT THAT ALL-H [SVT] IS THE PROPER NOUN OF A PHNOMENON [‘AL “AYAZ:. BILLAH

TA”A:LA:]

IT IS AN INFINITELY FALSE CLAIM. SINCE ALL-H IS THE PROPER NOUN OF THE ESSENCE THAT IS SELF NECESSARY IN

EXISTENCE.

881882

883884885

886887888

889

890

891

892

893

894

895896

897

898

899900901

902

903904905906

907

908909

910

911912

913914

28

28

EVEN THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES CANNOT BE CALLED BY THIS PROPER NOUN EVEN IF THEY ARE BELIEVED TO BE

LOGICALLY DISTINCT FROM THE DIVINE ESSENCE. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE NOUN OF YAHVAH. IT MAY BE NOTED

THAT THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS NOT EVEN LOGICALLY DISTINCT FROM ITSELF. SO THIS ASSERTION IS DUE TO THE

MISCONCEPTION OF SEMETIC RELIGIONS.

I PESONALLY THINK THAT EVEN IN HINDUISM THE NOUNS LIKE B-R-M-H OR B-R-H-N ARE NOT THE NOUNS OF

ALLEGED PHENOMENA.THE OBJECTION MAKER IS NOT DEFENDING ANY HINDU SECT BUT EXPRESSING HIS OWN

IDEAS.

WHAT IF CREATIONS AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE.

1.1]IF DEITY AND CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE THEN THEY ARE ONE IN NATURE. IF ONE IN NATURE THEN IT IS

IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE TWO DISTINCT NATURES ONE FALLABLE AND OTHER INFALLABLE FOR TWO INDIVIDUALS IN

ONE ESSENCE.

1.2] IF TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE AND ONE OF THEM IS DEITY THEN THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL IS A

HYPPOSTASIS. IF THIS IS CORRECT THEN GREEK ORTHODOX ARE PERFECTLY RIGHT WHEN THEY SAY THAT THE

FIRST HYPOSTASIS IS DEITY ,SECOND HYPOSTASIS IS DEITY,AND THIRD HYPOSTASIS IS DEITY ; BUT WHEN THEY USE

THE WORD DEITY/THEOS/DEUS ETC.INDEPENDENT OF ANY QUANTIFIER THEY DO MEAN THE FIRST HYPOSTASIS,

CONTRARY TO ROMAN CATHOLICS WHO IN THIS CASE CONSIDER THE ENTIRE TRINITY AS THE SUBJECT OF THE

WORD(S) DEITY ETC. INSTEAD OF THE FIRST HYPOSTASIS. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE OBJECTION MAKER

WHO BELIEVES IN CELEBIRATIONS IN DIVINE ESSENCE AND NOT IN HYPOSTASES IN DIVINE ESSENCE.

IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE OBJECTION MAKERS DO BELIEVE THAT EACH CELEBRATION IS FALLABLE ,

AND DEITY IS NOT. HAD HE BELIEVED IN HYPOSTASES HE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT THEY ARE NOT

FALLABLE.

1.3] ‘ALL-H [ARABIC TERERAGRAMATION ] IS THE PROPER NOUN OF DIVINE ESSENCE AND NOTHING

BUT DIVINE ESSENCE , ESSENCE AS ESSENCE.

1.4] THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE HEBREW TETRAGRAMATION IHVH .

2]LOGICAL FLAW: The Objection Maker says

I understand that in the sense that God is one with His energies, therefore we are one with God.

This can only be true when We are Divine Energies.

It may be broken in to A syllogism.

ALL DIVINE ENERGIES ARE ONE WITH DEITY. [MAJOR PREMISE]

WE ARE DIVINE ENERGIES .[MINOR PREMISE]

THERE FORE WE ARE ONE WITH DEITY.

THE MINOR PREMISE IS INCORRECT .Since we are not Divine Energies.

SO THE RESULT DOES NOT FOLLOW.

DOGMA OF CELEBRATION:

There are three things:=

915916917918

919920921

922

923924925

926927928929930931932

933934935

936937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

29

29

1] One That Celebrateth.

2] Acts Of Celebrations

3] Celebrated Ones.

It is clear that God celebrateth according to the dogma of Celebration.

But the Deity is Per Se Subsistent and Eternal .It Subsisteth and Existeth In Itself and not in Alio [Others].

But the Celebrations and Celebrate

d Ones are neither Eternals not Per Se Subsistents. They Exist in Other i.e Divine Essence or Godhead.

If they are not Per Se Subsistents and Per Se Existents then they Subsist and Exist in Alio then they are Accidents .Since An Accident neither can subsist in Itself nor can Subsist in Itself.

It must be noted that Existence is the Only Actualization Of an Essence, and any thing that is Posterior to it is an Accident. This does imply that Existence and Subsistence are supplied to each on of the Celebrations and celebrated ones by the Divine Essence [Godhead/Divinity], and they receive the Existence From the Essence.

Since each one of the Celebrations and Celebrated Ones lacks its Proper Existence and its Proper Subsistence. This is nothing but the Dogma that Deity is the Only Substance and any thing other than Deity is an Accident.

Now one may come to discuss the claim that Celebrations , Celebrated Ones and God all are One In Essence [ Godhead].

One may term it as Illusion or Celebration or Accident the concept is one and the same . If one dislike the word Illusion or Maya one may not use this world, but one thing is Common that is they are not Subsistent, and Subsist in Divine Essence [Godhead/Divinity].

This reduces the dogma of Celebrations to Pantheism.

Now one may come to discuss the claim that Celebrations , Celebrated Ones and God all are One In Essence [ Godhead].

The Union Of Celebrations , Celebrated Ones and God is in the Godhead Of God.

But this Union is not an Essential Union [ Union Of an Essence with an other Essence] but it is an Accidental Union [ Union Of an Essence with Accidents].

This means nothing but that the God Unites With Celebrations and Celebrated Ones In Godhead.

As Accidents cannot exist in themselves and cannot subsist in themselves and receive Subsistence and Existence from the Per Se Subsitence Essence Of Deity, it is very clear that

Self Of Each Celebration and each Celebrated One is Not God, in Any Sense.

950

951

952

953

954955

956

957958

959960

961962963964

965966967

968969

970971972

973

974

975976

977

978979

980

981982

983

30

30

Yet they are one in Essence, where the [Godhead Of God] Divine Essence is Communicable to the God , but these Celebrations and Celebrated Ones are not Communicable in this sense.

Neither Any One Of the Celebration nor the Any One Of the Celebrated Ones is Eternal , Subsistent and Unannihilatable.

This is a very strong case of Pantheism.

Also this implies that God or Godhead or both are the Subjects Of Accidents. If they are Subjects Of accidents but made in the Godhead , each Accident is Inside the Godhead and not added to It Externally or Extrinsically or both.

A concept which is more Pantheistic then Spinoza’s Pantheism.

It is very dangerous concept and this also imply that Accidents penetrates in Godhead.

ONE WHO HAVE STUDIED THE TOPIC IN DETAIL CAN NEVER ACCEPT THIS DOGMA WHICH IS THE BELIEF OF EPHEMERAL ACCIDENTS IN GODHEAD. THAT IS THE REASON NOT ALL HINDUS ACCEPT THIS TYPE OF CELEBRATIONS IN DIVINE ESSENCE.

ONLY A PERSON WHO HAS NOT STUDIED THE TOPIC IN DETAIL MAY CLAIM THAT IT IS NOT PANTHEISM. AS FOR AS MONISM IT IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS THEN IT.

HOW EVER TO SAY THAT SELF OF EACH CELEBRATION AND EACH CELEBRATED ONES IS NOT ONLY DISTINCT FROM GOD BUT ALSO FROM GODHEAD. SO GOD AND THEM ARE SELFLY DISTINCT AND ESSENTIALLY SAME.

Note:= The Objection maker does not appears to believe that each celebration and celebrated one is Per Se Subsistent otherwise every thing will be reverted and celebrations must cease to be celebrations and must become Hypostasisation.

Similarly the each Celebrated One [Celebrated Thing] Shall become a Hypostasis.

This is not the believe of the Objection Maker. Since if a Par Se Subsistent Individual Exists in Divine Essnce then It Is an Hypostasis , and the Hypostasis is God. Not in the sense od Objection Maker but in the sense a Hypostasis canbe said a God.This sense not the belief of the Objection Maker since each Hypostasis is Unfallable, immutable ,Infinite,Unvulerable and Absolute, and not a creation. Some thing which is beyond the Dogma of Celebbrations.

FORMS OF DEITY IN CASE OF CELEBRATIONS AND CELEBRATIONS.

As for as the claim that Deity assumes different Forms , this concept is a also distorted if Celebrations in Divine Essence is accepted.Since each form must exist in Godhead and not added to Godhead Eternally. If so then it must receive its Existence and Subsistence from the Divine Essence , like any other Celebrated Thing and there must be no Essential and Substantial difference between an Alleged Form Of the Deity [whether it is Human or Inhuman or HemiHuman or Angelic or Cherubic or Super Human or Spiritual what so ever] and forms of the Deity and Creations Shall be of same kind.Thus entire world from a pen to a straw, from a shirt to a car , every thing shall be a Divine Form, not just Rama or Krishna or Muhni etc. Further this means that Accidents are the ponly thing which Deity Can Create and He can create them only in His Godhead. If it is said that Godhead Of God is God and God /Deity is Godhead/Divine Essence then God CAN CREATES

ONLY ACCIDENTS AND ONLY IN HIS SELF. How ever if Godhead is Distinguished From God then this shall mean that God can Create Only Accidents and Only in His Godhead BUT not in His Hypostasis.

But the most significant part is that when the Entire World and every thing that is in the world is a Form then every thing othet than God is a Form Of God , and this means a person may worship his house goods rather then some personic forms , From a piece of a paper to nib of a pen, or a soap or a tooth brush or his own organs like eye etc.

NOTE:=

IF IT IS SAID THAT CELEBRATIONS ARE NOT ACTS OF DEITY THEN IN DOES NOT MAKE ANY PROBLEM. SINCE EITHER CELEBRATIONS DO EXIST OR DO NOT EXIST. IF THEY EXIST THEN THEY EITHER RECEIVE SUBSISTENCE AND EXISTENCE FROM DIVINE ESSENCE OF DEITY OR THEY ARE PER SE SUBSISTENT AND PER SE EXISTENT.

984985

986987

988

989990991

992

993

994995996

997998

9991000

10011002

1003

1004100510061007

1008

10091010101110121013101410151016

10171018

101910201021

1022

102310241025

31

31

THE REST OF ARGUMENT IS SIMILAR TO STATED ABOVE. IT IS LEFT AS AN EXERCISE OF THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED.

IN EITHER CASE THEY ARE HYPOSTASES OR ACCIDENTS.

A POINT TO BE NOTED:=

Even in Hinduism there is a difference between an Ordanary Human Being and Persons like Ra:m(a) or Krishn(a).If all Human beings are One With Deity ,If All Human Beings are Part and Parcel Of Deity, if all the Human beings are eternally Individuals and if all Human Beings are Deity in [Divine] Essence\Ousia, then there is no Distinction Rama and Ravana, Krishna and his foes etc. Every Tom and Dick becomes equal to Rama and Krisna. So to draw a distinction between one group of people say Rama, Krishna etc. and other group of people say any human being on earth is wrong and incorrect. So what does this Objection Maker says does not corresponds to Popular Hinduism. This implies that one should worship his own self not Krishna or one may not worship any thing at all. Why shall One that is Deity in Essence\Ousia worship the Divine Essence \ Ousia which is nothing but Ones’s Divine Self.

f

THE OBJECTION MAKER SAYS:=

Nor do I subscribe to the monist philosophy that says all individuality is Maya and therefore the ultimate reality is a single, homogenous Self or Brahman. We are eternally individuals, part and parcel of God.

The concept of MAYA means that it is not Par Se SUBSISTENT and cannot exist in itself. If Maya or Illusion is nothing and it is Pure Nothingness and Non Existence then there is No Maya not an all. It is denial of Maya. That is there is nothingness , no Maya. If there is God then God is the Only Being and there is nothing else Not Even Maya. If Maya is some thing Which Exist then it is an Existent or an Existing Thing. It is an Existent then whether it is called Maya or some thing lese , it is an Existent and an Existing Thing.

At best nature of beings and Existing Things other than God may be different in Different Theological AND Philosophical Systems but one thing is common They Are not Non Existents and not Non Beings.

THE OBJECTION MAKER IS SOME WHAT INSPIRED BY BADANTA SHASTARA:=

BEDANTA SHASTARA:=This was authored by B-bas.Followers of this Shastra are called Bidantis.They think that all the creations are Illusion [ Maya].According to them when there was a Movement of Maya in God Barmh then Barmh was called Ashvara.Ashvara Manifested in three gods namely 1] Barhama 2] B-sha-n 3]Sheo [Some time also called Narain or Maha Deo].They believe that all the Creations are in God.

The learned Objection Maker differs from them ONLY in using the word MAYA for Beings Other that God/Deity.

But it is just a verbal difference . Call them Maya or Illusion or Reality or by any other term. The Question is wheter Beings which are Not Deity/God Do Exist or Do Not Exist. If they do exist then they are not Pure Non Existence and they are Not Absolute Nothingness,

If Maya is Just an other word For Nothingness and Non Existence thenthere is Only God and nothing else.

10261027

1028

1029

10301031103210331034103510361037103810391040

1041

1042

10431044

104510461047104810491050

10511052

1053

105410551056105710581059

10601061

1062106310641065

10661067

32

32

If Maya is something which Exists then it is CERTAINLY NOT Nothingness AND CERTITUDELY NOT NonExistence.

So the words Celebrations and Illusions [Maya] does not make much Difference in the Nature of their Subjects.

If they are not alternative terms they make slight difference in the Nature of the things.which are the Subjects of them.

So there are some difference of openions on the nature of Existing Things Other Than Deity. But it is clear that they are just Accidents.

To represent their Accidental Nature some used the word Maya and some used the word Celebrations [Li:la].

The word Maya have more than one meanings. But this may be said that Reality Of Creations and Creations are In Relation and In Comparison to the Divine Reality is Infinitely less and this Reality Of Less-ness is attempted to be expressed by the terms like Maya or

Celebrations , Images, Forms, Projections etc.

B] This objection is based on the theory that Deity is Innominable. All the Nouns are of the Assumed forms of Deity, not of the Essence Of the Deity.This is an incorrect concept. The transcendence of Deity doeth not imply that The Deity is innominable.

OBJECTION#9:=

Question...Does God's words being eternal necessarily mean that those words (in the form of a law, per se) apply eternally and in all

cases?

Answer is:= Actually all words in all scriptures are man's words. But since such enlightened people have reached the higher dimensions of knowledge, it is right to say that they are God's words - for what is God but divinity in absolute terms? About eternal words applying eternally, it was colourfully put in the Bible, “The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life”.

ANSWER:=

ALTHOUTH THIS QUESTION IS NOT RELATIVE TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION AND OUGHT TO BE LEFT OUT YET FOR SOME REASONS SOME COMMENTS ARE NECESSARY .

LET CHRISTIANS EXPLAIN THE EXPRESSION. THERE ARE GOOD COMMENTARIES OF HEBREW BIBLE AND GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. ONE MAY REFER TO THEM BEFORE QUOTING THEM IN HIS OWN FASHION.WORDS SPOKEN BY MESSIAH CANNOT KILL BUT GIVE LIFE.IF LIFE IS GIVEN THEN IT IS NOT ETERNAL. THE WORD SPIRIT MAY CORRESPOND TO THE THIRD HYPOSTASIS IN THE GOD THE TRINITY, NOT TO THE HUMAN SOUL. IT IS A DIFFERENT CASE. DOES THE OBJECTION MAKER BELIEVES IN TRINITY??

10681069

10701071

10721073

10741075

10761077

1078107910801081

1082

1083108410851086

1087

1088

1089

10901091

1092109310941095

1096

10971098

109911001101110211031104

33

33

LET US SOLVE THE MYSTRY OF TRINITY FOR OUR LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER:

ACCORDING TO THE DOGMA OF TRINITY THERE ARE THREE MUTUALLY DISTNCT ETERNAL HYPOSTASES AND ONLY ONE ETERNAL BEING. IN MORE CLEAR WORDS ONE ETERNAL AND DIVINE BEING, AND IN THIS BEING THERE IS ONE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE , AND IN THIS PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE THERE ARE THREE MUTUALLY DISTINCT HYPOSTASES CONSTUTED BY FOUR RELATIONS. THE NATURE OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE ITSELF I.E NATURE AND ESSENCE ARE ONE AND THE SAME THING IN THE DIVINE CASE I.E IN THE CASE OF DEITY. THE NUMBER OF DEITY/DEITIES DEPENDS UPON THE NUMBER OF THE ESSENCE OR BEING OF THE DEITY AND NOT UPON THE NUMBER OF HYPOSTASES IN THE ESSENCE OR BEING OF THE DEITY.

THAT IS WHY THE NUMARICALLY THREE HYPOSTASES CONSTITUTE ONE BEING [EXISTENT].

ANSWER:=

AT LEAST THIS IN NOT THE CASE WITH QURAN. IT IS NOT THE SPEECH OF ANY CREATED SUPPOSITUM SAY HUMAN OR ANGEL OR WHAT SO EVER.

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/page-3

OBJECTION#10:=

When all Muslims proclaim that Quran is the word of God, naturally it has to be assumed that the Quran is eternal. But Islamic theology might have some difficulty in explaining how there could be the phenomenon of two eternals.

OBJECTION#11:=

The question of ‘shirk’ then arises. I thought this was an interesting subject from the academic point of view. Of course I am aware that just as they say love is blind, likewise faith also does not require any explanations. 

ANSWER:= [AN ANSWER TO OBJECTION# 10 AND OBJECTION#11]

TO CLAIM THAT PLURALITY OF ETERNALS IS A SHIRC IS DUE TO MISCONCEPTION OF THE ISLAMIC TERM SHIRC. IT IS NOT TENTAMOUNT TO THE TERM POLYTHEISM. IT REQUIRES A DISCUSSION OF IT SELF.ANSWER TO OBJECTION #12 MAY BE HELPFUL IN THIS REGARD.

The claim of DIFFICULTIES in Islamic Theology is not correct. On the contrary the Object Maker also have some difficulties but only he does neglect them. AS FOR THE EXPRESSIONS LOVE IS BLIND, FAITH IS BLIND , IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE SAME CAN BE SAID THAT FOR THE CLAIM THAT

1105

110611071108110911101111111211131114

1115

1116

1117

11181119

1120

1121

1122112311241125

1126

112711281129

1130

1131

1132

1133

113411351136

113711381139

34

34

THE WORLD IS A LI:LA [CELEBRATION]. BUT THE OBJECTION MAKER DID NOT SAY IT FOR THE REASONS MENSIONED IN TWO EXPRESSIONS.

If it is accepted that there are some problems in Islamic theological System then it may be noted that there is no religious system which is beyond such theological problems. Even the theological system is not beyond such theological problems. The question is how a religious system deals with these problems. It is the solution to the problem presented by the theological system of a religion, which is important and significant not the problem. So mere the existence of a problem in the theological system of a religion cannot be a proof of the weakness of the religion but the lack of proper solution presented by the system.

OBJECTION#12:=

What I meant was that anything that is a divine expression of other religions is shrugged off as 'shirk' by Islam. It inevitably turns out to be a case of throwing the baby away with the bathwater. That is, all religions, except Islam, are treated as being totally in error - when there could be so many things in other religions that Muslims could learn to admire though there many be differences on some fundamental issues.This way, a culture of inclusiveness could be encouraged in Islam, leading to a brotherhood of all believers - not just a brotherhood of Islamic believers.

ANSWER:=

NOTE. THE ANSWER IS JUST RESTRICTED TO THE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF SHIRC\SHIRK\SCHIRK.

SHIRCK IS A VERY TECHNICAL TERM OF ISLAMIC NOMENCLEATURE. IT IS A MISCONCEPTION THAT IT IS ALTERNATIVE TERM OF POLYTHEIM. A NUMBER OF BELIEVES MAY BE TERMED AS SHIRK, BUT NOT AS POLYTHEISM. THERE ARE MANY BELIEVES WHICH ARE TERMED AS SHIRC. FOR EXAMPLE:=

1] PLURALITY OF DEITIES.

2] PLURALITY OF ETERNAL ESSENCES.

3] PLURALITY OF INFINITE ESSENCES.

4]PLURALITY OF ETERNAL PER SE SUBSISTENTS.

5] EXISTENCE OF CREATIONS IN DEITY OR DIVINE ESSENCE.

6] EXISTENCE OF DEITY IN CREATIONS.

7] A BELIEF THAT A CREATION IS INDEPENDENT OF DEITY.

8] BELIEF THAT A CREATION IS A PART OF DEITY.

9] BELIEF THAT DEITY IS MUTABLE.

10] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY IS FINITE

11] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY IS NOT ABSOLUTE.

12] THE BELIEF THAT THE WORLD IS NOT PER SE SEORSUM.

11401141

1142114311441145114611471148

1149

115011511152115311541155

1156

11571158

1159116011611162

1163

1164

1165

1166

1167

1168

1169

1170

1171

1172

1173

1174

35

35

13] THE BELIF THAT A CREATION IS EQUAL IN ANY ONE OF ITS ATTRIBUTE TO A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.

14] THE BEIEF THAT DEITY IS NOT ETERNAL.

15] THE BELIEF THAT THE WORLD OR ANY PART OF ANY POSSIBBLE WORLD EXIST IN DIVINE ESSENTIA ,DIVINE OUSIA ,DIVINITY,GODHEAD,DIVINE NATURE.

16]THE BELIEF THAT CREATIONS ARE PARTS OF DEITY.

17] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY IS PART OF CREATIONS [WORLD], ETC.

18] a)THE BELIEF THAT POSSIBILITY OF CREATION AND CREATURES EXIST IN THE DIVINE ESSENCE.b) THE BELIEF THAT THE WORLD AND THINGS IN THE WORLD EXIST INSIDE THE DIVINE ESSENCE/GODHEAD.

19] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY TAKES FORM OF WORLD AND THINGS IN THE WORLD. Etc.

To believe that Created Beings and Uncreated Being are One In Essence or to believe that Created Beings are Part and Parcel Of Uncreated Being or both , such believes are certainly SHIRC beyond doubt. The Objection Maker wants than the Word Shirc /Shirk/Shirck may not be used for such believes. But if this is not Shirc then nothing canbe termed as Shirc. One may wonder why the Objection Maker does not think that to believe that Creations Exist in Deity Intrinsically is not Shirc or Created Beings [ Creations ] are Included In DiVINE Essence. It may be seen that the Objection Maker is Of The View That unless and other wise All created Beings are believed to be equal to Deity in each and every Regard with out any single Exception and they and Deity are PART AND PARCEL of Deity Only then it is Shirc. ‘Al “Ayaz: Billah Ta”ala.

SEMETIC RELIGIONS HAVE NOTHING TO LEARN FROM NON SEMETIC RELIGIONS IN ORDER TO CORRECT THEIR ALLEGED ERRORS. HOW EVER THEY HAVE TO LEARN NON SEMETICS IN ORDER TO ERASE MISCONCEPTIONS.

IT MAY BE NOTED THAT IN THE ENTIRE MUSLIM HYSTORY THERE WAS A MAN OF BANS BARAILI [UNITED PROVINCES INDIA NAMED AS AHMAD RADA SHAH, WHO BELIEVED THAT TO BELIEVE THAT DIVINE KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROPHETIC KNOWLEDGE ARE EQUAL IN ALL REGARDS WITH THE DIFFERENCE THAT DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IS ETERNAL AND PROPHETIC KNOWLEDGE IS NOT, THEN THIS IS NOT SHIRC. BUT NONE AGREED WITH HIM]. SEE FOOT NOTES OF ADDAULATUL MAKKIAH, TEXT AND THE FOOT NOTES ALL ARE BY THE AUTHOR RADA SHAH OF BANS BARAILI [1856AC-1930AC] ,UNITED PROVINCES , BRITISH INDIA [1857AC-1947AC]

The Objection Maker does want that the belief that “the World and things in the World are part and parcel of Deity” may not be termed as Shirc .The Deity is Infinitely Beyond and Absolutely Transcendent from this.

IT IS VERY STRANGE THAT THE OBJECTION MAKER SEES NO OBJECTION IN THE BELIEF THAT CREATIONS ARE PART AND PARCEL OF UNCREATED DEITY. If to believe that Fallible are the part and parcel of Unsalable Deity is not SHIRC then nothing can be called SHIRC , not even the Polytheism.

The objections not related to the present discussion are neglected.

NOTE:=

11751176

1177

11781179

1180

1181

118211831184

1185

118611871188118911901191119211931194

1195

119611971198

1199120012011202120312041205

120612071208

1209121012111212

1213

1214

36

36

1]It may be noted that Polytheists have tried to make a virtual Harmony between Monotheism and Polytheism by claiming that the Supreme Being [Deity] Menifesteth , Incarnatesth , Theophanizes in a number of lower gods or demigods which are just forms of the one and same Sureme Being. But this is nothing but Shirc. For example Shiu/Shiva is not Vshnu. If both were one and the same then Spouse Of Shiva is the Spouse Of Vishnu. But this is not the case. If Shiva, Vishnu and Barahma all are the Angelic Manifestations of Only One Deity say Barmh then why Barahma is rarely worshipped , and why there are only two or three temples for Barahma. Such dogmas cannot MAKE POLYTHEISM MONOTHEISM.

2]This does shew that they are gods and demigods. Does the objection maker wants to say that the Human Manifestations of God Barmh [Say Rama or Krishna]]and the Angelic/Super Human Menifestations of Barmh [ Say Shiva or Vishnu] are one and the same?

3] Are the alleged Divine forms just helpless puppets in the hand of Deity Barmh.

4] If a Divine Form of the Supreme Being a Supreme Being. If yes then there are more then one Supreme Being. I.e there are Supreme Beings. If no then it is just a creation and worshipping of creations is a kind of Polytheism hence a kind of Shirc as well.

OBJECTION#13:=

If God is eternal, His capabilities would also be eternal – otherwise

He would have diminished and no longer a God.

God’s word is eternal because His capability to produce words is eternal. His words’ forms, meanings and purpose may change but not its potency. If the Quran is in this form today, it could be in another form tomorrow. Divine knowledge, in one form or another, has always been and would always be available to man.

ANSWER:=

It is accepted that deity is eternal. Divine capabilities are are dive attributes. So plurality of divine attributes are accepted in the objection. So plurality is not singularity. This implies at least some sort of distinction between divine attributes and divine essence. This may be a real one or a logical one or of some other type. If plurality of forms of quran are possible, the possibility of the possible does not imply its occurrence or existence or both.

[see above]

For sake of arguments [ at least one] let it be suppose thatit is possible that the divine eternal speech have more then one form then it it not necessary that it is impossible to have only one form. it may be said that a form of quran which is in the line of actualization

Not just in the domain of possibilities and contingencies is a creation and all creations are subject to corruption then the form of quran must be a subject of corruption.

121512161217121812191220122112221223

122412251226

1227

122812291230

1231

1232

1233

1234

1235123612371238

1239

12401241124212431244

1245

1246

1247

124812491250

12511252

37

37

An answer to this objection is as follow:=

Corruption of a possible creation is possible, neither necessary not absurd [impossible].

But possibility of a thing doeth not imply the occurrence of the thing. Since possibility neither imply existence nor im[ply actualization. So it this case supposed for the sake of arguments if athe only actualized form of quran is possible to be corrupted , it is also possible that it is not corrupted. Neither corruption is necessary nor not- corruption is necessary. Now to save quran’s form is also possible for deity. So deity pave power to save the form of the qur’an from corruption. So if the created form of uncreated quran is saved by the omnipotent deity there is no corruption it qur’an.

It must be noted that divine knowledge is omniscience and a divine attribute . divine knowledge is eternal,essential,necessary,absolute,infinite,simple, with out any exception encompasses every object of knowledge [ object of knowledge = all that can be known whether possible or necessary or absurd, not necessary an existent]. So this is impossible that entire knowledge is available to any creation. It is absolute- absurd not just relative- absurd. [ absolute -impossible not just relative- possible].

Note#1:= Terms like Absolute-Impossible etc are terms may not sound grammatical, some may suggest to use terms like Absolutely Impossible but the sense can only be preserved if the term Absolute-Impossible is used.

Note#21=: Divine Energies and Divine Capabilities are Divine Attributes And Nothing But Divine Attributes..

Note#3:= This does make a distinctions between Divine Attributes and The Celebrations. The objection Maker Accepts that: “His capabilities would also be eternal – otherwise He would have diminished and no longer a God”. If the Celebrations are not Eternal then does Deity Diminish? If the Answer is Negative then Celebrations are Not Attributes. If the Answer is Affirmative then Celebrations are Attributes. There is no escape from this Dilemma.

Note#4:= If Quran hath several Per Se Possible Forms it is not Necessary that it changes its form as suggested by the Objection Maker.If change is possible conservation in the present form with out any change is also Per Se Possible. Now the problem reverts to Relative Necessity and Relative Absurdity.

Note#5:= The learned Objection Maker says that “He would have diminished and no longer a God”

This means if Deity is not Eternally Infallible the He Ceaseth to be Deity. As Creations are not Infallible the cannot be eternally infallible , hence the are not Deities and it is a flaw or a defect in Divine Essence is there is a Per Se Possibility or Per Se Contingency of being the Part and Parcel of Deity. A disgrace and disarmament of the Deity and Divine Perfection.

OBJECTION#14:=

We use the word God or Allah or Krishna when we anthropomorphise the phenomenon called life and thereby often forget that God, however called is but life or existence.Forms may

1253

1254

1255125612571258125912601261

126212631264126512661267

126812691270

12711272

12731274127512761277

1278127912801281

12821283

1284128512861287

1288

1289

1290

12911292

38

38

change (die), But life is eternal and ever celebrating its potency in various and endless forms and names.

ANSWER:=

DEITY HAS NO FORM. THE WORD FORM IF USED IN CASE OF DEITY ONLY MEANETH DIVINE ESSENCE. SO THERE IS NO FORM OF DEITY EXCEPT DIVINE ESSENCE. THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE DIVINE NATURE. IN CASE OF DEITY ESSENCE AND NATURE ARE ONE AND HAVE THE SAME MEANING. IF IT IS SUPPSED THAT DIVINE ETERNAL ATTRIBUTES HAVE DIFFERENT NON ATTERNAL FORMS EVEN THEN IT IS NOT IMPLIED THAT THE DEITY I.E DIVINE ESSENCE HAVE DIFFERENT ETERNAL FORMS. BUT LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT THE DIVINE DEITH HATH SOME NON ETERNAL FORMS, THEN NO FORM IS DEITY,EACH FORM IS A NOT-DEITY , A NOT-GOD.SIMILARLY NO FORM OF ANY DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.

Note Only Divine Vita [Life] is Eternal, Not Divine Life is Not Eternal.

Also Non Eternal Lives are corruptible [I.E THEIR CORRUPTION IS ABSOLUTE-POSSIBLE (ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE)]. The number of people Die each day is a Certain Proof of the Claim. But Deity Cannot die, since this is Absolute -Absurd.

The Problem Of Noun Krishna. If the word Krishna is used for the Divine Essence i.e Deity like Barmh or Brahman then it would have been a different case. But Krishna is a proper noun of a human being , who claimed to be a Divine Incarnation . So it is a problematic noun. Even Dayanand the founder of Arya Samaj sect do not call God as Krishna or Rama etc . [ If he calls God by these Nouns Please QUOTE HIS OWN WORK]

So it is a different case. Attempts are made to equate Jesus[IESOUS] and Krishna but even this is not successful in the least sence.When it is Impossible to say Jesus and Krishna are One it is primly Impossible to say God and Krishna are one. Some Hindu Missionaries have tried to equate Jesus and Krishna to target some Christians but not even a single attempt was successful. The natures of incarnation of Jesus as according to RC is very DIFFERENT from the nature of Incarnation in Major Hindu sects. ANY HOW KRISHNA IS NEITHER JESUS NOR YAHVAH, SIMILARLY KRISHNA IS NEITHER ALL-H NOR YAHVAH.WHAT SO EVER IS TRUE FOR KRISHNA IS ALSO TRUE FOR RAMA. HINDU REFORMIST PANDIT DIANAND ALSO DENY INCARNATIONS AND HE BELIEVE THAT NEITHER KRISHNA IS GOD NOT RAMA IS GOD.

What is the actual point, the point it is not just easy to make such great claims which cannot be proved. If some one takes them AXIOMATICALLY others have equal right to reject this Axiom.They may reject this Axiom.

NOTE: DEITY CANNOT DIE BUT NOT-DEITY LIVINING BEINGS CAN DIE. SUPPOSE THAT DEITY HATH SEVERAL FORMS . SUPPOSE THAT THE NUMBER OF FORMS ARE INFINTE OR UNCOUNTABLE BY ANY HUMAN MIND IF FINITE, THEN NO FORM OF DEITY IS DEITY ,SINCE Forms may change (die) BUT DEITY CANNOT DIE (CHANGE). DEITY IS IMMUTABLE. IF THE DEITY / DIVINE LIFE /DIVINE EXISTENCE VELEBRATES HIMSELF/ITSELF IN A NUMBER OF VARIOUS FORMS EVEN THEN :=

1)NO [ALLEGED] CELEBRATION OF DEITY IS DEITY.

2) NO [ALLEGED] FORM OF DEITY IS DEITY .( SEE ABOVE).

SO IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE DEITY MAY ASSUME A FORM EVEN THEN NOUN OF A FORM IS NOT THE NOUN OF THE DEITY.IT MAY BE NOTED A FORM IS NOT A NATURE AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS BELIEVE THAT ONLY NATURES CAN BE ASSUMED. BUT THE OBJECTION MAKER CANNOT REDUCE THE ENTIRE WORLD INTO A NATURE. SO EVEN

12931294

1295

12961297129812991300130113021303

1304

130513061307

13081309131013111312

131313141315131613171318131913201321

132213231324

132513261327132813291330

1331

1332

1333133413351336

39

39

FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TRINITARIAN CHRISTIANDOM IT IS ABSOLUTE-IMPOSSIBLE THAT DEITY ASSUMES THE ENTIRE WORLD AS A NATURE.

THE NUCLEUS OF THE PROBLEM.

It appears that the problem in the Heart Of the Objection Maker is as follow:=

If Divine speech Of Deity is Eternal but its Non Eternal forms may may also be called Divine Speech/Word then any

Form of Deity may be called a Deity.

ANSWER:= There are two types of Speaches but Deity is Not Only Of ONE TYPE but Only One. That is the reason

any Non Eternal Form Of Eternal Divine Speech may be called as Divine Speech, but any Supposed Possible Form Of Deity cannot be called

Deity. But this is not the real answer since the Principle Position is as follow:=

1] It is Per Se Absurd For Deity To Assume or to Take any Form.

2] Each type of Divine Speech is not a form of one an other or any one of them is the form of other, Although they may be connected.

.

OBJECTION#15:=

Can we here consider the issue as to whether the Quran was created by Allah or is it the uncreated eternal word of

Allah? I personally believe that the Quran cannot be an uncreated phenomenon unless it is propositioned that the

Quran is Allah.

ANSWER:=

THIS OBJECTION HATH BEEN ANSWERED. THIS IS JUST A REPEATATION. FOR DISCUSSION PLEASE SEE ABOVE.

SEE PAGE 4 ETC.

Note : it is better to say Quran is Speech Of Deity then to say Quran is Word of Deity. The word Calam means

Speech and he words “ cal-mah and lafz: mean word.

Any How phrase “word of Deity” is not incorrect, but the Phrase “ Speech Of Deity” is preferable.

OBJECTION#16:=

Quran was communicated to Mohammad by Gabriel in the form of spoken Arabic. It was later consolidated into the form of written Arabic. In what form would it have been communicated to Gabriel by Allah? Maybe in the seedform of language or mantra, as the Hindus call it. And in what form would Allah have retained it? In the eternal formless silence, of course. 

ANSWER:=

13371338

1339

1340

13411342

1343

13441345

13461347

1348

1349

13501351

1352

1353

1354

135513561357

1358

1359

1360

13611362

1363

1364

136513661367

1368

40

40

IT CAN BE COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY. SINCE THE ACT OF SPEAKING IS NOT ETERNAL. BUT THIS IS ONLY A CORALLERY OF A MORE FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM. THE EMANATION OR ISUUANCE OF DIVINE ACT OR DOINGS FROM DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OR QUALITIES.

THE WORD SCILENCE IS USED IN SEVERAL MEANINGS. IN GENERAL A PERSON WHO HAS NOT STUDIED THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY DOES THINK IT IS JUST ABSENCE OF [KNOWN] SOUNDS. A THEOLOGICIAN MAY CONSIDER SCILENCE AS ABSENCE OF SPEECH OR ABSENCE OF WORDS.

SO IN THE FORMER SENSE ON MAY TERM IT AS FORM-LESS SCILENCE. BUT IN THE LATTER STATED SENSE , A SPEECH WHAT SO EVER IT IS NOT SCILENCE.

OBJECTION#17:=

Is sound and silence one and the same thing?

Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes.

The formless eternal silence takes on the form of ephemeral sound. Ephemeral creation is the celebration of the eternal Creator. The creator is the celebration - the eternal creator’s endless ephemeral celebrations. 

ANSWER :=

THIS IS SOME WHAT A COMPLEX OBJECTION.

THE QUESTION ”Is sound and silence one and the same thing?”is discussed above. See Objection #16.

THE QUESTION WITH AN ANSWER:=

“Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes.”Is also discussed above.

Now we come to the most new part of the Objection.

The Objection Maker says:=

The formless eternal silence takes on the form of ephemeral sound. Ephemeral creation is the celebration of the eternal Creator. The creator is the celebration - the eternal creator’s endless ephemeral celebrations. 

IF EACH CELEBRATION IS ETERNAL THEN NON ETERNAL EVENTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE. IF EACH CELEBRATION IS NOT ETERNAL, THEN THEY ARE CORRUPTIBLE, FALLABLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE OF DEITY. One again the Objection Maker uses the word Celebration. A Creation One With Deity is A Celebration, as it appears from his work. DEITY is Infinitely Beyond the Possibility of Fallables to be One with Him .But if one may ask that what are the differences among the Celebrator , Celebration, and the Celebrated Ones.Does it mean that the Self of a Creation is distint from Deity i.e they are distinct in selves but they share one and the same Essence? In other words they are essentially the same but selfly different from one an other. Is that so? If not then they are one in each regard. If so then there is no Creation at all but there is only one individual that is Deity. But if their Selves are Distinct but the Essence is one and the same, then the Axiom One Who Is Distinct From Deity is Not Deity is contradicted.

Since according to Respected Objection Maker Deity is Infalable and we are not. It may not sound obscure to some since love and faith are blind.

Actually an Accident is Ephemeral, but even sounds can be conserved as it is possible, only our ears fails to listen them. No Creation whether Ephemeral Accident or Non Ephemeral Substance is a celebration as according to the sense of the Objection Maker. Creations Of Deity are Distinct From Deity. No Creation say world Existeth In Divine Essence.

PROBLEM OFC ELEBRATION:=

The belief that Deity can Only Make Things in His Godhead and cannot make any thing out of Godhead is the belief of Celebrations.This is a very dangerous claim . Uptill now the attempted proof of this claim is found to be as below:=

136913701371

137213731374

13751376

1377

1378

1379

1380

13811382

1383

1384

13851386

1387

1388

1389

1390

13911392

1393139413951396139713981399

1400

140114021403

1404

14051406

41

41

ALLEGED PROOF:=

God cannot make any thing out of Him Self and Out Of His Godhead since God and Godheads both are Infinite, and there is no place out of God and Godhead where a thing can be created. To suggest such a place or space implies that God and Godhead are Finite.

Refutation:=

This is a very wrong concept of Divine Infinity. This is a Volumetric Infinity and Volumeness is not an Attribute Of Deity. On the otherhand Volumeness is Impossible and Per Se Absurd Upon Deity. This belief is based on two things. A] Deity Is Infinite In volume. B]Deity occupieth All the Spaces and places. So if there is a place Out Of Deity then Deity Ceaseth to be Infinite. Infinity Of Deity Is In regard to Attributes ascribed to the Deity and not in regard to Attributes Absolute-Impossible Upon [Unto] Deity. Also no Celebration can penetrate in God and Godhead. Deity is impenetrable. So no Celebration can exist in Deity or in His Divinity [Godhead/Divine Essence].

There is no Per Se Possibility of Any Celebration in Deity . If a thing is neither the God nor in the God, Neither the Godhead nor in the Godhead then it cannot be a Celebration.

According to Dianand Sarsuti each Spirit is not only eternal but Self Existing and Necessary Being so in this case they are independent of Deity in their Beingness [Existence] even if they are supposed to be residing in Godhead or God or both.

So not all the Hindu Sects or Cults agree with the Objection Maker.

OBJECTION#18:=

So is the Quran created or eternal? The Quran is the created form of the eternal uncreated formless silence. Ditto other scriptures.

ANSWER:=

ONE MAY CALL IT ETERNAL DIVINE SPEECH AS FORMLESS SCILENCE IF HE OR SHE LIKES IT BUT ONE MAY NOT CALL IT SO IF ONE MAY NOT LIKE IT. AS FOR THE OTHER SCRIPTURES , IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THEY ARE ALSO LIKE QURAN. SEE THE WORKS OF HADIS, THE SCRIPTURES YET NOT DIVINE SPEECH.

QURAN IS NOT THE ONLY MUSLIM ARABIC SCRIPTURE, BUT BOOKS LIKE BUKHARI , MUSLIM, MUVATTA, TARMIZI ETC ARE ALSO MUSLIM SCRIPTURES . THOUGH INITIALLY THEY WERE ORAL TRADITIONS BUT ONCE WRITTEN THEY DO BECOM SCRIPTURES. SO NOT ALL SCRITURES ARE SPEECH OF DEITY. It may be noted that if Speech is inaudible ,it may not be called scilence in the meaning if Speechlesness.

Conclusion:=

Qur’a:n is not Eternal FormlesScilence But Qur’a:n is Eternal Formless Speech. If by the word silence it is means that there is no Accidental Sounds then even Deity is in Eternal Silence , not just Eternal and Perpetual Divine Speech.

OBJECTION #19:=

Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes.ANSWER:=A]Creation and Creator are not the same. Since :=1] The Creator Is Certainly Not A Creation.2] The Creations are Not Eternals and Creator Is Eternal.3]Creator is Absolute Necessary Existent and Creations Are Absolute Possible Existents.4] It Is Absolute Absurd that Singularity Is Plurality and Plurality Is Singularity. 5]Singularity is Not Plurality and Plurality Is Not Singularilty. See Above:- B] If two things [One Deity and One Creation] are One then they are not Just two distinct individuals in one Essence but One and same Individual with only One Essence.

1407

14081409

1410

14111412141314141415

14161417

14181419

1420

1421

14221423

1424

1425

142614271428

1429143014311432

1433

143414351436

1437

1438

1439144014411442144314441445144614471448

42

42

THE DOGMA OF CELIBRATION MAY BE REJECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:=Either a Celibration is the Divine Esse [Existence] or It is Not .If it is then it is the Divine Essence , since Esse is the Essence and Essence is the Esse ,Essence is the Substance and the Substance is the Essence, Essence is the Form and the Form is the Essence and last not the least Essence is the Nature and the Nature is the Essence, IN THE CASE OF DEITY. If it is the Divine Essence then it is Necessary Being , and if Necessary Being then Supreme Being. But a Celebration is neither the Supreme Being nor the Necessary Being. Since Supreme Being and Necessary Being are One and the same Individual i.e Deity. But according to the Objection Maker a Celebration is not Deity in Each and Every Respect and regard. If the Celibration is not the Divine Esse then the Divine Esse is Communicable to It. IF SO then a celebration ceases to be a celebration and becomes a Hypostasis in Divine Esse, and if in Divine Esse then in Divine Essence ,SINCE DIVINE ESSE AND DIVINE ESSENCE ARE ONE AND THE SAME. IF a Hypostasis in Divine Essence [GODHEAD\DIVINITY] then Deity Since a Hypostasis in the Divine Essence [If the Divine Essence Hath Any ]is the Deity. If the Deity then the Deity in each and every respect and regard. But this is not what the Objection Maker believes He accepts that Celebrations are not Deity in All REGARDS [See Above].If the Divine Essence is not Communicable to the Celibration then it is Incommunicable, Distinct Per Se Seorsum. In this case the Celebration is not in the Divine Esse , since if a thing is Incommunicable, and distinct from theDivine Essence then it is Necessarily Per Se Seorsum and Per Se Excluded from It. C] Those people who say Deity is in Every thing some times also say Every thing is in Deity but it is not necessary that every one who say such a thing also say the converse.Similarly a number of people say Deity is in time but some of them also say Time is in Deity.If the Word “IN” is used in the meaning of “COMMUNICABLE” then:= If A is Communicable to B then B is Communicable to A.This Implies that If A is in B then B is in A, if the world “In” means :=

Communicable To.D]If Creations are celebrations and Celebrationsare not Per Se Subsistent, but they Subsist and Exist inthe Deity then they are Assumed in the Deity.If they are Assumed in the Deity then they are either Assumed in the Divine OUSIA [Godhead\Divinity] or in the Divine Hypostasis.But Divine Ousia Cannot Assume any thing whether the thing is SUBSISTENT OR INSUBSISTENT.There fore if the Deity Can Assume any thing, the thing can only be assumed in the Hypostasis [If The Divine Ousia Hath Any].But the learned Objection Maker does not seem to believe in Hypostases [At least One] in the Divine Ousia . If it is assumed that the learned Objection Maker does believe in Hypostasesin Divine Ousia [At Least One] then the Hypostasis [If There Is Any In Divine Ousia] Can Assume Only Natures. It Cannot Assume Per Ser Subsistents ,Substances ,ens , Persons etc. If All the things in the World and the World are Assumed in the Hypostasisthen All the World and All the Things in the World are Just Natures, neither Per Se Subsistent nor Per Se Seorsum , but Existing and Subsisting in the Rational Hypostasis, which in tern Exist in Divine Ousia, in the Divine Being. But it is incorrect to Assume that the Entire World and All the Things In the World are nothing but Natures Existing and Subsisting in Alio[Other] i.e in the said Rational Hypostasis.Thus is a Celebration Exists and Subsists in the Deity if and only if:=a] Each Celebration is a Nature. b]There is at least one Hypostasis in the Ousia of the Supreme Being. c]The Nature s are Not Per Se Subsistent but Subsist and Exist in Alio.d]The Hypostasis and the Natures form and Constitute a Union. But if the Hypostases [If There Are Some In The Divine Ousia /Essence]Assume Natures of the all the Things in the World and the Very World It Self[If they Can Assume any Nature]this means nothing but that the Deity became the World and Every thing in the World [With Out Ceasing to be Deity].T o claim that the Deity Became the World and each and every Thing in the World is a kind of Pantheism. But the Objection Maker does not seems to hold this view. Further if a Hypostasis can assume any Nature It CanOnly Assume the Nature of a Male Human Being [ M H B].It does not have any ability to Assume a Female Human Natures, Angelic Natures, [Non Divine]Spiritual Natures,Hemi Human Natures etc. Not to mention Natures of Non Living things.Also the Celebrations in this case do lack some thing [ in this case] which make them to fall short from being Substances, Subsistents, Ens , Substrata etc.Some thing missing.Now if such a thing is Possible since there is no Impossibility of Non Divine Substances then the question is how can one decide that the entire World is a Nature or a Celebration but not a Per Se Seorsum Subsistence. A vey difficult descision for the Objection Maker and a very difficult choice indeed. If the Deity Hath become all things which do exist in the World and the very world itself then:=α] Deity is the Subject and Object of every Transitive Act [Verb]which does occur in the World for example Deity is the Burner and the Burned.,Deity is the Operator and the Operated [One],Deity is the Stealer and the [thing] Stolen, Deity is the Cannibal and the pray of the Cannibol.β]Deity is a star [say Sun/Sol] and Deity is the Planets revolving around the Star,Deity is a Nuclear Particle and also Extra Nuclear Particle.The Deity is the Time, and also The Deity is the Space.γ] Deity Commiteth all sorts of [transitive] Crimes, Sins , Transgressions etc. what so ever eg.,lying,cruelity,injustice brutality, terrorism Cannibalism .δ] Deity Commiteth all Sexual Activities by becoming male living beings and their female counterparts. Deity conceives ,and gets pregnan by becoming Women.ε] There are several intransitive Acts which cannot be Ascribed to Deity yet the Dogma Of Celebration suggests the Deity does them by becoming Creations like Expansion, Contraction,Explosion,Sleeping, Moving etc.ζ]There is no Non Divine Substance,but Natures Of Non Divine Substances in the World.This means that Deity is Doing all Transatives acts by becoming Subjects [Agents] and Objects in the World. One Celebration Of Deity doing a Transact ACT to an other Deity is always doing things to Himself whether the Acts or Good or Bad or Evil what so everThe consequences of Dogma Of Celebrations in Divine Ousia stated above are Indispensible and inevitable.Even the learned Objection Maker is not likely to accept these consequences of this Dogma. Assuming a Nature means nothing but to become a being of the Nature. Conclusion:=The Dogma of Celebration involves Deity in each and every flaw, defect, bad, evil . This dogma is a disgrace to Divine Being [Deity/God / Barmh Eshvera etc].This Dogma may leads to the view that there is nothing evil in the world, even cannibalism is not evil etc.

E] It may be noted that the learned Objection Maker Does neglect the Problems and Objections on the DOGMA OF CELEBRATIONS and Make objections on others. Sometimes Objections are as blind as love .

144914501451145214531454145514561457145814591460146114621463146414651466

14671468

1469147014711472147314741475147614771478147914801481148214831484148514861487148814891490149114921493149414951496149714981499150015011502150315041505150615071508150915101511151215131514151515161517

43

43

Now we quote Pandit Dayanand Sarsoti who tried to defend Eternity Of Vedas. What so ever he said was inspired by Christian and Muslim Works.His words for Vedas Do Serve our Purpose:=

Note :- Pandit Dianand has attemted to answer interpellations as well. Some of the critic remarks are added by the author of the present replier which were initially absent . The are added in Upper case in general.

Chapter 4,The Eternity of the Vedas

The Vedas having been produced by God and all powers of God being eternal, their eternity is self-evident.

Here someone might say that the Vedas could not be eternal, because they consisted of words, and words, like a jar, were effects i.e., things made or fashioned. The words being non-eternal, the Vedas should necessarily be admitted to be so. No, they cannot be admitted to be non-eternal, because words are eternal as well as effects, (i.e., not-eternal).

The relations of words and meanings which exist in the knowledge of God must be eternal, but, those,

which exist in ours, are effects (i.e., non-eternal). (1)

All powers of Him must be eternal whose knowledge and acts are eternal, without a beginning and innate and inherent in Him. The Vedas being the knowledge of such a being can never be called non-eternal.

[THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE.]

Q. – But, there were no books in existence and consequently no acts of learning and teaching the Vedas were possible at the time when all this universe lay dissolved and disintegrated

in its causal state and when all gross effects were non-existent. How, then, do you admit the Vedas to be eternal?

A. ~ This objection can be raised in respect of books, ink, paper, etc., and acts of man, but not in respect of the acts and powers of God. We believe the Vedas to be eternal because they are co-eval with and a part of God’s knowledge. [IF THEY COEXIST WITH DIVINE OMNISCIENCE THEN THEY ARE NOT THE OMNISCIENCE SINCE THE SAID STATEMENTDOES NOT MEAN THAT DIVINE OMNISCIENCE CO-EXISTS WITH IT SELF .IF VEDAS CO EXIST WITH DIVINE KNOWLEDGE THEN ALL THE SPEECH OF HUMAN BEINGS ALSO COEXIST WITH DIVINE KNOWLEDEGE , ALL THE HOLY BOOKS OF ALL RELIGIONS ALSO CO EXIST WITH DIVINE KNOWLEDGE LIKE HEBREW BIBLE OF JUDAISM , CHRISTIAN NEW TESTAMENT,GITA OF

Search

15181519

1520

15211522

15231524

1525

1527

15281529

1530153115321533

1534

1535

153615371538

15391540

15411542

15431544

1545154615471548154915501551

44

44

SANYATHATHAN DHARMA ETC ETC. SO THIS ARGUMENT GO ON PROVING ETERNITY OF ALL HOLY BOOKS OF DIFFERENT RELIGIONS. EVEN GITA AND RAMAYAN ARE ETERNAL BY THIS ARGUMENT. IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT GITA , NEW TESTAMENT ETC DO NOT CO EXIST WITH DIVINE KNOWLEDGE THEN DIVINE KNOWLEDGE CEASES TO BE OMNISCIENCE.]

It follows, therefore, that the Vedas cannot be non-eternal simply because the acts of teaching and learning and the books are non-eternal. The knowledge of God is eternal and infallible and, therefore, the relations between the letters, words and meanings in the Vedas subsist for all times. They are the same in the present kalpa as they were in the past and shall remain the same in the future also.

[THE SAME IS TRUE FOR OTHER BOOKS AND HUMAN WORDS , SINCE THE RELATION OF THEIR WORDS AND MEANINGS, WORDS AND MEANINGS ALL CO EXIST WITH DIVINE KNOWLEDGE . IF THEY CO EXIST IN ONE CALPA THE CO EXISTED IN EVERY CALPA OF THE PAST AND SHALL CO EXIST IN EVERY CALPA IN FUTURE. SO THEY ARE ALSO ETERNAL BY THIS ARGUMENT. IF THEY DO NOT CO EXIST IN A SINGLE CALPA THEN DEITY [BARMH] DOES CEASE TO BE OMNISCIENCE.]

Hence it is said in the Rigveda 8:8, 48. ‘The great Creator, made the sun and the moon just as He had made them before! The ‘words the sun and the moon’ in the verse are class names and their meaning is that the plan of the names and their meaning is that the plan of the creation of the sun and the moon in the present kalpa is the same as that which existed in God’s knowledge in the previous kalpa, because His knowledge is not liable to increase or decrease or variation. The same is true of the Vedas, for, they too, are the products of His knowledge. [IT MEANS THAT VEDAS ARE PRODUCTS AND THE DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IS THE PRODUCER. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THAT THE PRODUCER IS NOT ANY ONE OF ITS PRODUCT. SO DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IS NONE OF THE FOUR VEDAS. ALSO THE SAME IS TRUE FOR OTHER BOOKS AND WORDS STATED ABOVE].

We shall now give some quotations from the works on the science of grammar, etc., which go to prove the eternalness of the Vedas. Sage Patanjali, the author of the Mahabhashya, says, ‘The words are eternal. Eternal words must needs consist of unchangeable and immoveable letters which are not subject to elision, augmentation or substitution.

[ THIS IS BASED ON THE SAYING OF SAGE PATANJALI. BUT ARE HIS WORDS SO TRUSTWORDY THAT THEY CAN DECIDE THE ETERNITY OR NOT ETERNITY OF VEDAS WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DIVINE WORDS?

BUT IF THIS IS TRUE THEN IT IS NOT ONLY TRUE FOR VEDAS BUT FOR ALL THE BOOKS AND WORDS STATED ABOVE].

This remark occurs in many places in the Mahabhashya from the 1st anhika onwards. There is also the following observation which occurs in the commentary on the aphorism ANEUN, ‘ A word is that which is perceived with ear, understood by the intellect, rendered perceptible by being pronounced and which inheres in space.The meaning is that all words are eternal whether they be Vedic (peculiar to the Vedas) or Loukika (used by the generality of mankind), because they are composed of letters which are imperishable and

1552155315541555

1556155715581559

156015611562156315641565

156615671568156915701571157215731574

1575157615771578

15791580

15811582

158315841585158615871588

45

45

immoveable and are not subject to elisions, augmentation and substitution. Words are eternal because in them there is neither apaya = elisions, disappearance, nor, upajana = augmentation, nor vikaraa = substitution.

[BUT THIS GO ON PROVING THE ETERNITY OF ALL WORKS AUTHORED SO FAR AND ALL THE WORDS SPOKEN SO FAR ].

The author of the Mahabhashya anticipates the objection that words cannot be eternal because there are rules for their elision, etc., in the Ganapatha, Ashtadhyayi and the Mahabhashya.

In the commentary on the aphorism ‘DAADHAADHVADAADOU’, he observes as follows:- ‘In the opinion of Panini, the son of Dakshi, complete words are substituted for complete words, because if the change had taken place in one portion only the eternalness (of words) would not be established. It means that whole groups are substituted for other whole group of letters, i.e., specified groups aresubstituted for other specified groups, e.g., the place of the word-group VEDAPAAR + GAM = U + SU + BHOO + SHAP + TIP. They are mistaken who thing that in this group AM of GAM, U of U, U of SU OO of BHOO, SHA, PA of TIP are elided because it has been said that the change does not occur in a portion only.

In the opinion of Acharya Panini, the son of Dakshi, the eternalness of a word would not be established if elision, augmentation and substitution were to be confined to a portion of a world only. When it is said that AT is added or BHOO is changed into BHAA the meaning is as explained above.

A word is as defined as that which is perceived with the organ of hearing, is understood by means of intellect, becomes manifest on being pronounced and inheres in space. This definition of word also shows that it is eternal. The effort used in pronouncing (a letter) and the act of hearing it ceases to exist after a moment. The author of the Mahabhashya says that ‘speech resides in one letter at a time. The action of speech terminates with the pronunciation of eachletter.

We should, therefore, conclude that it is the act of speech and not the word itself that is non-eternal.

[THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR TANACH, NEW TESTAMENT ,GITA ETC AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE.]

Q – But the word also like the action of speech comes into existence when it is pronounced. How can it, then, be eternal?

A. ~ A word, like space (Akasha), remains unmanifested in the absence of means, although it is pre-existent. It becomes manifest through the action of breath (prana) and speech.

158915901591

15921593

15941595

15961597159815991600160116021603

160416051606

160716081609161016111612

1613

16141615

1616

1617

16181619

16201621

46

46

[ Menifestation is Either a Quality Of the Pre-Existent [Eternal] or an Act.Of the Pre Existent. In either case it Must be Eternal, Since Qualities and Acts Of An Eternal are Eternal even According to Pandit Dianand Sarsuti. So it is either Eternally Manifested or it is Impossible to be Manifested, ]

For example, in pronouncing the word GOU: so long as speech is engaged with the letter G it has nothing to do with the letter OU and when it is engaged with the letter OU it has no concern with the visargah.

It is therefore, the act of speech and pronunciation which is subject to elision and augmentation and not the word itself which is indivisible, uniform and available everywhere. Where there are no acts of speech and air, words can neither be pronounced nor heard. We, therefore, conclude that words are eternal like space. According to the grammatical science all words are eternal, what to say of the Vedic words.

[IT IS MEEKLY ACCEPTED THAT ALL THE WORDS SPOKEN SO FAR AND ALL THE BOOKS AUTHORED SO FAR ARE ETERNAL. IF SO THEN WHY ONLY VEDAS ARE SAID TO BE ETERNAL, AS IF NO OTHER WORK [BOOK] OR WORD IS ETERNA. IT IS JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLES OF NEW DELHI ARE HUMANS BEINGS AS IF ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT. IS THIS NOT SOME THING PROBLEMATIC].

The sage Jaimini also has established the eternalness of words. Says he, in his Purvamimansa I.1;18. “It (the word) is surely eternal because it is manifested for the sake of others. The meaning of the aphorism is this.

[The word ‘surely’ is used with a view to remove doubts about the non-eternalness of words.]

A word being imperishable is eternal. [THIS MEANS THAT ONE THAT IS NOT ANNIHILATABLE IS ETERNAL. POINT TO BE NOTED].Since the purpose of pronouncing a word is the conveying of information to another it cannot be non-eternal. If it were so, the information that such and such was the connotation of the word “cow’ would be incapable of being conveyed by means of a non-eternal word.[PROOF IS REQUIRED FOR THIS CLAIM, ANY HOW IT IS APPEARENTLY GOOD].This can be possible only when the words are eternal, for, in that case alone can there be a constant relation between the signifier and the thing signified. This is also the reason why many speakers are able to pronounce simultaneously the same word ‘cow’ at different places and also to pronounce it at different times. Jaimini has adduced several arguments in support of the eternalness of words.Again, sage Kanada, the author of the Vaisheshika aphorisms also says : ‘The Vedas are authoritative because they are His word and because they contain an exposition of Dharma.

Vaisheshika I.1:8 . The meaning of the aphorism is that all men should acknowledge the eternal authority of the four Vedas, because they enjoin the performance of Dharma as a duty and are the word of God.

1622162316241625

162616271628

16291630163116321633

16341635163616371638

1639

164016411642

1643

16441645164616471648164916501651165216531654

165516561657

47

47

[THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR JEWISH BIBLE AS WELL:=

All men should acknowledge the eternal authority of the four TORAH, because It enjoin the performance of Dharma[Religion] as a duty and are the word of God.

Similarly, the sage Goutama also says in his Nyaya Shastra; ‘The authoritativeness of verbal proof is like that of the Veda and the medical science (Ayurveda) and it has been declared by the Aptas (trustworthy persons)’.

Nyaya II, 1:67. Its purport is that all men should acknowledge the authoritativeness of the Vedas which are eternal and are the word of God, because all the great Yogis, Brahma, etc., who were righteous, free from deceit, treachery and other similar defects, merciful, preachers oftruth, and masters of learning have admitted the authoritativeness of the Vedas to be of the same nature as that of the Mantra and the Ayurveda. Just as one considers a mantra, which reveals a scientific principle to be true and authoritative when its truth is experimentally established, and, just as one, on observing that the use of medicines prescribed in one portion of the Ayurveda cures disease, comes to have faith in the medicines prescribed as the other portions of the same, so, on being satisfied, by direct cognition of the truth of a proposition mentioned in one portion of the Vedas, one ought to believe in the truth of the contents of their remaining portions which deal with subjects that are incapable of direct proof.

Sage Vatsyayana also deliver himself to the same effect in his commentary on this aphorism. Says he, ‘Thus inference is drawn from the fact that the seers and the expositors were one and the same. The same trustworthy persons who were the expositors of the Vedas were also the expositors of the medical science. From this fact we infer that the Vedas are as much authoritative as the medical science. Hence the argument, that the words of the Vedas are of eternal authority, because they have been acknowledged to be such by trustworthy persons. Its purport is that as the word of a trustworthy person is authoritative so the Vedas also should be admitted to possess authority because they also are the word of the perfectly trustworthy God and their authoritativeness has been acknowledged by all trustworthy persons. Consequently the Vedas, being God’s knowledge, their eternalness follows as a matter of course.

Sage Patanjali also observes as follows on this subject:-‘He is the teacher of the ancients also, because He is not limited by time,’ Yoga I.1:26.

God is the teacher of all – of the ancients such as Agni, Vayu, Aditya, Angiras, Brahma, etc. who were born in the beginning of creation, of the moderns such as ourselvesand of those also, who are to be born in future. God is called the teacher because He imparts knowledge of true substances by means of the Vedas. He is eternal because He is not affected by the action of time.

1658

16591660

1661

1662

166316641665

1666166716681669167016711672167316741675

1676167716781679168016811682168316841685

168616871688

168916901691169216931694

48

48

The afflictions born of ignorance, etc. sinful acts or their impressions touch Him not. In Him there is highest knowledge and wisdom, innate and eternal. The Vedas are His word. They are, therefore, necessarily eternal and full of truth.

The remarks of Acharya Kapila also, on this subject, which occurs in the 5th Chapter of his Sankhya Shastra, are the same effect. Says he; ‘ (The Vedas), having been produced by His own power, carry their authority within themselves, Sankhya V. 51. [THIS MEANS THAT THE DIVINE POWER IS THE PRODUCER AND VEDAS ARE PRODUCED ONES. AS PRODUCERS (ACTIVE PARTICIPLE) AND PRODUCED ONES (PASSIVE PARTICIPLE) ARE MUTUALLY DISCTINCT THEN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE IS NOT VEDAS AND VEDAS ARE NOT DIVINE OMNISCIENCE].

The meaning of this is that as the Vedas have been brought to light by the chief inherent power of God, one need to acknowledge their self-authoritative and eternal character.

Sage Krishandwaipayana Vyasa also makes the following observations on this subject in his Vedanta – Shastra:- ‘He is the source of theShastra Veda).’ Vedanta I.1:34.It means that Brahma is the source and cause of the Rig and the other Vedas which are the seat and repository of numerous sciences illumine all subjects like a lamp and deal with all knowable things.

It is impossible that the author of such Shastras as the Rigveda and others which are encyclopaedias of universal knowledge should be any but an omniscient being. It is evident that he who expounds a subject knows more than what he writes as Panini did in the domain of the science of grammar.[THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR HEBRAIC,GREEK AND ARABIC SCRIPTURES.]

Shankarcharya, in his commentary on this aphorism says that a person, who writes upon it, is so well known in the world that it is not necessary to labor the point further.

This goes to show that the Shastra of the Omniscient God must needs be eternal and must contain knowledge of all things. In the same chapter of the Vedanta Shastra occurs another aphorism, viz, And ‘forpurport of which is as follows:- God, is Omnipresent, etc., and pervades all things on all sides. There is not a single atom (paramanu) in which He is not present. [DEITY IS FAR BEYOND EACH AND EVERY PARMANU.DEITY IS PER SE TRANCEDENCE FROM PENITRATING IN ATOMS /PARMANUS AND SPIRITS ETC.]He is the maker of the whole universe.[NOT JUST MAKER BUT A CREATOR,I.E ONE THAT MAKETH THINGS FROM NOTHINGAND HATH THE POWER TO DO SO.] He is mighty [NOT JUST MIGHTY BUT ALMIGHTY] and possessed of the threefold body, the gross, the subtle and the causal. Even an atom (paramanu) cannot penetrate Him. [SO THE CELEBRATIONS CANNOT PENETRATE DIVINE ESSENCE] Being

impenetrable, He is incapable of receiving a wound. (2)

He is not bound by the bonds of arteries, etc., and hence nothing can bind or throw a veil over him. He always remains away and aloof from such defects as ignorance, etc. He is never touched by sin, nor does He ever commit a sinful act. He is Omniscient; He bears witness to and is the knower of the minds of all. He is without the three causes, the efficient, the material and the general.

169516961697

169816991700170117021703

17041705

17061707170817091710

1711171217131714

17151716

1717171817191720172117221723172417251726

1727

1728172917301731

49

49

He is the universal father [THIS ASCRIBES THE QUALITY OF GENERATION TO DEITY], but of Him the generator there is none. He always exists by His own might, God, the supreme Self [i.e OUSIA SINCE DIVINE OUSIA IS THE DIVINE SELF (GODHEAD\DIVINITY)], is all[OMNI] existence, all [OMNI]

consciousness and all[OMNI] bliss. He imparted the true knowledge of things to his eternal subjects in the beginning of creation by revealing the Vedas. [SUBJECTS ARE NOT ETERNAL] Whenever he creates

[MANUFACTURES OR FASIONS OR ASSEMBLES ,SINCE CREATION IN ITS REAL AND PURE MEANING AS USED IN SEMETIC RELIGIONS IS NOT ACCEPTEB BY DIANAND SARSUTI/SARSOTI] the world He vouchsafes the Vedas, the repositories of all knowledge, to His creatures for their benefit. [IF ENTIRE DIVINE OMNISCIENCE IS CONTAINED IN FOUR SANSCRIT VEDAS THEN ALL THE NON SANSCRIT/SANSKRIT WORKS ARE IN VEDAS. THIS IMPLIES THAT VEDAS ARE NO MORE SANSCRIT, SINCE DIVINE OMNISCIENCE INCLUDES NON SANSCRIT SCRIPTURES AS WELL].

Everyone should, therefore, believe that the Vedas are eternal. They are God’s knowledge always remains uniform and unchanged. [DIVINE OMNISCIENCE ARE FAR BEYOND VEDAS., IT IS NOT LIMITED TO VEDAS, DIVINE OMNISCIENCE ENCOMPASS VEDAS AND NON VEDIC HOLY BOOKS AS WELL, SECULAR WORKS ETC.] The Vedas can, with as great certainty be shown to be eternal on reason as on authority. One should acknowledge the eternalness of the Vedas according to the maxim that something

cannot come out of nothing and nothing cannot produce something.(3)

That alone will exist in future which exists at present.

It is impossible that a thing which has no root should have branches.(4) To hold the contrary opinion

would be like seeing the marriage of the son of a sterile woman. If she has a son she cannot be sterile

and if she has no son no one can see his marriage. (5)Those very considerations apply to the case in

hand. If God be devoid of infinite knowledge, He would not be able to impart it to others, no one would be able to acquire knowledge and experience; for, nothing can grow whichhas no root. Nothing is seen in the world which has been produced without a cause. We shall now state what is the actual experience of all men. We retain the impressions of that only which has been the subject of our direct cognition and we remember and know that only of which we retain the impressions.

This knowledge alone supplies us with the motives of action and inaction. (attraction and repulsion). It cannot be otherwise. Whosoever reads Sanskrit gets the impressions of that language only and of no other. [THE SAME IS TRUE OF HEBREW,LATIN,GREEK,ARABIC ,PERSIAN,SINDHI ETC].

In this way if God had not instructed and taught men in the beginning of creation no one would have been able to come by experience that is requisite for acquisition of knowledge. [ IT IS CORRECT THAT DEITY IS THE ONLY TEACHER BUT THE QUESTION IS DID HE TEACH THROUGH VEDAS. IF SO THEN VEDAS ARE NOT THE BOOKS OF LEARNING SANSKRIT. SO HOW DID MEN LEARN SANSKRIT WHEN IT WAS

173217331734

17351736

173717381739174017411742

17431744174517461747

1748

1749

1750

1751

1752

175317541755175617571758

175917601761

1762176317641765

50

50

REVIELD TO THEM. THIS MEANS MEN DID KNOW SANSCRIT PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED REVIELATION OF VEDAS].

Without such experience there would have been no impressions and without impressions there would have been no remembrance and without remembrance there would have been no knowledge, not even the semblance of it.

[THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE. IF SOME STATEMENTS ARE NOT TRUE FOR QURAN , IT MAY NOT CAUSE ANY PROBLEM. THE BASICS MAY BE COSIDERED.]

Q. – But why? Men have a natural bent to act and in their activities they experiencepleasure and pain. So, gradually and in course to time they must increase their stock of knowledge. Why should it then be believed that the Vedas were produced by God?

A. ~ We refuted this objection while treating of the origin of the Vedas. We proved there that even now no one acquires knowledge and is able to increase it without receiving instruction from others; so, man could not have made progress in learning and knowledge without having received instruction from God in the beginning through the Vedas.

There we illustrated our meaning by the case of children kept in a wilderness without instruction and also by the cause of the dwellers of forests. We sat that such children and dwellers of forest so could neither acquire knowledge, nor, learn the use of human speech, without instruction – let alone the question of the origin of knowledge (through experience).

Therefore, the knowledge contained in the Vedas, which has proceeded from God, must needs to be eternal like all of His attributes. [IF VEDAS ARE ETERNAL THEN IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IS CONTAINED IN THEM SINCE ONE ETERNAL CANNOT BE CONTAINED IN AN OTHER] The name, the attributes and the actions of an eternal substance must themselves be eternal, because their substratum itself is eternal. [THIS IS TO ACCEPT THAT THE ONE WHO IS THE AGENT OF ACT OF PROCEEDING IS NOT THE VERY ACT OF PROCEEDING, AND ONE WHICH IS PROCEEDED IS NEITHER THE ACT OF PROCEEDING NOR THE AGENT OF ACT OF PROCEEDING. IT IS VERY SIMPLE THAT THE ACT OF PROCEDURE ,THE AGENT OF ACT OF PROCEDURE AND THE THE ONE WHICH IS THE RESULT OF THE ACT OF PROCEDURE ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER].Existence of producer and if the producer itself happens to be the result of combination it will have its own producer and so on ad infinitum. That which itself is the product of combination cannot have the power of combining prakriti or the atoms (paramanus); for, the latter will be subtler than itself. The subtler is the Atma (pervader) of the grosser; for, the former is capable of penetrating into the latter as fire penetrates into iron.

17661767

176817691770

177117721773

1774

177517761777

1778177917801781

1782178317841785

17861787178817891790179117921793179417951796179717981799

51

51

As fire, on account of its subtle composition can enter into the hard and gross iron and separate its particles from one another, so, water, being subtler than earth, can enter into its particles and combine them into a ball or separate them from one another.

God is above conjunction and disjunction and is all-pervading. He is, consequently, able to bring about conjunction and disjunction according to law. It cannot be otherwise. [LAWS ARE DESCRIPTIVE OR PRESCRIPTIVE. IN EITHER CASE OMNIPOTENT DEITY CAN VIOLATE THEM]

We being ourselves within the sphere of combination and disjunction are unable to combine or separate prakriti or paramanus. If God also were within that sphere He would be, like us, incapable of bringing about combination and disjunction proceed, beingthe first cause of the things coming into existence by means of combination and disjunction, is not under their sway. Without the first cause there would be no beginning of combination and disjunction.[DEITY CANNOT BE THE FIRST CAUSE IN THE DAYANANDI SYSTEM.1) ACCORDING TO HIS SYSTEM MATTERIALS LIKE PERCRITI PERMANU ETC ARE ETERNAL BUT THE UNIVERSE IS NOT. HOW EVER DEITY IS ALWAYS MAKING A UNIVERSE AND AFTER IT PERISHES ITS MATTERIAL STILL EXISTS, FROM THE MATTERIAL DEITY MAKES AN OTHER ONE. AS THIS IS A BEGINNINGLESS THERE IS NO FIRST.2) THERE IS NO FIRST UNIVERSE AS ACCORDING TO DAYANANDI SYSTEM OTHERWISE ACCORDING TO RESPECTED DAYANAND IT MEANS DEITY WAS IDLE AND INERT] The Vedas having been revealed by, and having always existed in, the knowledge of God who is the first cause of combination and separation, who remains ever unchanged in His essence, who is without a beginning, eternal, unborn, and whose might endures for ever, their eternalness and the truthfulness of the knowledge contained in them are established.* [THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE. ALSO VEDAS ARE FINITE WORKS WITH A BEGINNING AND WITH AN END, FROM THE FIRST PAGE OF FIRST VEDA TO THE LAST PAGE OF LAST VEDA. IF DIVINE OMNISCIENCE IS CONTAINED IN THEM THEN THEY MUST HAVE INFINITE NUMBER OF PAGES. THIS IS A PROOF THAT THEY CANNOT CONTAIN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. IF THESE FINITE NUMBER OF PAGES AND FINITE NUMBER OF WORDS FROM THE FIRST WORD OF FORST VEDA TO THE LAST WORD OF LAST VEDA ARE IN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE THEN THE DIVINE OMNISCIENCE IS INFINITELY MORE THEN THESE WORDS . FOR EXAMPLE THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS IN OMNISCIENCE OF DEITY BESIDE VEDAS. LAST NOT THE LEAST IT MEANS THAT THE MEANING OF VEDAS GOES FAR BEYOND THE SANSKRIT MENANINGS. SO IF A WORD IN SANSCRIT DOES NOT MEAN A THING , IT MEANS THAT IS SHOULD SINCE THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO INCLUDE ALL ABSOLUTE INFINITE OMNISCIENCE IN FINITE WORDS OF VEDAS EVEN IN DIVINE OMNISENCE. ].

NOTE: IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MUSLIMS DO NOT AGREE WITH DIANAND SARSUTI ON SEVERAL ISSUES.

BUT THIS IS PRESENTED JUST TO PROVE THAT ONE MAY USE SOME ARGUMENTS TO DEFEND SUCH OBJECTION.

180018011802

180318041805

18061807180818091810181118121813181418151816181718181819182018211822182318241825182618271828182918301831

1832

1833

1834

18351836

52

52

FOOTNOTES:=

(1) THE WORDS SPOKEN BY HUMAN BEINGS AND THERE MEANINGS ALL ARE IN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. SO IN THIS CASE OF SENSE THE HUMAN WORDS ARE ALSO ETERNAL. THERE ARE THE FOLLOWING SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE VEDAS AND THE WORDS OF HUMANS,1] WORDS IN BOTH CASES ARE NOT ETERNAL WHETHER READING OR WRITING OR SOUNDS OR PRONOUNCIATIONS ETC. 2] THE WORDS WHETHER OF VEDAS OR HUMANS BOTH ARE IN KNOWLEDGE OF DEITY, THEIR MEANINGS ARE ALSO IN THE OMNISCIENCE, THEIR CONNECTION IS ALSO IN OMNISCIENCE. SO IF ON SOME GROUNDS VEDAS ARE CALLED ETERNAL, HUMAN WORDS ARE ALSO ETERNAL ON SAME GROUNDS.

(2)IT MAY BE NOTED THAT PANDIT DIYANAND SARSUTI DID NOT SAY THAT PARMANUS ARE IN DIVINE ESSENCE BUT SAYS THAT DEITY IS IN PARMANUS. THE DIFFERENCE IN MEANINGS OF DEITY IN PARMANU IS DIFFERENT FROM PARMANUS IN DEITY IS OBVIOUS. ALSO THE BASIC NATURE OF PRAMANU IS NOT EXPLAINED. IF EACH PARMANU ARE JUST POINT MASSES THEN THEY CANNOT CONSTITUTE A BODY OR ANY THING ELSE. SUPPOSE THAT THREE OF THEM ARE PLACED SIDE BY SIDE SUCH THAT ONE OF THEM IS BETWEEN THE TWO. NOW IF EACH ONE ON THE EXTREME SIDES TOUCHES THE MIDDILE ONE THEN THERE ARE ONLY THE FOLLOWING CASES. 1) ALL OF THEM OVERLAP AND CONCIDE WITH EACH OTHER.

IF SO THEN ALL THREE OF THEM OCCUPY ONE AND THE SAME SPACE. THEY CANNOT CONSTITUTE ANY BODY IN THIS CASE.2) IF THE DO NOT OVERLAP ONE AN OTHER THEN THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE CASES.

2,1) THE PARMANU AT EXTREME SIDES TOUCH THE MIDDLE ONE SUCH THAT EACH ONE TOUCHES THE MIDDLE ONE BUT THE MIDDLE ONE IS AN OBSTRACLE BETWEEN THEM SO THE PARMANU AT EXTREME SIDES CANNOT TOUCH EACH OTHER DUE TO THE MIDDLE ONE. IN THIS CASE THE MIDDLE ONE CAN BE DIVIDED IN TWO PARTS , a) ONE WHICH TOUCHES THE ONE AT RIGHT SIDE BUT NOT THE ONE ON LEFT SIDE. b) ONE WHICH TOUCHES THE PARMANU AT LEFT SIDE AND NOT THE RIGHT SIDE. IF SO THEN THE MIDDLE PERMANU IS NOT A POINT MASS. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE SUPPOSITION THAT ALL THREE ARE POINT MASES.2,2) NO TWO OF THE THREE TOUCH EACH OTHER. SO THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM ONE AN OTHER AND THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN EACH ONE OF THEM. IN THIS CASE THEY CANNOT CONSTITUTE A BODY. THE MATHEMATICAL THEOREM THAT THERE ARE INFINITE POINTS BETWEEN ANY TWO DISTINCT POINTS CANNOT BE USED TO SHEW THAT ALL THE ACTUAL BODIES IN THE WORLD ARE CONSTITUTED BY MATHEMATICAL POINTS. SO IT IS REQUIRED TO SHEW HOW THE BODIES ARE CONSTITUTED BY THERE PARMANU [FARMANU].

(3) RESPECTED PANDID DID NOT PROVIDE ANY PROOF FOR THIS. THIS SHEWETH THAT HE HAS TAKEN IT AXIOMATICALY. THERE IS NO PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM .

(4) ONCE AGAIN THE PROOF OF IMPOSSIBILITY IS NOT GIVEN AS IF IT IS AN AXIOM.

(5) EVEN A STERILE WOMAN CAN BECOME PREGNANT IF DEITY WILLETH. IF A WOMAN IS STERILE THEN NATURALLY SHE CANNOT BECOME PREGNANT. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEITY CANNOT CREAT PREGNENCY IN HER. THE FALLACY IN THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IT IS ASSUMED THAT LAWS OF NATURE CANNOT BE VIOLATED OR SUSPENDED OR ALTERED. SO THIS ARGUMENT IS BASED UPON THE CONCEPT OF DENIAL OF MIRACLES. NOT ONLY STERLITE WOMAN CAN BECOME PREGNANT BUT A PURE VERGIN

1837

1838183918401841184218431844

1845184618471848184918501851

18521853

185418551856185718581859186018611862186318641865

18661867

1868

18691870187118721873

53

53

CAN ALSO BECOME PREGNANT WITH OUT ANY MAIL INTERVENTION AND CAN CONCEPT IMMACULATELY.SINCE MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE.

COMMENT:=

IT MUST BE NOTED THAT RESPECTED PANDIT DIYANAND BELIEVED THAT FOLLOWING THINGS ARE ETERNAL:=

1] PARCRATI

2]PERMANUS

3] SPIRITS

4]SPACE

5]FOUR VEDAS

6]DIVINE DOINGS AND QUALITIES.

18741875

1876

18771878

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

1884