Refutation of A Hindu Objection Maker On The Eternity of AL-QURAN

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
OF A HINDU BROTHER ON
ISLAM
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ANSWRING HINDU OBJECTIONS ON
THE NATUREOF HOLY QURAN
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
1
1
2
3
[Pick the date]

AHLUSSUNNAH VAL JAMAA-AH
REVISED AND MODIFIED
4
5
BISMILLAHIR RAHMAN IR RAHIM
10
11I WAS INFORMED THAT A HINDU BROTHER HAS MADE SEVERAL OBJECTIONS ON THE
12UNCREATEDNESS OF QURAN. I WAS ASKED TO MAKE A THOROUGH REFUTATION OF
13HIS BASIC ARGUMENTS.
14THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED TO READ HIS OBJECTIONS ARE REQUESTED TO VISIT
15THE PAGE:=
16http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/
17http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/quran-created-or-eternal.67549/page-2
19
20
21NOTE1: WE HAVE SELECTED THOSE OBJECTIONS WHICH WE HAVE FOUND RELATIVE
22TO THE TOPIC AND THE SCOPE OF THE WORK. IRRELATIVE OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN
23NEGLECTED. THE SCOPE OF THIS TOPIC IS TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND
24OBJECTIONS RELATIVE TO THE ETERNITY OF QURA:N.
25NOTE:2 BOTH CASES HIGHER AND LOWER ARE USED. DEPENDING UPON THE
26EMPHASYS ECT. SIMILARLY
27A COLOUR SENSITIVE SCHEME IS ADOPTED FOR SAKE OF EMPHASYSING.
28NOTE : 3 ,AFTER PUBLISHING IT , IT CAME IN KNOWLEDGE THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY
29LIKE SOME COMMENTS ON THE VIEWS OF PANDID DIYANAND , AND SOME
30EXPLANATION IN ADDITION. SO THEY ARE SUPPLIED.
31NOTE: 4 , SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS ARE ADDED ALONG WITH OTHER
32INFORMATIONS.
33SOME PREREQUISITS:=
34SOME TERMS ARE STATED:=
351] OBJECTION MAKER [ MUTARID:] : ONE WHO MAKETH AN OBJECTION.
362] QUESTION:= A QUESTION IS NOT AN OBJECTION.

373] ANSWER:= THE WORD ANSWER MAY BE USED AS A REPLY TO A QUESTION OR AS
38A REFUTATION OF AN OBJECTION.
394] CLAIM:= POSATIVE OR NEGATIVE STATEMENT.
405] PREREQUSIT:= A STATEMENT IF IT IS FALSE THEN IT IS IMPLIED THAT THE CLAIM
41IS ALSO FALSE, EVEN IF THE CLAIMENT HATH NOT STATED IT.
426]PRELIMINARY:= THE STATEMENTS FROM WHICH A CLAIM IS PROVED.
437] AXIOM:= A STAEMENT WHICH CANNOTBE PROVED . [ INDEPENDENT AXIOM] BUT
44MAY BE USED TO PROOF A CLAIM ASSUMING TO BE TRUE ,YET NOT NECESSARILY
45TRUE [AL US:U:L AL MAUD:U:AH]
46
OBJECTION#1:=
47Can we here consider the issue as to whether the Quran was created by Allah or is it the uncreated eternal
48word of Allah? I personally believe that the Quran cannot be an uncreated phenomenon unless it is
49propositioned that the Quran is Allah.
50ANSWER:= THE OBJECTIONER MAKER IS JUST REPEATING AN OLD ARGUMENT THAT A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS
51IDENTICAL TO DIVINE ESSENCE [Z:A:T].
52IF QURAN IS NOT A CREATION THEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IT IS ALL-H [I.E IT IS IDENTICAL TO DIVINE
53ESSENCE] SINCE AN DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS IDENTICAL TO DEITY [I.E DEITYS ESSENCE]
54BUT ACCORDING TO MAJORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE NEITHER IDENTICAL TO ESSENCE
55NOR SEPARATE FROM ESSENCE LA AIN VA LA GHAIR
56HOW EVER A MINORITY OF AHLUSSUNNAH DO AGREE THAT ALL THE DIVINE ESSENTIAL ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY
57ARE IDENTICAL TO DEITY. THIS OBJECTION REQUIRES TO PROVE THAT ANY THING IF UNCREATED THEN IT IS
58IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE. THIS CLAIM IS ONE OF THE WEAKEST CLAIM . MUTIZILITES ALSO
59ATTEMPTED TO PROVE THIS CLAIM BUT NO ONE HAVE [PRESENTED ANY CONVINCING PROOF . NOT A SINGLE
60ONE.
61OBJECTION#2:=
62Is this tantamount to saying that Quran, Allah's words, are not eternal? If the Quran is not eternal, it is not the
63truth for truth has necessarily to be eternal.

64ANSWER:=
651]IF VEDAS ARE NOT ETERNAL THEN ACCORDING TO THE OBJECTIONAL MAKER THEY MUST NOT BE
66TRUE.
67A NUMBER OF HINDUS BELIEVE THAT VEDAS ARE TEMPPORAL [ NOT ETERNAL]
68BUT IS GITA ETERNAL . IF NOT THEN IT IS NOT TRUTH. THE SAME QUESTION IS ABOUT MAHA
69BAHRATA MANU ETC.
70ANY HOW THE CLAIM THAT FOR TRUTH IST IS NECESSARY TO BE ETERNAL IS FALSE AND A
71FALSE DOGMA.
72WHAT ABOUT THE HUMAN BODY OF KRISHNA . IS IT ETERRNAL OR NOT.
732] IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A THING TO BE TRUTH, THAT IT MUST BE ETERNAL.

74ETERNITY IS JUST THE SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR A THING TO BE TRUTH , NOT
75NECESSARY.SO THIS OBJECTION IS IN CORRECT.
763] IF GITA IS NOT ETERNAL THEN ACCLORDING TO THE OBJECTION MAKER IT IS NOT
77TRUTH EVEN IF IT AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. SINCE ONENESS OF ESSENCE CAN
78NOT MAKE ANY THING TRUE OTHERWISE THERE CANNOT BE ANY BOOK/THING WHICH
79IS FALSHOOD. THIS IS CONTRARY TO OBSEVATION.
804] NOT-ETERNITY IMPLIETH NOT FALSEHOOD.
81Thus the claim that truth has necessarily to be eternal is with out any proof what so ever.
82
83
84OBJ3ECTION#3:=
85If the Quran is Allah's words and Allah is eternal, then His words are eternal. It makes absolutely no sense to
86draw a distinction between God and God's words. The same can be said for God and God's thoughts. Are
87God's thoughts not eternal because that would violate the "only God is eternal" axiom? Of course
88not. You cannot separate these two things in the same way that you cannot separate God from His power.
89ANSWER:=
901]IT MAY NOT MAKE ANY SENSE TO SOME PERSONS BUT IT DOES MAKE PERFECT SENSE TO
91LARGE A NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS ,LOGICIANS,PHILOSOPHERS WHETHER THEY SUPPORT IT OR
92NOT:
93IF THOUGHTS OF DEITY ARE ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY THEN THIS IMPLIETH NECESSARILY THAT
94THOUGHT OF DEITY IS NOT THE DEITY [THOUGHT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSECE.]
95SAME IS TRUE FOR OTHER DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.
96TO CLAIM THAT IT DOETH NOT MAKE ANY SENSE IS FALSE.
97A BETTER CLAIM WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT IT IS THE SENSE OF CONTRADICTION , RAITHER THAT IT
98IS WITH OUT SENSE..MUTIZILAH HAVE MADE THIS CLAIM THAT THERE IS A CONTRADICTION OR A
99CONTRADICTION IS IMPLIED . BUT NO CONVINCING PROOF HAS BEEN PRESENTED SO FAR.
100IT IS A PROOFLESS DOGMA THAT IT MAKETH NO SENSE AT ALL.
101THE SENSE IS CLEAR . EACH DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS ETERNAL AND NO DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS
102IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE [ I.E DEITY]. EACH DIVINE ATTRIBUTE DOETH SUBSIST IN DIVINE
103ESSENCE. TO THE CLAIM THAT IT ABSOLUTELY DOETH NOT MAKE ANY SENSE IS FALSE AND
104UNTRUE. AT MOST IT CAN BE CLAIMED THAT THIS CLAIM IS EITHER A CONTRADICTION OR IT SOME
105HOW IMPLIETH A CONTRADICTION. BUT THIS REQUIRETH A PROOF. WE ASK FOR A PROOF.
106BUT THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL FOR THE CLAIM ABOVE. ALL THE POSSIBILE ASPECTS AND WAYS
107OF THE ALLEGED PROOFS HAVE BEEN STUDIED.SO THIS IS A FALLACY. DIVINE POWER MAKETH NO
108EXCEPTION. ALSO NEITHER SEPARATE NOR IDENTICAL IS NOT SEPARATE, LAW OF EXCLUSION OF
109MIDDLE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS REGARD.
110A GENERAL DISCUSSION:111IT IS REQUIRED TO SHEW THAT THIS DOES MAKE APERFECT SENSE SO THAT ONE
112MAY SEE THAT THE CLAIM THAT IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MAKE A SENSE IS
113FALSIFIED.
114A DISCUSSION ON THE AXIOM:=
115IF A STATEMENT IS AN AXIOM THEN EITHER IT IS AN INDEPENDENT AXIOM OR NOT.
116IF IT IS NOT THEN ACTUALLY IT IS A THEOREM WHICH IS POVEABLE BUT , IT IS
117TAKEN WITH OUT ANY PROOF. IF IT IS AN INDIPENDANT AXIOM THEN IT IS
118IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE IT IN THE SYSTEM . WE SHALL USE THE WORD AXIOM AND
119ITS DERIVATIONS IN THE SENSE OF INDEPENDENT ONE FROM NOW ON.
120IF A STATEMENT IS TAKEN AXIOMATICALLY THEN IN A SYSTEM IT CANNOT BE
121PROVED. IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT AN OTHER PERSON TAKES AN OTHER
122STATEMENT AS AN AXIOM.
123THE AXIOM ONLY GOD IS ETERNAL IS THE AXIOM OF MUTIZILITES. EVEN
124PHILOSOPHERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM ON THE ISSUE. ON THE CONTRARY
125MAJORITY OF RELIGIONS REPLACES THIS AXIOM
126BY AN OTHER AXIOM WHICH IS GIVEN AS FOLLOW:=
127ONLY DEITY IS AN ETERNAL ESSENCE.
128 ACTUALLY THE CLAIM THAT DIVINE ATTRIBUTES ARE NOT THE DEITY DOES NOT
129MAKE ANY SENSE IS DERIVED FROM THIS AXIOM. THIS CONTRADICTS THIS AXIOM
130THAT IS THE REASON IT IS CLAIMED THAT THIS MAKE NO SENSE ABSOLUTELY. AS IT
131DOES MAKE A PERFECT SENSE , BUT THIS SENSE CONTRADICTS THE STATED ABOVE
132AXIOM, THERE FORE IT IS INCORRECTLY CLAIMED THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE.
133IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE OBJECTION MAKER HAS USED THE WORD AXIOM IN THE
134CLASSIC MEANING WHICH MAY BE STATES AS FOLLOW:=
135An axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy.
136BUT IF THIS IS MEANT BY THE OBJECTION MAKER , WE REJECT IT. A LARGE NUMBER OF RELIGIONS
137,PHILOSOPHERS REJECT IT AS A SELF EVIDENT TRUTH, RATHER IT IS A SELF EVIDENT FALSEHOOD.
138AT BEST IT MAY BE A LOGICAL AXIOM:=
139
10
A LOGICAL AXIOM IS A STATEMENT :
11
140
141
142
143
144
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.
145
1462] THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL IS AT MOST A THEOREM OF MUTIZILITE AND JAHMITE
147SYSTEM, IF THEIR RESPECTIVE SYSTEMS OF BELIEVES ARE AXOMATIZED. BUT ACTUALLY IT

148IS NOT AN INDEPENDENT AXIOM, BUT A THEOREM,AND THAT IS THE REASON THEY ALSO
149ATTEMPT TO PROVE IT. THEY INDEPENDENT AXIOM IS THERE IS ONLY ONE ESSENCE THAT IS
150A NECESSARY EXISTENT .FROM THIS IT IS ATTEMTED TO PROVE THERE IS ONLY ONE
151ETERNAL. BUT THE CLAIM THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL ESSENCE CAN BE PROVED. IF A
152DUEL SYSTEM IS TAKEN, WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL ESSENCE WHICH EXISTETH
153IS TAKEN AS AN INDEPENDENT AXIOM, EVEN THEN IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK TO PROVE THE
154CLAIM THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL IN THE SYSTEM.
155CONCLUSION:= THIS IS NOT AN AXIOM.
156SOME REASONS:=
157IT IS TRIED TO MAKE THE SENSE CLEAR:=
1581]DivIne Attributes are Not The Deity Since there is atleast a logical DISTINCTION [If not a Real Distinction] Of Divine Attributes
159from the Divine Essence [i.e Deity]- Thus a Logical Plurality .Thus in this sense All Attributes of Deity are the Deity.
160This is Singularity is Plurality and Plurality is Singularity. But Divine Essence is Absolute Singularity , which contradict all sorts
161and types of plurality with out any exception what so ever.
1622[ If there is an Absolute Singularity then the Divine Essence is Only Itness and nothing but Itness. Now if All Divine Attributes
163Are Divine Essence i.e Deity then each one of the Attribute Of Deity is nothing but Itness. There fore Divine Omniscience ceaseth
164Similarly Omnopotence becometh Itness etc.
165No Plurality Of Attributes just words used for Pure Itness in the Divine Case.
1663] Suppose the Divine Essence reduces to Omniscience and only Omniscience , and nothing but Omniscience, then It is
167Absolute- Impossible that Omnipotence is Deity [i.e Divine Essence]. Hence Omnipotence becometh Absolute-Absurd Upon
168Divine Essence.
1694] If it is accepted that there are two types of Singularities. A] One that is Plurality [in Some Sence]
170B] One that is not Plurality In Any Sence with out Exception what so evrer]
171Then Deity is Absolute Singularity the type B stated above.
172[] Further discussions Omitted for sake of brevity . But this is In Shaa All-h Sufficient to convey the sense and the concept
173To those who think it meaningless. Since whether accepted or rejected, whether true or untrue but it is meaning ful not
174meaning less, and ABSOLUTTELY NOT ABSOLUTELY MEANING LESS].
175
12
13
176
177
178OBJECTION
#4:=
179Allah created by willing creation into existence. Since Allah is eternal, his power to will would also be
180eternal. So what He has willed once he can always will again. Quran accepts this when it says that though
181you and I would die, Allah would will us back to life on the day of judgement - and then we would live
182forever, either in heaven or hell. Therefore if Allah is eternal, his creation is also eternal.
183Therefore if Allah is eternal, his creation is also eternal.
184 This notion of separateness (maya in Hindu parlance) exists as a part of Allahs celebration of Himself
185(leela in Hindu parlance).
186ANSWER:=
187THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD.
188SINCE DEITY ALL-H IS NOT A CREATION. DEITY IS ETERNAL AND CREATION IS NOT ETERNAL.
189ETERNAL AND NON ETERNAL CANNOT BE SAME SINCE IT IS NOTHING BUT CREATION IS NOT A CREATION.
190DEITY IS NOT A CREATION , AND A CREATION IS NOT A DEITY.
191EVEN ARYA SAMAJIS ALSO AGREE ON THIS POINE. SO THE OBJECTION MAKER IS A PANTHEIST. NO THING NEW,
192HE REPEATS AN OLD ARGUMENT.
193IF DIVINE CREATIONS ARE ETERNAL THEN THEY ARE NOT CREATIONS. THE BASIC AXIOMS ARE AS FOLLOW:=
1941] GOD\DEITY IS NOT A CREATION.
1952] DEITY IS ETERNAL
1963] CREATION IS NOT ETERNAL.
1974] CREATION IS NOT DEITY/GOD.
198SO THIS CLAIM REDUSES TO THE CLAIM EVERY THING IS DEITY . THERE IS NO CREATION
199WHY TO CALL A THING A CREATION IF IT IS ETERNAL.
200THUS EVERY THING REDUCES TO THE BELIEVE :=
201EVERY THING THAT DOES EXIST IS GOD .
202THIS IMPLIES ONLY ETERNAL GODS EXIST AND ONE THAT IS NOT ETERNAL IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXIST AT WORST OR
203DOETH NOT EXIST AT BEST.
204NOT EVEN ALL HINDU SECTS AGREE WITH SUCH A BELIEVE AND THIS IS A BELIEVE OF JUST A MINORITY OF
205HINDUS [ONE LIKE THE OBJECTION MAKER] REJECTED BY A GREAT MAJORITY OF HINDU CULTS AND SECTS.
206THE RESULT STATED BELOW IS NOT FOLLOWED FROM THE PRREMEISSES.
207Therefore if Allah is eternal, his creation is also eternal.
14
15
208Similarly it is Impossible and Absurd to claim that Therefore if Allah is eternal, his
209creation is also eternal.
210It is Absurd and Impossible That UNCREATED and CREATION ARE ETERNAL.
211
IT IS MORE INCORRECT THAN THE CLAIM THAT IF DEITY IS INFALLABLE THEN EACH AND
212EVERY THING WHICH IS ONE IN ESSENCE IN DEITY IS INFALLABLE . OR IF DEITY IS NOT A
213CREATION THEN HIS CREATIONS ARE NOT CREATIONS OR IF [ THE] DEITY IS A NECESSARY BEING
214THEN HIS CREATIONS ARE NECESSARY BEINGS.ETC.
215
216
217OBJECTION#5:=
218
219
This conundrum would not arise in Hinduism because of its vision of the creator and created being one in essence.
220
ANSWER:=
221
THIS CONUNDRUM IS INVALID:=
222
QURAN IS ETERNAL JUST LIKE OTHER ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY LIKE OMNIPOTENCE , OMNISCIENCE ETC.
223
THE OBJECTION THAT QURAN IS COMPOSITE REQUIRETH SOME DETAILS. THAT SHALL BE GIVEN SHORTLY.
224
LET THE OBJECTION OF TWO DEITES [ TWO ALL-H s , AL AYAZ BILLAHI TAALA] IS DISCUSSED PRIOR TO IT.
225
THE OBJECTION SEEMS TO BE AS FALLOW:=
226
IF QURAN IS ETERNAL AND NOT IDENTICAL TO THE ESSENCE OF DEITY THEN IT IS A DEITY.
227
THUS THE NUMBER OF DEITIES BECOMETH TWO.
228
IT MUST BE NOTED THAT QURAN IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY. A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE DOETH SUBSIST NECESSARILY IN THE DIVINE
229
ESSENCE.
230
DIVINE ESSENCE [ I.E DEITY ] IS PER SE SUBSISTENT AND A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS NOT PER SE SUBSISTENT BUT IT SUBSISTETH IN
231
DIVINE ESSENCE. ONLY DIVINE ESSENCE IS DEITY. SO PLURALITY OF DETIES IS NOT IMPLIED.
232
THE AXIOM THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL IS FALSE. IT IS REPLACED BY THE AXIOM THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE ETERNAL
233
ESSENCE. REASON CITED:=
234
IT APPEARETH THAT THE NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CONDITION ACCORDING TO THE OBJECTION MAKER IS TO BE A DEITY
235
\DEUS\THEOS IS .TO BE ETERNAL. BUT THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM.
236
[ MONO- ETERNALISM IS DIFFERENT FROM MONOTHEISM]
237
COUNTER ANSWER:=
238
This conundrum consists of five statements. If this conundrum is not valid
239on Hinduism just because some Hindu sects [Not
16
17
240
All] believe that God and His Creations Are One In Essence then this
241means that If God [Barmh\Brahman] and His
242
Creations are One In Essence then Each one of the statements of
243Conundrum is invalid in the said case.
244
Is the Qur'an eternal or created?......[Part One Of Conundrum].............P-1
245
If the Qur'an is created, then it is subject to corruption just like all of creation.----
247
-------------P-2
246[Part Two Of The Conundrum]
248
249
250
251
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 AllahsP-.5
252
But if a thing [say or thing] and God are One In Essence then the
253Conundrum is Invalid for the thing regardless of the
254
case whether is Created or Uncreated
255
This is all what Respectable Objection Maker did say:=
BS-1
256
But this is not correct. If it is correct then this can be used for Quran as
257well. Consider the example of Four Vedas.
258
The Question is as follow:=
259
Are Vedas Vedas Creations Or Not..[1]
260
LET IS BE SUPPOSED THAT ALL VEDAS ARE CREATIONS. [THIS IS
261SUPPOSITION] ONE..S-1
262
If ALL VEDAS ARE CREATIONS [S-2] THEN EACH ONE OF THE FOUR VEDAS IS
263A CREATION.
264
But according to the Objection Maker this Conundrum is invalid in the Case
265
God and His Creationsare One In Essence,[ Refer Basic
266Supposition.BS-1]
267
This Means The Statement #1 is invalid in the if Each One Of The Four
268Vedas Is A Creation, as according to the Objection Maker,
269
Just Because Creation Of God [Bramh or Brahman] are One in Essence.
270
If statement #1 is invalid for four Vedas in the case stated above under the
271Supposition Vedas are Creations then it is implied
272
18
that :=
10
10
19
273
If Each One Of The Four Vedas Is A Creation, and If All Vedas and God are
274One In Essence then Each One Of The Four Vedas Is
275
Not Subject To Corruption. [This is result one] .R-1
276
Thus S-1 IMPLIES R-1 according to the believes of the Objection Maker .
277[Under the given SuppositionsConditions etc.]
278
LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT EACH ONE OF THE FOUR VEDAS ARE
279ETERNAL.S-2
280
Then according to the views of the Respectable Objection Maker [ SEE C- Of
281The Conundrum] :=
282
Each One Of The Veda is Either God / Bramh or No Veda is God/Bramh.
283
LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT EACH ONE OF THE VEDAS IS GOD.
284.C-2
285
If Each One Of The Veda is Composite then God Brahmh /Brahman is
286Composite.
287
But the P-4 of Conundrum is Invalid because according to the Objection
288Maker Vedas and God are One In Essence.
289
If Each One Of The Four Vedas Is Composite and If Each One Of The Four
290Vedas Is God namely Barmh or Brahman Then God
291
Brahman / Barmh is Not Composite.R-2.
292
Since each One Of The Four Vedas and God are One In Essence .
293
Thus S-2 IMPLIES R-2. [UNDER THE CONDITION GOD AND HIS CREATIONS
294ARE ONE IN ESSENCE and EACH ONE OF THE VEDAS IS
295
GOD]
296
P-4 Of the Corundrum Is Invalid In The Case.
297
LET IS BE SUPPOSED THAT NO VEDA IS GODC-3
298
If None Of The Four Vedas Is God Barmh /Brahman then under S-2 and P-5
299there are five Gods [ Brahmans or Barmhs].
300
Each One Of The Four Veda is a God and God , thus Five Gods /Brahmans/
301Barmh.
302
But once again the Conundrum is invalid just because Each One Of The Four
303Vedas and God are One In Essence as according to
304
20
Respected Objection Maker.
11
11
21
305
Thus If Each Veda Is Eternal and No Veda Is God Then There is One God
306Barmh/Brahman, Since Each Vedas and God are One
307
In Essence.R-3.
308
Thus C-3,S-2,P-5 Implies R-3
309
In All of These Discussion an Independent Axiom Is Used Which is Stated As
310Follow:=
311
IF A THING AND GOD ARE ONE IN ESSENCE , NO STATEMENT OF THE
312CONUNDRUM IS VALID REGARDLESS OF THE CASES WHETHER
313
THE THING IS CREATED OR ETERNAL.
314
NOTE : For the sake of brevity we the case that some Vedas are creations
315and some Vedas are Eternal is not discussed.It can
316
be shewn that in this case the Conundrum is Invalid for those Vedas which
317are Eternal and for those Vedas which are
318
Creations.
319
320so.
It is left as an Exercise for those readers and studiers who are interested do
321
GENERAL DISCUSSION ON THE CONUNDRUM ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD
322OF OBJECTION MAKER.
323
There are Four Types Of Things:-
324
1] God.
325
2] Attributes Of God
326
3] Acts or Doings Of God
327
4] Creations Of God.
328
If God , Attributes Of God , and Acts/Doings Of God are ONE IN
329ESSENCE,NATURE,GODHEAD,OUSIA ETC. then the
330
Conundrum is Invalid for any One That is God or An Attribute Of God Or An
331Act Of God, Regardless of the cases
332
Whether God and His Creations Are One In Essence or Not.
333
LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT :=
334
CREATIONS AND GOD ARE NOT ONE IN ESSENCE 1
335
QURAN IS A CREATION2,
22
12
12
23
336
THEN UNDER THESE TWO SUPPOSITIONS THE CONUNDRUM IS VALID UPON
337QURAN.
338
339
LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT:=

QURAN IS EITHER A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE OR A DIVINE ACT.3
340
GOD ,DIVINE ATTRIBUTES AD DIVINE ACTS ALL ARE ONE IN
341ESSENCE,NATURE,GODHEAD,OUSIA ETC.
342
THEN
343
The Conundrum is INVALD on Quran.
344
A POSSIBLE OBJECTION :=
345
IF GOD, ATTRIBUTES OF GOD AND ACTS/DOINGS OF GOD ALL ARE ONE IN
346ESSENCE THEN IT IS IMPLIED THAT GOD AND CREATIONS
347
ARE ALSO ONE IN ESSENCE.
348
REPLYING THE OBJECTION:=
349
There is no such implication. It is certainly not implied . Thus the claim of this type of Implication is False
350
And Untrue.
351
As there is no alleged Implication , the the conundrum if correct is only Valid if :=
352
1] QURAN Is A Creation.
353
2]Quran and God are Not One In Essence.
354
But If Quran Is An Atrribute Of God / Deity or If Quran Is An Act Of Deity /God then the Conundrum becometh
355
Invalid Since :=
356
Attributes Of God ,Acts Of God and God All Are One In Essence.
357
HINDU SECTS AND CULTS:=
358
There are several Hindu sects and cults and the do differ about the Eternity of Vedas, Oness Of Essnce God
359
and His Creations etc. So Not All Hindus Agrree with the objection makers.
360
Some Muslims How Ever Believe That God and Creations are One In Esse.
361
If the Objection /Conundrum becomes invalid if God and Creations are Supposed to be One In Essence, It Is
362
Absolutely Logical that the Objection /Conundrum becomes Invalid if God and His Creations Are One In
363
Esse.
364
Some Muslims believe that God is the Essence of all of His Creations, Attributes, Acts Since:=
24
13
13
25
365
[In these cases such conundrums do become become invalid. ]
366
367DEITY Giveth sustenance to All Things,
368The Existence of each and every Sustained thing right from its Creation. In other words, we will
369have to admit that the World and Every Thing In The World Is Sustained By God\Deity Hence Deity Is The Essence
370Of Every Creation. So Deity Is The Essence Or Esse Or Both Of A Thing to Which Deity Giveth Sustenance.
371Not In The Sense /Meaning Deity Is A Creation.
372Note :=373ALL THE MUSLIMS BELIEVE THAT DIVINE ESSENCE AND DEITY ARE IDENTICAL
374I.E ONE AND THE SAME. In Other Words Godhead Is God and God Is Godhead.
375THE FLAW IN THE CONUNDRUM:=
376If the Objection Maker have incorrectly assumed That Either Quran Is An
377Essence Or The Essence Of Quran Is Distinct From
378The Essence Of Deity only then this Conundrum may haves some signifience.
379That is probably the reason the objection maker thought that if Quran is
380Eternal and Not Deity then It is an other Deity. Quran is neither an Essence
381nor Its Essence is Distint from the Essence of Deity.
382Essence of Quran is Essence Of Deity Since like All Attributes Of Deity , It
383Subsists In The Divine Essence.
384Divine Essence is Per Se Subsistant. It Only Subsists in Itself and It Subsists
385Only In Itself.
386So if Quran Is Eternal , it is Absolutely Not Implied that Quran is An other
387Deity. [Also See page 20]
388AN OTHER RESPONSE:=
3891] THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF DIVINE CALAM [SPEECH] . 1] AL CALAM AL
390LAFZI. 2] AL CALAM AN NAFSI.
391IF IT AL CALAM AN NAFSI IS SUPPOSED TO BE IDENTICAL TO DIVINE ESSENCE,
392AND AL CALAM AL LAFZI IS SUPPOSED TO BE A CREATION CREATED BY DEITY,
393THE OBJECTION CEASES. SINCE IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS A
394POSSIBILITY OF CORRUPTION FOR EACH AND EVERY CREATION, THEN THIS IS
395AN ABSOLUTE POSSIBILITY , AND AN ABSOLUTE POSSIBLE CAN BE RELATIVE
396ABSURD OR RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE. IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE ABSURD OR
397ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBLE.
398THEABSOLUTE POSSIBILITY OF BEING SAVED FROM ANY TYPE OF CORRUPTION
399BY THE DEITY CANNOT BE DENIED.
400HOW EVER THIS SAVING IS RELATIVE NECESSITY, NOT A N ABSOLUTE
401NECESSITY.
402 THE CONUNDRUM BECOMES INVALID.
403Note : P-2 OF THE CONUNDRUM IS DISCUSSED IN ANSWER TO OBJECTION #13. PLEASE SEE IT THERE.
404NOTE: EACH ONE OF THE TWO CALAMS IS TERMED AS QURAN.
405NOTE: AL CALAM AN NAFSI IS NOT COMPOSITE LIKE DIVINE OMNIPOTENCE OR DIVINE OMNISCIENCE..
406THE CONUNDRUM IS IN CORRECT EVEN UPON THE SYSTEM OF THE OBJECTION MAKER. HE ADMITS THAT CREATIONS
407ARE :=
4081] NOT EQUAL TO DEITY EVEN IF THEY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE.2]CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE AND DEITY IS
409INFALLABLE.
410IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE BUT NOT CORRUPTIBLE, THIS IS AN
411UNACCEPTABLE CLAIM NOT EVEN WORTHY OF A REFUTATION. [SEE OBJECTION#8, ]
26
14
14
27
412IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT ALL THINGS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE WITH DEITY, EVEN THEN ONLY DEITY IS UNCURRUPTRABE
413AND IMMUTABLE. TO CLAIM THAT CREATIONS ARE ALSO UNCORRUPTABLE AND IMMUTABLE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED
414EVEN IF THEY ARE ONE WITH DEITY IN DIVINE ESSENCE.
415A COUNTER CONUNDRUM FOR THE OBJECTION MAKER AS ACCORDING TO HIS THEOLOGIGAL BACK GROUND:=
416If Creatons Of Deity and the Deity are One in Essence then Either the Creation is Eternal or Not.
417If the Creation Is Eternal Then It is either The Deity Or Not.
418If it is the Deity then there are two problems.
4191] It is not the Creation, Since Deity is not the Creation, Other wise it is implied that the Creation is not the\a
420Creation . An Absolute Absudity.. So the Creation is not a Creation in the Divine Essence.
4212] As Vedas are composite it is implied that Deity is Composite in His Essence.
422If 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
423a number of Deities One In ESSENCE.

424A POSSIBLE ATTEMPT TO SCAPE FROM THE CONUNDRUM.
425It may be argued that Plurality Of Deities occur if there is a Plurality Of Essences. As there is only one Essence
426Plurality of Eternals On In Essence does not imply Plurality Of Deities.

427ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
428This answer is not according to the Theological Concepts Of the Objection Maker.
429The Objection Maker believes that Plurality of Eternals implies Plurality Of Deities.
430He does not believe that plurality of Deities requireth Plurality of Divine Essences.
431Since he makes this objection On Quran. Up till now Ihave seen no Muslim who believeth that Quran is an Essence.
432All Muslims Believe that Quran Is an Attribute.

433So Oneness of Essence does not save is philosophical believes ,.
434OBJECTION#6:=
435
I understand, it just doesn't sit well in my brain, when I imagine an eternal text i.e. one that existed
436before man existed and will do after he is gone, I see it as being a sort of timeless narrative or set of teachings,
437whereas
438
in the Qur'an I see speeches being given by the Prophet to people about specific things in specific
439times - which doesn't fit for me, but perhaps that is just me being odd.
440
ANSWER:=
441
THIS OBJECTION IS INCORRECT. SINCE THE RESPECTED OBJECTION MAKER DID NOT
442PROVEDTHAT SUCH A THING IMPOSSIBLE AND ABSURD , SO THAT IT MUST EXCLUDE DIVINE
443OMNIPOTENCE.
444
IF IT IS NOT ABSURD AND NOT IMPOSSIBLE THEN IT IS POSSIBLE AND CONTINGENT.
445
AT BEST THE OBJECTION MAKER MAY SAY THAT SUCH THINGS ARE POSSIBLE AND
446CONTINGENT BUT IMPROBABLE.
28
15
15
29
447
BUT DEITY HAS OMNIPOTENCE OVER POSSIBLES AND CONTINGENTS EVEN IF THEY ARE
448IMPROBABLE. BUT IT IS JUST A PERSONAL INCLINATION TOWARDS IMPROBABILITY ,EVEN

449IMPROBABILITY IS NOT PROVED. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE WORK TO INDULGE IN THE
450MAKER, SINCE IN IS A NON ENDING AND USE LESS WORK TO DISCUSS INDIVIDUAL MINDS AND
451BRAINS, LIKENESS INCLINATIONS ETC.
IT MUST BE KNOWN THAT A THING [ IN THE MOST GENMERAL SENSE WHICH INCLUDETH
452
453EXISTENTS AND NON-EXISTENTS] IS OF THE FOLLOWEING TYPES.

454
1] ABSOLUTE POSSIBLE [ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE]
455
2[ ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBLE [ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE]
456
3] ABSOLUTE NECESSARY [ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY]
457
4] RELATIVE NECESSARY [ RELATIVELY NECESSARY]
458
5] RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE [RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE]
459
IF QURAN IS CREATION THEN CCORRUPTION IS RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE.
460
A RELATIVE IMPOSSIBLE NEVER OCCURS IN THREE TYPES OF TIME I.E PAST, PRESENT AND
461FUTURE.
462
SINCE DEITY IS THE SAVIOR OF AL QURAN AND SAVING OF QURAN IS RELATIVE-NECESSARY
463[RELATIVELY NECESSARY]. CORRUPTION OF QURAN IS NOT RELATIVE NECESSARY. DEITY IS AN ABSOLUTE

464FREE AGENT AND DEITY CHOSETH THE CONSERVATION AND SAVING OF THE QURAN .
465
SO EVEN IF CORRUPTION OF QURAN IS POSSIBLE IT IS A SUBJECT OF POSSIBILITY OF
466CORRUPTION, NOT OF THE OCCURRENCE OF CORRUPTION. IF QURAN IS A CREATION EVEN THEN IT IS NOT
467THE SUBJECT OF CORRUPTION IN THE LINE OF ACTUALITY.
468
469
NOTE:= THE OBJECTION MAKER SAYS:=

In the Qur'an I see speeches being given by the Prophet to people about specific things in specific
470times - which doesn't fit for me, but perhaps that is just me being odd.
471
IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN VERSES IN VEDAS WHICH INDICATE THAT VEDAS
472ARE NOT ETERNAL. FOR EXAMPLE IN RIG VEDA [8:849:2] IT IS SAID THAT .. LIKEWISE AS IN ANCIENT
473TIMES THE YOURS ELDERS WHO WERE UNBAISED AND SUPPORTERS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS HAD PASSED
474AWAY AND HAD FOLLOWED ME AND RELIGION MADE BY ME ,YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE RLIGION SO THAT
30
16
16
31
475YOU MAY HAVE ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF VEDIC RELION..[ ONE MAY SEE THE VEDIC VERSE
476HIMSELF ,IF HE\SHE WANTS TO SEE THE ENTIRE VERSE].
477
DOES THIS NOT SHEW THAT VEDAS ARE NOT ETERNAL?
478
THIS DOES SHEW THAT SOME GENERATIONS HAD PASSED WHEN VEDAS SAID THIS TO THE
479AUDIENCE GENERATIN. THIS DOES SHEW VEDAS ARE NOT ETERNAL. IF THE GENERATIONS ARE LI:LA
480[ CELEBRATIONS} IN DIVINE ESSENCE EVEN THEN THEY ARE NOT ETERNAL. ASTLEAST ONE WHICH IS THE
481AUDIENCE OF VEDAS. THIS DOES IMPLY NON-ETERNITY OF VEDAS ACCORDING TO THE STANDERD OF THE
482LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER.
483
ANSWERING THE OBJECTIONS ON URL:=
485
486
OBJECTION#7:=
487THIS OBJECTION MAY BE DIVIDED IN TWO PARTS:=

4881] Allah cannot create anything eternal for the simple reason that eternal means uncreated.
4892] This is similar to the error in the Quran when it says Allah created life. (This issue I had taken up in
490another thread, where you had participated prominently. http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general491religious-debates/63041-did-allah-create-life.html) .
492
493Life cannot be created because if there was no life at one point of time, who would have been alive to have
494done any creation? Allah islife. And life in many forms is the existence of Allah. This is exemplified by the
495imagery of the dancer and his dance.
496You cannot separate the dancer from his dance. Likewise with the creator and creation.
497 Likewise with Allah and his word. Quran is eternal but its form would change as it had changed previously.
498Forms are corruptible. But the spirit is reborn in another form.
499ANSWER-1:=
500RESPONSE TO PART ONE:=
501AS FOR THE FIRST PART , IT IS CORRECT THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY ASBURD AND IMPOSSIBLE TO CREATE AN
502ETERNAL.
503RESPONCSE TO PART TWO:=
504THERE IS CERTAINLY A MISCONCEPTION ABOUT QURAN IN THE MINDS OF OBJECTION MAKERS:=
32
17
17
33
505DIVINE LIFE [ DIVINE VITA] IS UNCREATED AND ETERNAL. THE LIFE WHICH IS UNDER DISCUSSION IS THE NON
506-DIVINE LIFE. IT SIMPLY MAY BE SEEN THAT LIVING THING [ VITAL THINGS] BORN AND DIE. LIFE OF A LIVING
507CREATED SUPPOSITUM IS CREATED SINSE EVERY ATTRIBUTE OF A LIVING CREATED THING OR VITAL CREATED
508THING IS CREATED. ONE MUST DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE ETERNAL LIFE OF DEITY , AND NON ETERNAL LIVES
509OF ALIVE CREATIONS.WHEN IT IS SAID DEITY MADE LIFE IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEITY MADE ALL LIVES
510INCLUDING HIS OWN LIFE. SIMILARLY OF IT IS SAID THAT DEITY DID MAKE ALL ESSENCES , IT DOES NOT MEAN
511DEITY MADE HIS OWN ESSENCE AS WELL. THERE IS A RATIONAL NECESSARY EXCEPTION FOR THE DIVINE
512ATTRIBUTES. IF IT IS NEGLECTED THEN DEITY CANNOT EVEN BE OMNOSCIENCE SINCE THERE IS A STATEMENT
513X= NO ONE KNOWETH THAT X IS A TRUE STATEMENT. IT IS ARGUED THAT THIS STATEMENT CONTRADICTS
514DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. THE ANSWER IS THAT DEITYS OMNISCINCE IS A SELF NECESSARY EXCEPTION FROM THIS
515SENTENCE.
516LIFE OF DEITY IS AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY AND EXISTENCE IS AN OTHER ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY. A NUMBER OF
517THEOLOGIANS MAKE A SEPARATE CASE OF THE EXISTENCE /ESSE OF DEITY.
518SINCE IF IT IS SAID THAT THE ETERNAL ESSENCE IS NOT ALIVE BUT EXISTS IT THOUGH IMPLY ABSURDITIES
519BUT MORE ABSURDITIES ARE IMPLIED IF IT IS SAID ETERNAL ESSENCE DOES NOT EXIST, BUT IS ALIVE.
520PROBLEM OF DANCE AND DANCER:
521DANCE IS AN ACT OF THE SUBJECT DANCER. THE WORD SEPARATE IS USED IN DIFFERENT MEANINGS:=
522IT MAY BE USED IN THE SENSE OF TWO INDEPENDENT THINGS, IT MAY BE EVEN USED FOR THE DISTINCTION OF
523AN ATTRIBURE FROM AN ESSENCE , OR AN ACCIDENT FROM A SUBSTANCE.
524NEITHER AN ATTRIBUTE IS PER SE SUBSISTENT NOR AN ACCIDENT IS PER SE SUBSISTENT. BOTH OF THEM
525SUBSIST IN SOME THING PER SE SUBSISTENT. THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT SUBSTANCES
526,ACCIDENTS,ESSENCES AND ATTRIBUTES . INTERESTED PEOPLE MAY SEE SUCH DISCUSSIONS WHICH ARE
527PRESENT IN THOUSAND AND THOUSAND OF PAGES. TO DISCUSS HERE IS JUST TO WASTE THE TIME OF THE
528REDERS. INTERESTED PEOPLE MAY SEE THESE TOPICS FROM PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS BOTH CLASSICAL AND
529MODRERN. ONE EVEN USE A GOOD SEARCH ENGINE TO STUDY THE TOPIC AS WELL.
530HOW EVER ASSUMING THAT THIS TOPIC MAY BE NEW TO SOME OF THE READERS A VERY BRIEF DISCUSSION IS
531GIVEN BELOW:=
5321] A SUBSTANCE IS A THING WHICH SUSTAINS AND SUBSISTS ONLY IN IT SELF.
5332] A SUBSTANCE IS A THING WHICH CAN NOT BE PRADICATED TO ANY THING EXCEPT IT SELF. [ NOTE THE
534NECESSARY EXCEPTION].
5353] ACCORDING TO SPINOZOA:=
536 A SUBSTANCE IS ONE THAT IS CONCIEVED IN IT SELF BY IT SELF.
537
538ACCIDENT:=
5391] AN ACCIDENT IS A THING WHICH SUBSISTS AND SUSTAINS IN SOME THING ELSE.
5402] AN ACCIDENT IS A THING WHICH CAN BE PRADICATED TO A SUBSTANCE.
34
18
18
35
541 3] AN ACCIDENT IS ONE THAT IS NOT CONCIEVED IN ITSELF BY IT SELF.

542THEOLOGIANS DIFFER WHETHER THE WORD SUBSTANCE CAN BE USED FOR DIVNE ESSENCE OR NOT.
543A LARGE NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS BELIEVE THAT SUBSTANCE DETERMINES AN ESSENCE IN NON DIVINE
544CASES.SOME THINK THAT DIVINE ESSENCE AND DIVINE SUBSTANCE / OUSIA ARE ONE AND THE SAME. A NUMBER
545OF THINKERS EVEN DENY SUBSTANCES OR ACCIDENTS. THERE ARE VARIETIES OF THOUGHTS ON THE ISSUE.
546ANY HOW AN ACT IS AN ACCIDENT WHETHER IT IS THE ACT OF DANCING OR ACT OF RUNNING ETC.
547IN WHAT SENSE IT IS SEPARATE FROM THE SUBJECT IS THAT IT IS NOT THE SUBSTANCE BUT THE SUBJECT
548[ DOER/ACTOR\AGENT] OF THE ACT IS A SUBSTANCE.
549STRANGELY THE OJECTION MAKER DISCUSSES THE ISSUE AS IT IS A NEW OBJECTION , WHERE AS IT HAS BEEN
550DISCUSS SINCE AGES.
551PROBLEM OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES:=
552THE STATEMENT GIVEN BELOW HAS MANY PROBLEMS:=
553 You cannot separate the dancer from his dance. Likewise with the creator and creation.
554 Likewise with Allah and his word. Quran is eternal but its form would change as it had changed previously.
555Forms are corruptible but the spirit is reborn in other forms.
556FIRST:= THE PROBLEM OF SUBSTANCE AND ACCIDENT STATED ABOVE.
557SECOND:= ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY AND ESSENCE OF DEITY [GODHEAD\DIVINITY]
558ATTRIBUTES OF DEITY ARE NOT SEPARATE AS IF EACH ONE OF THEM IS A DISTINCT ESSENCE. THESE ATTRIBUTES
559ARE SELF ASSOCIATED WITH THE DIVINE ESSENCE , SUBSISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE , ARE SUSTAINED IN DIVINE
560ESSENCE AND ARE INSEPERABLE FROM IT.
561YET THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM THE ESSENCE IN THE SENSE AN ATTRIBUTE OF DEITY IS NOT THE ESSENCE OF
562DEITY. OTHER WISE IF EACH ONE OF THE ATTRIBUTE IS THE ESSENCE OF THE DEITY THEN ALL THE DIVINE
563ATTRIBUTES ARE THE ESSENCE OF DEITY, IMPLYING PLURALITY IS SINGULARITY AND SINGULARITY IS PLURALITY.
564A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION. SINCE SINGULARITY IS NOT PLURALITY AND PLURALITY IS NOT SINGULARITY.THAT
565IS THE REASON A NUMBER OF THEOLOGIANS REJECT THE CLAIM THAT THE ESSENTIAL ARRIBUTES OF DEITY ARE
566IDENTICAL TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE. BUT AN OTHER NUMBER OF THEM ACCEPT THE IDENTITY.BUT THEY DO
567NOT SAY THAT IT IS MEANING LESS RAITHER THEY ATTEMPT TO PROVE IDENTILY PROVIDING ATTEPTED PROOFS
568AND THE DEBATRE GOETH ON. ONE SHOULD TRY TPO PROVE THE CLAIM INSTEAD OF CLAIMING THAT THIS IS
569MEANING LESS. EVEN THE MEANINGS IMPLYING CONTRADICTIONS ARE NOT MEANING LESS.IT WOULD HAVE
570BEEN BETTER TO SAY THAT ITS MEANING IS OF A CONTRADICTION OR ITS MEANING IMPLIES A CONTRADICTION
571RAITHER THEN TO CLAIM THAT IT IS MEANING LESS. AT LEAST NOT IN ARGUMENTS OR DEBATES.
572IT APPEARS THAT THE LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER BELIEVES THAT CREATIONS EXIST AND SUBSIT IN ALIO, IN
573THIS CASE SUBSIST AND EXIST IN DIVINE ESSENCE I.E DEITY.
574BUT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE.
575MEANING OF CREATION:=
576ABILITY TO CREAT I.E CREATIVITY IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE AND ONE THAT IS CREATED IS A CREATURE . THE
577WORD CREATION IS SOME TIME USED IN THE MEANING OF ABILITY TO CREATE , WHICH IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.
36
19
19
37
578SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE MEANING OF ONE THAT IS CREATED .

579SIMILARLY THE WORD SEPARATE IS ALSO USED IN DIFFERENT MEANINGS AND SENSES.
580DEMAND:=
581IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. IF SOME ONE BELIEVES THAT DEITY
582AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE , THEN THE NECESSARY PREREQUISIT OF THIS CLAIM IS IT IS
583POSSIBLE THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. ONE HAS TO PROVE THAT THIS IS POSSIBLE?
584A POSSIBLE OBJECTION:=
585IT MAY BE RESPONSED THAT IT IS THE IMPOSSIBILITY WHICH REQUIRETH PROOF NOT THE POSSIBILITY. SIMPLY
586THE ABSENSE OF PROOFS OF IMPOSSIBILITY PROVES ITS POSSIBILITY.
587NOTE THERE IS NOTHING NEW:=
588 Aristotle there are 10 categories into which things naturally fall. They are AS FOLLOW:=
5891] SUBSTANCE.
5902] ACCIDENTS like Quality, Quantity, Relation,Action,Passion,Time
591,Space,Arrangement,Rainment. So to discuss what so ever is discussed since centuries as if it is
592some thing new is not correct. Every Student Of Philosophy Knows that Substance is not
593Accident and vice versa, now call it Separate or coin an other word for it , the meaning is same.
594Note :A large number of theologians and Philosophers do divide creations in two types.
5951] Essences. 2] Attributes.
596If Creations Exist in Divine Essence then Created Essences also Exist In Divine Essence.This
597implieth plurality Of Essences in Divine Essence.
598This is impossible since Divine Essence is Per Se Exclusive to Essences to be in It.
599THE CLAIM IS BASED ON A FALSE ANALOGY. IT IS INCORRECT TO ANALOGUE DANCE AND CREATION. IT IS JUST TO
600NEGLECT THE INTRINSIC CHARACTERSTICS OF TWO DIFFERENT ACTS.ALSO IT IS AN INCORRECT TO SUGGEST AN
601ANALOGY BETWEEN THE RELATION OF DEITY AND DIVINE ATTRIBUTE AND RELATION OF CREATION OF DEITY AND
602DEITY.
603
604NOTE: Nature is described as:=
605 The intrinsic or indispensable quality or qualities that serve to characterize or identify something:
606Some time the term Essence is also used in this meaning. But in this work the Term Essenceis not used in this
607meaning.
608ANSWER-2:=
38
20
20
39
609A RESPONSE TO THE SECOND PART.

6101] WE REJECT THIS THEORY AND OPT FOR A PROOF ON EACH ONE OF THEM.FIRST PROVE THE DOGMA THEN
611ARGUE BY THE DOGMA. [ THIS IS THE MATHEMATICAL APPROACH ]
6122] IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT ABSENCE OF PROOFS OF IMPOSSIBILITY IS A PROOF OF POSSIBILITY IN GENERAL,
613EVEN THEN IN REGARD TO THE DIVINE ESSENCE THERE IS A NECESSARY EXCEPTION.
6143]IF DEITY AND CREATIONS EXIST AND SUBSIST IN ONE AND THE SAME ESSENCE , EVEN THEN IT IS ACCEPTED
615THAT DEITY IS INFALLABLE AND CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE AND DEITY AND CREATIONS ARE NOT EQUAL]
6164]MATHEMATICALLY: DEITY=/= CREATIONS.
6175] LET DEITY AND ANY ONE OF THE CREATION SAY C ARE IN ONE ESSENCE. A MORE POWERFUL AND STRONGER
618CASE THAN THEY ARE JUST ONE IN ESSENCE.
619NOW THERE ARE JUST TWO OPTIONS:
6201] CREATION C IS DEITY .
621 2] CREATION C IS NOT DEITY.
622IF CREATION C IS DEITY THEN AS CREATION C IS FALLABLE THE DEITY IS FALLABLE.
623IF CREATION C IS A SUBJECT OF FALLABILITY THEN THE DEITY IS ALSO ITS SUBJECT. BUT THIS IS DENIED BY
624THE OBJECTION MAKER.
625IF CREATION C IS NOT THE DEITY AND IS FALLABLE THEN IT MEANS THAT THINGS SUBJECT TO FALLABILITY AND
626CORRUPTION CO-EXIST WITH DEITY IN ONE AND THE SAME ESSENCE. THE EXISTENCE IN ONE AND THE SAME
627ESSENCE DOETH NOT MAKE CREATIONS INFALLABLE AND UNCORRUPTABLE.
628WHAT SO EVER IS TRUE FOR THE STRONG CASE IS DEFINITELY TRUE OF THE WEAKER CASE THAT CREATIONS
629AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE. SO IF CREATIONS AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE EVEN THEN CREATIONS ARE
630SUBJECT TO CORRUPTION AND FALLIBILITY. THIS REFUTES THE PART OF CONUNDRUM .
631
If the Qur'an is created, then it is subject to corruption just like all of creation.----
632[Part Two Of The Conundrum]
633BY THE EXCUSE OF ALLEGED HINDUISM AS FOLLOW:=

634
This conundrum would not arise in Hinduism because of its vision of the
635creator and created being one in essence.
636Now the entire conundrum is valid even for Hinduism. If Vedas are Creations then this part of the
637Conundrum is valid even if Vedas and Deity are Supposed to be one in essence. If Gita is a Creation Or
638Manu is a Creation , even then this conundrum is valid. If Bodies of Krishna are Creations then this part
639of the Conundrum is valid to each body of Krisna/Krishna, whether it has two hands or four. This Part
640of Conundrum is valid of S-RTI AND SMR-TI if they are creations , even if they and Deity Are One In
641Essence or even in the stronger case , they all are In One Essence. Thus being Homousia does not save
642them from this part of the conundrum.Further this implieth that all the Fallibilities and Corruptions
643Subsist and Exist in Divine Essence whether Directly or Indirectly. This is Impossible. It must also be
644noted that Deity is beyond Parts so it is Impossible that Creations are parts and parcels of Deity.There
645is no such Possibility. One who claims such a possibility is asked to provide proofs [ at least one ] for
646the possibility or contingency or both of this.
40
21
21
41
647 [ See stated above Reason for the demand of proof].
648DEITY AND CREATIONS CANNOT BE ONE ON THE STANDARD OF THE OBJECTION

649MAKERS:=
650
651IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN
652ESSENCE THEN THERE ARE FOLLOWING 4 CASES:=
6531] THE ESSENCE IS NEITHER CREATIONS NOR DEITY.2] ESSENCE IS
654CREATIONS.3] ESSENCE IS ONE OF THE CREATION4]ESSENCE IS THE
655DEITY.IF THE ESSENCE IS NEITHER THE CREATIONS NOR THE DEITY THEN
656THIS IS INCORRECT.SINCE THE OBJECTION MAKER THINKS THAT IT MAKES
657NO SENSE TO CONSIDER DIVINE ATTRIBUTES SEPARATE FROM DEITY. SO
658THE OBJECTION MAKER IS COMPEL NOT NO SEPARATE DIVINE ESSENCE
659FROM THE DEITY AN HE MUST THINK THAT IT PRIMERILY MAKES NO SENSE
660AT ALL TO MAKE A SEPERATION BETWEEN DIVINE ESSENCE AND DEITY.IF
661THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS ALL OF THE CREATIONS OR ONE OF THE
662CREATIONS THEN IT IS A CREATION.IF A CREATION THEN IT CANNOT BE THE
663ESSENCE OF THE DEITY.IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DIVINE ESSENCE AND DETY
664ARE ONE AND THE SAME ,THEN THE STATEMENTDEITY AND ALL OF HIS
665CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE REDUCES TO THE FOLLOWING
666STATEMENT:=DEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS ARE IN IN DEITY HIMSELF.
667SUCH A STRONG STATEMENT IMPLIES THAT DEITY IS ALL OF HIS CREATION.
668THIS IMPLIES THAT DEITY IS A CREATION. IF DEITY IS A CREATION THEN
669THE DEITY IS NOT THE DETY SINCE DEITY IS UNCREATED NECESSARILY.
670 DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF THE WORDS SEPARATE AND SEPERATION:=
671THE WORD SEPARATE MAY BE USED IN DIFFERENT MEANINGS.IF IT MAY MEAN A
672DISCTINCTION OR IT MAY MEAN NOT THE SAME OR EVEN AN INDEPENDENT
673SEPERATION.IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE IN
674ESSENCE OR ARE IN ONE ESSENCE YET CREATIONS ARE NOT EQUAL TO DEITY,
675CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE WHILE DEITY IS NOT , THEN THESE ARE SOME
676DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE DEITY AND HIS CREATIONS. THE WORD SEPARATE MAY
677BE USED EVEN FOR THIS TYPE OF DISTINCTION.
678AS OUR DISCUSSION IS JUST ON THE QURAN NOT ON ITS FORMS IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DISCUSSION TO
679DISCUSS ITS FORMS. HOW EVER IT IS LIKELY TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEM OF FORMS LATTER.
680BUT IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE WORD FORM I USED IN VERY DIFFERENT MEANINGS. SOME TIME IT IS USED IN
681THE MEANING OF ESSENCE , SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE MEANING OF OUSIA, SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE
682MEANING OF NATURE WHETHER THE NATURE IS PER SE SUBSISTENT OR NOT, SOME TIME IT IS USED IN THE
683MEANING OF ESSENCE, SOME TIME IN THE MEANING OF A CREATED SUBSTANCE, SOME TIME IN THE MEANING OF
684SHAPE OR FIGURE ETC. ONE NEED TO SPECIFY THE MEANING TO THE WORD PRIOR TO THE USE OF IT IN
685THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS.
42
22
22
43
686ANSWER#3:= IF THE LEARNED OBJECTON MAKER HAD STUDIED THE HYMN OF CREATION IN VEDA HE WOULD
687NOT HAVE MADE THIS OBJECTION. IT BEGINS AS FOLLOW: [IN THE BEGINNIG] THERE WAS NEITHER ASAT NOT
688SAT. THIS IMPLIES THAT SAT IS NOT ETERNAL. IN ETERNITY IF THERE WAS NO SAT THEN SAT IS CREATION.
689ETERNITY WITH OUT SAT. IS SAT ETERNAL OR IS DEITY NOT SAT? IF SAT IS CREATED THEN SAT IS MORE PRIME
690[RELATIVELY PRIME TO] THEN VITA [LIFE] . SO VEDAS SUPPORT QURAN ON THIS ISSUE,I.E IF SAT IS CREATED
691THEN VITA IS ALSO CREATED. IF SAT IS ETERNAL THEN THIS CONTRADICTS THE LITERALMEANING OF THE HYMN
692OF CREATION. IF THE OBJECTION MAKER INTERPRET THE TEXT OF HYMN AND IF HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO SO ,
693THEN OTHERS HAVE ALSO THIS RIGHT, I.E RIGHT TO INTERPRET TEXTS OF THEIR HOLY BOOKS .
694OBJECTION#8:=
695 I understand that in the sense that God is one with His energies, therefore we are one with God.
696 However, this is not to say that we are equal to God in all respects.
697Nor do I subscribe to the monist philosophy that says all individuality is Maya and therefore the ultimate reality
698is a single, homogenous Self or Brahman. We are eternally individuals, part and parcel of God.
699 God is achyuta (infallible) whereas we are fallible, as we can currently see.
700REPLIERS NOTES:=1]THE WORD WE MEANS CREATIONS ,CELEBRATIONS ETC.
7012] PLEASE NOTE THAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL IS DEITY IN SOME REGARDS THEN IT IS DEITY IN ALL
702REGARDS SINCE EITHER A BEING IS A/THE DEITY OR NOT DEITY. IF THERE IS A SINGLE
703CONDITION OF BEING DEITY NOT FULFILLED BY AN INDIVIDUAL THEN THE INDIVIDUAL CEASES TO
704BE A/THE DEITY.
7053] IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT CELEBRATIONS OR CREATIONS ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THE DEITY
706EVEN THEN THEY ARE NOT THE DEITY , IT ONLY MEANS THAT NOT-DEITIES ARE PART AND PARCEL
707OF DEITY. [MAY DEITY FORBID].
708
709ANSWER:=
7101]THIS IS IN A CLOSE APPROXIMATION TO ONE OF THE SEVERAL APPROCHES TO SPINOZA:
711Only the Being of DEITY is Substance. All things are accidents or in the attributes of God.
712This is one approach to Spinozism.
713NOTE: THIS DIRECTLY IMPLY THAT CREATIONS ARE NOT THE DEITY SINCE CREATIONS ARE
714NOT THE SUBSTANCE. THIS IS VERY ANALOGOUS TO THE OBJECTION MAKERS VIEW.
715WHAT THE OBJECTION MAKER SAID IS A TYPE OF PANTHEISM.
716THERE ARE SEVERAL TYPES OF PANTHEISM.
717THIS IS ONE OF THEM.
718DIFFFERENT FORMS OF PANTHEISM AGREE ON THE FOLLOWING COMMON POINTS IN
719GENERAL:=
44
23
23
45
7201] Beneath the apparent diversity and multiplicity of things there is one only One
721Existent ,which is Absolutly Necessary, Absolute ,Eternal, Infinite and Independent.
722NOTE: THIS DIRECTLY IMPLY THAT CREATIONS ARE NOT THE DEITY SINCE CREATIONS ARE
723NOT THE SUBSTANCE. THIS IS VERY ANALOGOUS TO THE OBJECTION MAKERS VIEW.
724Note:= If a Creation is Composite, If the Creation and Deity are One In Essence and If the
725Creation is Eternal ,then the Creation is the Deity, This Implieth
726That THE DEITY IS COMPOSITE RIGHT IN DIVINE ESSENCE [In other words God Is Composite
727In His Godhead].
728A very incorrect Result.
729Pantheism in general states that:=
730 God and the world are one. NOTE : IF ONE THEN ONE IN ESSENCE.
731
732 Whether One says All Created Things are One In Essence With God Or Say World is One In
733Essence With God are almost one and same thing with some slight differences.
734
735. The doctrine is found in Ancient Egyptian Religion and early Indian philosophy; it appears
736during the course of history in a great variety of forms, in the strictest sense, i.e. as
737identifying God and the world. Some types of Pantheism are simply Atheism. Many forms of
738Pantheism generally involves Monism, but the latter is
739not necessarily pantheistic. Emanationism may easily take on a pantheistic meaning and as
740pointed out in the Encyclical "Pascendi dominici gregis", the same is true of the
741modern doctrine of immanence.
742IT APPEARS THAT THESE OBJECTION MAKERS DO BELIEVE THAT CREATIONS EXIST IN
743ALIO , I.E CREATIONS OF DEITY EXIST AND SUBSIST IN THE ESSENCE OF DEITY. BUT THIS
744IS INCORRECT AND IMPOSSIBLE. ANY THING WHICH SUBSITETH AND EXISTETH IN DIVINE
745ESSENCE IS PROCEEDTH AND ISSUETH IMMENENTLY AND NECESSARILY WITH OUT ANY
746POSSIBILITY OF NON IMMENECE AND UNNESSACITY. THUS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE OF ANY
747CREATION TO BE IN THE DIVINE ESSENCE. AS EVENTS ARE ALSO CREATION IT IS
748IMPOSSIBLE THAT AN EVENT OCCURS IN DIVINE ESSENCE. THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF
749AN EVENT IN DIVINE ESSENCE.
750It may be noted that if Divine Essence is also the Essence of Creation even then the self of a
751creation cannot exist in the Divine Essence. So it is Distinct from the Divine Essence. So the
752selves of creations exclude Divine Essence even if Divine Essence is also the Essence of the
753Selves of Creations.
46
24
24
47
754Note1: If the creation has no Existence a part From Deity it is not implied that the
755creation subsists in Deity or in Divine Essence. The same is true for the Divine
756Essence, since Majority Of Theologians, and Philosophers believe that Divine
757Essence and Divine Existence are One and the Same.That is why they do not
758include Existence as an Attribute Of Deity but as the Essence Of Deity in every
759regard.
760NOTE2:- If the Divine Essence is the Essence Of All Creations, then the Self Of Each
761Creation Becometh a Non Essence in It self, which reduceth each Creation to an
762Accident . This implieth that No Creation is an Essence. Now as Essence of Any
763Creation is Not a Creation, the accident either Subsisteth in the Divine Essence or It
764is Distinct from the Divine Essence. Former requireth that there are possibilities of
765Bringing the Accidents stated above from Non Existences to Existence, in the
766Divine Essence. But there is no such possibility in the Divine Essence. A APossibility
767of Bringing a thing from nothingness to thingness and DivineEssence Exclude Each
768Other.
769NOTE3:=
770IF IT IS ARGUED THAT ALL NON ETERNAL THINGS SUBSIST , OCCUR AND EXIST IN
771DIVINE ESSENCE THEN ITS PREREQUISIT IS THAT THEIR SUBSISTENCE ,OCCURRENCE
772, EXISTENCE AND SUSTAINMENT ARE POSSIBLE AND CONTINGINT IN DIVINE
773ESSENCE. BUT THIS IS IMPOSSIBLESINCE ANY THING WHICH EXISTETH OR
774SUBSISTETH ETC IN DIVINE ESSENCE SUBSISTETH OR EXISTETH WITH INTRINSIC
775NECESSITY AND IT IMMENENTLY SUBSISTETH WITH OUT ANY [POSSIBILITY OF
776NEGATION OF NECESSICITY ,SUBSISTENCE [SUBSISTENS] ETC.
777NOTE 4:=
778IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT DEITY IS INFINE AND IF A CREATION EXISTETH OUT OF
779DEITY THEN THERE IS A LIMIT OF DEITY AND DEITY BECOMETH FINITE.
780ANSWER. DEITY IS NOT INFINITE IN THE SPETIAL SENCE OR IN THE VOLUMATERIC
781SENCE AS IT IS ASSUMED IN THIS OBJECTION.
782DEITY IS INFINTE IN EVERY KIND OF DIVINE PERFECTION, AND EACH PERFECTION IS
783INFINTELY PERFECT. THE INFINTY OF DEITY REQUIRETH A SPECIAL DISCUSSION BUT
784IT IS INFINITELY INCORRECT TO ASSUME THAT DEITY OCCUPY THE INFINITE SPACE
785INFINITELY.
786A VERY WRONG INTERPRETATION OF INFINITY OF DEITY.
787NOTE:#5:= IT IS NOT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THAT DEITY IS INFALLABLE AND
788CREATIONS ARE FALLABLE, BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER DIFFERENCES.
789SOME OF OTHER DIFFERENCES ARE GIVEN BELOW:=
48
25
25
49
7905,1] DEITY IS INVULNERABLE ,AND CREATIONS ARE VULNERABLE. VULNERABLIES OF

791CREATION ARE UNDENIABLE.
7925,2] CREATIONS ARE ANNIHALATABLE AND PERISHABLE BUT DEITY IS NOT.
7935,3] DEITY IS ABSOLUTE AND INFINITE. CREATIONS ARE FINITE AND NOT ABSOLUTE.
7945,4] DEITY IS IMMUTABLE BUT CREATIONS ARE MUTABLE.
7955,5] CREATIONS ARE CREATION BUT DEITY IS NOT A CREATION.
7965,6] DEITY IS OMNISCIENT BUT CREATIONS ARE NOT.
7975,7] DEITY IS OMNIPOTENT BUT CREATIONS ARE NOT.
7985,8] DEITY IS THE LORD OF CREATIONS, BUT CREATIONS ARE NOT THE LORD(S) OF DEITY. ETC.
7995.9] THE CLAIM THAT THE DIVINE SELF IS Homogenous is proof less , it is Non Homogeneous. It is
800Absolutely Simple. Perhaps the capacity of celebrations in the Divine Essence is termed as
801Homogeneity .
802This is very close to claim that Divine Self\Essence\Ousia is NOT ABSOLUTELY SIMPLE BUT
803INFINITELY COMPLEX AND ULTIMATELY COMPLICATED.
804
805Another form of Pantheism is as follow:=

806 Pantheism is the view that God is everything and everyone and that everyone and everything is God. Pantheism
807goes beyond polytheism to teach that everything is God. It teaches that there is no Created thing.
808.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
809a Creation.
810What these objection makers have said is different from UPNISHADS.

811CHANDOGYA UPNISHAD SAYS:=
812VERILY THIS WHOLE WORLD IS BRAHMAN. TRANQUIT , LET ONE WORSHIP IT AS THAT FORM WHICH HE
813CAME FORTH ,AS THAT INTO WHICH HE WILL DISSOLVE.--------- ONE SHOULD REVERENCE THE THOUGHT
814 I AM THE WORLD.
815SVETASVATARA UPNISHAD SAYS:=
816THOU ART DARK BLUE BIRD, AND GREEN PARROT WITH RED BLUE EYES.
817THESE TWO EXAMPLES SHEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE OBJECTION MAKERS ARE NOT ACCORDING TO
818THE RELIABLE HINDU WORKS OF UPNISHADS..
819THIS MEANS THAT THE WORLD IS DEITY, EACH AND EVERY THING IN THE WORLD IS DEITY, EACH AND EVERY PART
820OF THE WORLD IS DEITY, FROM THE MINUTEST SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES TO THE LARGEST HEAVENLY BODY ,EVERY
821THING IS DEITY. IF THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE WORLD THEN EACH WORLD IS DEITY.
822
50
26
26
51
823THESE OBJECTION MAKERS SAY:=
824I understand that in the sense that God is one with His energies, therefore we are one with God.
825However, this is not to say that we are equal to God in all respects.
826POINT TO BE NOTED:=
8271] THESE STATEMENTS CONFESS THAT THERE IS A PLURALITY OF ENERGIES OF DEITY, NOT A
828SINGULARITY OF ENERGY. NOW IF THESE ENERGIES ARE DEITY THEN ONCE AGAIN THE
829CONTRADICTION PLURALITY IS SINGULARITY IS IMPLIED.
8302]WE ARE NOT DIVINE ENERGIES BUT CREATIONS. SO IF DIVINE ENERGIES ARE ONE IN ESSENCE
831WITH GOD IT IS NOT IMPLIED THAT WE ARE ONE IN ESSENCE WITH GOD.
8323] UPNISHAD SAY :=
833A] WHOLE WORLD IS BRAHAMAN. AS BRAHMAN IS GOD, THEY WHOLE WORLD IS GOD.
834IF WHOLE WORLD IS GOD \BRAHMAN THEN THE WORLD IS NOT JUST EQUAL TO GOD / BRAHMAN
835BUT THE VERY GOD/ BRAHMAN HIMSELF.

836B] IT IS NOT JUST THE WORLD BUT EACH AND EVERY THING IS GOD AND GOD IS EACH AND EVERY
837THING FROM A DARK BLUE BIRD TO A GREEN PARROT ETC.

838ONE MAY NOTE THAT THIS IS ALSO THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER.
839NOW WE COME TO SEE THE PROBLEMATIC VIEW OF THE OBJECTION MAKERS.
840HE SAYS:-
841Is
creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes. [SEE OBJECTION 16, Also
842see objection#5]
843THIS MEANS THAT DEITY AND CREATION ARE NOT JUST TWO DISTINCT BEINGS OR TWO MUTUALLY DISTINCT
844HYPOSTASES IN ONE AND SAME ESSENCE BUT THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. AND ONE AND THE SAME
845BEING. IF THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME BEING THEN THE ESSENCE IN THE BEING IS ALSO ONE AND THE SAME IF
846IT IS INTERPRETED AS FOLLOW:=
847TWO TYPE OF BEINGS ONE CREATED [ CREATION] AND OTHER UNCREATED [DEITY] ARE ONE IN ESSENCE , NATURE
848ETC. THEN THIS IS INCORRECT AND UNACCEPTABLE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE RATHER NOT PER SE POSSIBLE THAT TWO
849BEINGS ONE CREATED [ CREATION] AND OTHER UNCREATED [DEITY] ARE PART AND PARCXEL OF ONE AN OTHER.
850A CONUNDRUM:=
851If Two or more things are one in Essence then they are either In One Essence or Not.
852If they are then the Essence is some thing other then ALL OF THEM.
853In this case the Essence in Which Deity and Creations are in,is some thing other then the Deity. In other words
854Godhead Of the God is other than the God.
52
27
27
53
855As this is a Separation, and the Learned Objection Maker does not believe that Divine Attributes are Separate from
856Deity, it is likely that he shall not believe that Divine Essence is Separate from the Deity on Primary Grounds.[Also
857See page 10]
858If All Creations and Deity are not in one and the same Essence then EITHER some of the CREATIONS AND DEITY are In
859One and the Same Essence , while some Creations and the Deity are not in One and the Same Essence OR NONE OF
860THEM are in One and the Same Essence..
861In the first case some of the creations and the Deity are are not one in Essence.
862In the Second case they are not One In Essence.
863A Possible Argument
864Creations and Deity are One in Essence but not in One Essence.
865ANSWER TO THE POSSIBLE ARGUMENT:=
866THE CONUNDRUM DOES WORKS SINCE IT PROCEEDS AS FOLLOW:=
867IF CREAION ARE ONE IN ESSENCE THEN THERE ARE ONLY TWO CASES. :1] THEY ARE IN ONE ESSENCE. 2] THEY ARE
868NOT IN ONE ESSENCE. [SEE THE CONUNDRUM]

869NOW SEE THE STATEMENT WHICH IS GIVEN BELOW:=
870THE OBJECTION MAKER SAYS:=
871I agree [with ] such statements because they imply that Allah, Krishna etc. are only names of the same phenomenon. We verily
872have no existence independent of God because we are God in essence. The enquiry after God is as well accomplished by the
873enquiry of the "I" which we are.
874ANSWER
875A]IT IS CORRECT THAT NO CREATION HAS ANY EXISTENCE INDEPENDENT OF DEITY BUT IT IS EQUALLY INCORRECT THAT DEITY AND
876HIS CREATIONS ARE ONE , OR DEITY AND ALL OF HIS CREATIONS DWELL IN ONE AND SAME ESSENCE.SUPPOSE THAT DEITY IS THE
877ESSENCE AND ESSE OF ALL OF HIS CREATIONS EVEN THEN NO CREATION IS IN THE DIVINE ESSENCE BUT DISTINCT FROM THE DIVINE
878ESSENCE.
879 To depend upon Deity Doeth Not Imply to be in the Essence of Deity.
880IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IN PANTHEISM DEITY IS IMPERSONAL , AND THE SAME IS THE VIEW OF THE OBJECTION MAKERS,
881SINCE A PERSONAL DEITY MUST BE DISTINCT FROM ALL CREATIONS AND ALL CREATED WORLDS.
882NOW COME TO THE POINT THAT ALL-H [SVT] IS THE PROPER NOUN OF A PHNOMENON [AL AYAZ:. BILLAH TAA:LA:]
883IT IS AN INFINITELY FALSE CLAIM. SINCE ALL-H IS THE PROPER NOUN OF THE ESSENCE THAT IS SELF NECESSARY IN EXISTENCE.
884EVEN THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES CANNOT BE CALLED BY THIS PROPER NOUN EVEN IF THEY ARE BELIEVED TO BE LOGICALLY DISTINCT
885FROM THE DIVINE ESSENCE. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE NOUN OF YAHVAH. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS NOT
886EVEN LOGICALLY DISTINCT FROM ITSELF. SO THIS ASSERTION IS DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION OF SEMETIC RELIGIONS.
54
28
28
55
887I PESONALLY THINK THAT EVEN IN HINDUISM THE NOUNS LIKE B-R-M-H OR B-R-H-N ARE NOT THE NOUNS OF ALLEGED
888PHENOMENA.THE OBJECTION MAKER IS NOT DEFENDING ANY HINDU SECT BUT EXPRESSING HIS OWN IDEAS.
889WHAT IF CREATIONS AND DEITY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE.
8901.1]IF DEITY AND CREATIONS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE THEN THEY ARE ONE IN NATURE. IF ONE IN NATURE THEN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
891HAVE TWO DISTINCT NATURES ONE FALLABLE AND OTHER INFALLABLE FOR TWO INDIVIDUALS IN ONE ESSENCE.
8921.2] IF TWO INDIVIDUALS ARE ONE IN ESSENCE AND ONE OF THEM IS DEITY THEN THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL IS A HYPPOSTASIS. IF THIS
893IS CORRECT THEN GREEK ORTHODOX ARE PERFECTLY RIGHT WHEN THEY SAY THAT THE FIRST HYPOSTASIS IS DEITY ,SECOND
894HYPOSTASIS IS DEITY,AND THIRD HYPOSTASIS IS DEITY ; BUT WHEN THEY USE THE WORD DEITY/THEOS/DEUS ETC.INDEPENDENT OF
895ANY QUANTIFIER THEY DO MEAN THE FIRST HYPOSTASIS, CONTRARY TO ROMAN CATHOLICS WHO IN THIS CASE CONSIDER THE
896ENTIRE TRINITY AS THE SUBJECT OF THE WORD(S) DEITY ETC. INSTEAD OF THE FIRST HYPOSTASIS. BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE
897WITH THE OBJECTION MAKER WHO BELIEVES IN CELEBIRATIONS IN DIVINE ESSENCE AND NOT IN HYPOSTASES IN
898DIVINE ESSENCE.
899 IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE OBJECTION MAKERS DO BELIEVE THAT EACH CELEBRATION IS FALLABLE ,
900AND DEITY IS NOT. HAD HE BELIEVED IN HYPOSTASES HE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED THAT THEY ARE NOT
901FALLABLE.
9021.3] ALL-H [ARABIC TERERAGRAMATION ] IS THE PROPER NOUN OF DIVINE ESSENCE AND NOTHING
903BUT DIVINE ESSENCE , ESSENCE AS ESSENCE.
9041.4] THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE HEBREW TETRAGRAMATION IHVH .
9052]LOGICAL FLAW: The Objection Maker says
906I understand that in the sense that God is one with His energies, therefore we are one with God.
907This can only be true when We are Divine Energies.
908It may be broken in to A syllogism.
909ALL DIVINE ENERGIES ARE ONE WITH DEITY. [MAJOR PREMISE]
910WE ARE DIVINE ENERGIES .[MINOR PREMISE]
911THERE FORE WE ARE ONE WITH DEITY.
912THE MINOR PREMISE IS INCORRECT .Since we are not Divine Energies.
913SO THE RESULT DOES NOT FOLLOW.
914DOGMA OF
CELEBRATION:
915 There are three things:=

9161] One That Celebrateth.
9172] Acts Of Celebrations
9183] Celebrated Ones.
919It is clear that God celebrateth according to the dogma of Celebration.
56
29
29
57
920But the Deity is Per Se Subsistent and Eternal .It Subsisteth and Existeth In Itself and not in Alio
921[Others].
922But the Celebrations and Celebrate
923d Ones are neither Eternals not Per Se Subsistents. They Exist in Other i.e Divine Essence or
924Godhead.
925If they are not Per Se Subsistents and Per Se Existents then they Subsist and Exist in Alio then
926they are Accidents .Since An Accident neither can subsist in Itself nor can Subsist in Itself.
927It must be noted that Existence is the Only Actualization Of an Essence, and any thing that is
928Posterior to it is an Accident. This does imply that Existence and Subsistence are supplied to
929each on of the Celebrations and celebrated ones by the Divine Essence [Godhead/Divinity], and
930they receive the Existence From the Essence.
931Since each one of the Celebrations and Celebrated Ones lacks its Proper Existence and its Proper
932Subsistence. This is nothing but the Dogma that Deity is the Only Substance and any thing other
933than Deity is an Accident.
934Now one may come to discuss the claim that Celebrations , Celebrated Ones and God all are One
935In Essence [ Godhead].
936One may term it as Illusion or Celebration or Accident the concept is one and the same . If one
937dislike the word Illusion or Maya one may not use this world, but one thing is Common that is they
938are not Subsistent, and Subsist in Divine Essence [Godhead/Divinity].
939This reduces the dogma of Celebrations to Pantheism.
940
941Now one may come to discuss the claim that Celebrations , Celebrated Ones and God all are One
942In Essence [ Godhead].
943The Union Of Celebrations , Celebrated Ones and God is in the Godhead Of God.
944But this Union is not an Essential Union [ Union Of an Essence with an other Essence] but it is an
945Accidental Union [ Union Of an Essence with Accidents].
946This means nothing but that the God Unites With Celebrations and Celebrated Ones In Godhead.
947As Accidents cannot exist in themselves and cannot subsist in themselves and receive
948Subsistence and Existence from the Per Se Subsitence Essence Of Deity, it is very clear that
949Self Of Each Celebration and each Celebrated One is Not God, in Any Sense.
950Yet they are one in Essence, where the [Godhead Of God] Divine Essence is Communicable to the
951God , but these Celebrations and Celebrated Ones are not Communicable in this sense.
952Neither Any One Of the Celebration nor the Any One Of the Celebrated Ones is Eternal ,
953Subsistent and Unannihilatable.
954This is a very strong case of Pantheism.
58
30
30
59
955Also this implies that God or Godhead or both are the Subjects Of Accidents. If they are Subjects
956Of accidents but made in the Godhead , each Accident is Inside the Godhead and not added to It
957Externally or Extrinsically or both.
958A concept which is more Pantheistic then Spinozas Pantheism.
959It is very dangerous concept and this also imply that Accidents penetrates in Godhead.
960ONE WHO HAVE STUDIED THE TOPIC IN DETAIL CAN NEVER ACCEPT THIS DOGMA WHICH IS THE BELIEF OF
961EPHEMERAL ACCIDENTS IN GODHEAD. THAT IS THE REASON NOT ALL HINDUS ACCEPT THIS TYPE OF CELEBRATIONS
962IN DIVINE ESSENCE.
963ONLY A PERSON WHO HAS NOT STUDIED THE TOPIC IN DETAIL MAY CLAIM THAT IT IS NOT PANTHEISM. AS FOR AS
964MONISM IT IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS THEN IT.

965HOW EVER TO SAY THAT SELF OF EACH CELEBRATION AND EACH CELEBRATED ONES IS NOT ONLY DISTINCT FROM
966GOD BUT ALSO FROM GODHEAD. SO GOD AND THEM ARE SELFLY DISTINCT AND ESSENTIALLY SAME.
967Note:= The Objection maker does not appears to believe that each celebration and celebrated one is Per Se Subsistent
968otherwise every thing will be reverted and celebrations must cease to be celebrations and must become Hypostasisation.
969Similarly the each Celebrated One [Celebrated Thing] Shall become a Hypostasis.
970This is not the believe of the Objection Maker. Since if a Par Se Subsistent Individual Exists in Divine Essnce then It Is an
971Hypostasis , and the Hypostasis is God. Not in the sense od Objection Maker but in the sense a Hypostasis canbe said a
972God.This sense not the belief of the Objection Maker since each Hypostasis is Unfallable, immutable ,Infinite,Unvulerable
973and Absolute, and not a creation. Some thing which is beyond the Dogma of Celebbrations.
974FORMS OF DEITY IN CASE OF CELEBRATIONS AND CELEBRATIONS.
975As for as the claim that Deity assumes different Forms , this concept is a also distorted if Celebrations in Divine Essence
976is accepted.Since each form must exist in Godhead and not added to Godhead Eternally. If so then it must receive its
977Existence and Subsistence from the Divine Essence , like any other Celebrated Thing and there must be no Essential and
978Substantial difference between an Alleged Form Of the Deity [whether it is Human or Inhuman or HemiHuman or Angelic or
979Cherubic or Super Human or Spiritual what so ever] and forms of the Deity and Creations Shall be of same kind.Thus
980entire 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
981Muhni etc. Further this means that Accidents are the ponly thing which Deity Can Create and He can create them only in
982His Godhead. If it is said that Godhead Of God is God and God /Deity is Godhead/Divine Essence then God CAN CREATES
983ONLY ACCIDENTS AND ONLY IN HIS SELF. How ever if Godhead is Distinguished From God then this shall mean that God
984can Create Only Accidents and Only in His Godhead BUT not in His Hypostasis.
985But the most significant part is that when the Entire World and every thing that is in the world is a Form then every thing
986othet than God is a Form Of God , and this means a person may worship his house goods rather then some personic
987forms , 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.
988NOTE:=
989IF IT IS SAID THAT CELEBRATIONS ARE NOT ACTS OF DEITY THEN IN DOES NOT MAKE ANY PROBLEM. SINCE EITHER
990CELEBRATIONS DO EXIST OR DO NOT EXIST. IF THEY EXIST THEN THEY EITHER RECEIVE SUBSISTENCE AND
991EXISTENCE FROM DIVINE ESSENCE OF DEITY OR THEY ARE PER SE SUBSISTENT AND PER SE EXISTENT.
992THE REST OF ARGUMENT IS SIMILAR TO STATED ABOVE. IT IS LEFT AS AN EXERCISE OF THOSE WHO ARE
993INTERESTED.
994IN EITHER CASE THEY ARE HYPOSTASES OR ACCIDENTS.
995A POINT TO BE NOTED:=
60
31
31
61
996Even in Hinduism there is a difference between an Ordanary Human Being and Persons
997like Ra:m(a) or Krishn(a).If all Human beings are One With Deity ,If All Human Beings
998are Part and Parcel Of Deity, if all the Human beings are eternally Individuals and if all
999Human Beings are Deity in [Divine] Essence\Ousia, then there is no Distinction Rama
1000and Ravana, Krishna and his foes etc. Every Tom and Dick becomes equal to Rama and
1001Krisna. So to draw a distinction between one group of people say Rama, Krishna etc.
1002and other group of people say any human being on earth is wrong and incorrect. So
1003what does this Objection Maker says does not corresponds to Popular Hinduism. This
1004implies that one should worship his own self not Krishna or one may not worship any
1005thing at all. Why shall One that is Deity in Essence\Ousia worship the Divine Essence \
1006Ousia which is nothing but Oness Divine Self.
1007f
1008THE OBJECTION MAKER SAYS:=
1009Nor do I subscribe to the monist philosophy that says all individuality is Maya and therefore the ultimate reality
1010is a single, homogenous Self or Brahman. We are eternally individuals, part and parcel of God.
1011The concept of MAYA means that it is not Par Se SUBSISTENT and cannot exist in itself. If Maya or
1012Illusion is nothing and it is Pure Nothingness and Non Existence then there is No Maya not an all. It is
1013denial of Maya. That is there is nothingness , no Maya. If there is God then God is the Only Being and
1014there is nothing else Not Even Maya. If Maya is some thing Which Exist then it is an Existent or an
1015Existing Thing. It is an Existent then whether it is called Maya or some thing lese , it is an Existent and
1016an Existing Thing.
1017At best nature of beings and Existing Things other than God may be different in Different Theological
1018AND Philosophical Systems but one thing is common They Are not Non Existents and not Non Beings.
1019THE OBJECTION MAKER IS SOME WHAT INSPIRED BY BADANTA SHASTARA:=
1020BEDANTA SHASTARA:=This was authored by B-bas.Followers of this Shastra are

1021called Bidantis.They think that all the creations are Illusion [ Maya].According to
1022them when there was a Movement of Maya in God Barmh then Barmh was called
1023Ashvara.Ashvara Manifested in three gods namely 1] Barhama 2] B-sha-n 3]Sheo
1024[Some time also called Narain or Maha Deo].They believe that all the Creations
1025are in God.
1026The learned Objection Maker differs from them ONLY in using the word MAYA for
1027Beings Other that God/Deity.
1028But it is just a verbal difference . Call them Maya or Illusion or Reality or by any
1029other term. The Question is wheter Beings which are Not Deity/God Do Exist or Do
1030Not Exist. If they do exist then they are not Pure Non Existence and they are Not
1031Absolute Nothingness,
1032If Maya is Just an other word For Nothingness and Non Existence thenthere is Only
1033God and nothing else.
1034If Maya is something which Exists then it is CERTAINLY NOT Nothingness AND
1035CERTITUDELY NOT NonExistence.
62
32
32
63
1036So the words Celebrations and Illusions [Maya] does not make much Difference in
1037the Nature of their Subjects.
1038If they are not alternative terms they make slight difference in the Nature of the
1039things.which are the Subjects of them.
1040So there are some difference of openions on the nature of Existing Things Other
1041Than Deity. But it is clear that they are just Accidents.
1042To represent their Accidental Nature some used the word Maya and some used the
1043word Celebrations [Li:la].
1044The word Maya have more than one meanings. But this may be said that Reality
1045Of Creations and Creations are In Relation and In Comparison to the Divine Reality
1046is Infinitely less and this Reality Of Less-ness is attempted to be expressed by the
1047terms like Maya or
1048Celebrations , Images, Forms, Projections etc.
1049B] This objection is based on the theory that Deity is Innominable. All the Nouns
1050are of the Assumed forms of Deity, not of the Essence Of the Deity.This is an
1051incorrect concept. The transcendence of Deity doeth not imply that The Deity is
1052innominable.
1053
1054
1055 OBJECTION#9:=
1056Question...Does God's words being eternal necessarily mean that those words (in the form of a law, per se) apply eternally and in
1057all cases?
1058Answer is:= Actually all words in all scriptures are man's words. But since such enlightened people have
1059reached the higher dimensions of knowledge, it is right to say that they are God's words - for what is God but
1060divinity in absolute terms? About eternal words applying eternally, it was colourfully put in the Bible, The
1061letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.
1062ANSWER:=
1063 ALTHOUTH THIS QUESTION IS NOT RELATIVE TO THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION AND OUGHT TO BE LEFT OUT YET
1064FOR SOME REASONS SOME COMMENTS ARE NECESSARY .
1065LET CHRISTIANS EXPLAIN THE EXPRESSION. THERE ARE GOOD COMMENTARIES OF HEBREW BIBLE AND GREEK
1066NEW TESTAMENT. ONE MAY REFER TO THEM BEFORE QUOTING THEM IN HIS OWN FASHION.WORDS SPOKEN BY
1067MESSIAH CANNOT KILL BUT GIVE LIFE.IF LIFE IS GIVEN THEN IT IS NOT ETERNAL. THE WORD SPIRIT MAY
1068CORRESPOND TO THE THIRD HYPOSTASIS IN THE GOD THE TRINITY, NOT TO THE HUMAN SOUL. IT IS A
1069DIFFERENT CASE. DOES THE OBJECTION MAKER BELIEVES IN TRINITY??
1070LET US SOLVE THE MYSTRY OF TRINITY FOR OUR LEARNED OBJECTION MAKER:
64
33
33
65
1071ACCORDING TO THE DOGMA OF TRINITY THERE ARE THREE MUTUALLY DISTNCT ETERNAL HYPOSTASES AND
1072ONLY ONE ETERNAL BEING. IN MORE CLEAR WORDS ONE ETERNAL AND DIVINE BEING, AND IN THIS BEING
1073THERE IS ONE PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE , AND IN THIS PER SE SUBSISTENT ESSENCE THERE ARE THREE
1074MUTUALLY DISTINCT HYPOSTASES CONSTUTED BY FOUR RELATIONS. THE NATURE OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS
1075THE DIVINE ESSENCE ITSELF I.E NATURE AND ESSENCE ARE ONE AND THE SAME THING IN THE DIVINE CASE I.E
1076IN THE CASE OF DEITY. THE NUMBER OF DEITY/DEITIES DEPENDS UPON THE NUMBER OF THE ESSENCE OR
1077BEING OF THE DEITY AND NOT UPON THE NUMBER OF HYPOSTASES IN THE ESSENCE OR BEING OF THE DEITY.
1078THAT IS WHY THE NUMARICALLY THREE HYPOSTASES CONSTITUTE ONE BEING [EXISTENT].
1079
1080ANSWER:=
1081AT LEAST THIS IN NOT THE CASE WITH QURAN. IT IS NOT THE SPEECH OF ANY CREATED SUPPOSITUM SAY
1082HUMAN OR ANGEL OR WHAT SO EVER.
1084OBJECTION#10:=
1085
1086When all Muslims proclaim that Quran is the word of God, naturally it has to be assumed that the Quran is
1087eternal. But Islamic theology might have some difficulty in explaining how there could be the phenomenon of two
1088eternals.
1089OBJECTION#11:=
1090The question of ‘shirk’ then arises. I thought this was an interesting subject from the
1091academic point of view. Of course I am aware that just as they say love is blind, likewise faith also does not
1092require any explanations.
1093
1094
1095ANSWER:= [AN ANSWER TO OBJECTION# 10 AND OBJECTION#11]
1096
1097TO CLAIM THAT PLURALITY OF ETERNALS IS A SHIRC IS DUE TO MISCONCEPTION OF THE ISLAMIC TERM SHIRC.
1098IT IS NOT TENTAMOUNT TO THE TERM POLYTHEISM. IT REQUIRES A DISCUSSION OF IT SELF.ANSWER TO
1099OBJECTION #12 MAY BE HELPFUL IN THIS REGARD.
1100The claim of DIFFICULTIES in Islamic Theology is not correct. On the contrary the Object Maker also have
1101some difficulties but only he does neglect them. AS FOR THE EXPRESSIONS LOVE IS BLIND, FAITH IS BLIND , IT
1102MAY BE SAID THAT THE SAME CAN BE SAID THAT FOR THE CLAIM THAT THE WORLD IS A LI:LA [CELEBRATION].
1103BUT THE OBJECTION MAKER DID NOT SAY IT FOR THE REASONS MENSIONED IN TWO EXPRESSIONS.
66
34
34
67
1104If it is accepted that there are some problems in Islamic theological System then it may be noted that there
1105is no religious system which is beyond such theological problems. Even the theological system is not beyond
1106such theological problems. The question is how a religious system deals with these problems. It is the
1107solution to the problem presented by the theological system of a religion, which is important and significant
1108not the problem. So mere the existence of a problem in the theological system of a religion cannot be a
1109proof of the weakness of the religion but the lack of proper solution presented by the system.
1110OBJECTION#12:=
1111What I meant was that anything that is a divine expression of other religions is shrugged off as 'shirk' by
1112Islam. It inevitably turns out to be a case of throwing the baby away with the bathwater. That is, all
1113religions, except Islam, are treated as being totally in error - when there could be so many things in other
1114religions that Muslims could learn to admire though there many be differences on some fundamental
1115issues.This way, a culture of inclusiveness could be encouraged in Islam, leading to a brotherhood of all
1116believers - not just a brotherhood of Islamic believers.
1117ANSWER:=
1118NOTE. THE ANSWER IS JUST RESTRICTED TO THE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM OF SHIRC\SHIRK\SCHIRK.
1119SHIRCK IS A VERY TECHNICAL TERM OF ISLAMIC NOMENCLEATURE. IT IS A MISCONCEPTION THAT IT IS
1120ALTERNATIVE TERM OF POLYTHEIM. A NUMBER OF BELIEVES MAY BE TERMED AS SHIRK, BUT NOT AS
1121POLYTHEISM. THERE ARE MANY BELIEVES WHICH ARE TERMED AS SHIRC. FOR EXAMPLE:=
11221] PLURALITY OF DEITIES.
11232] PLURALITY OF ETERNAL ESSENCES.
11243] PLURALITY OF INFINITE ESSENCES.
11254]PLURALITY OF ETERNAL PER SE SUBSISTENTS.
11265] EXISTENCE OF CREATIONS IN DEITY OR DIVINE ESSENCE.
11276] EXISTENCE OF DEITY IN CREATIONS.
11287] A BELIEF THAT A CREATION IS INDEPENDENT OF DEITY.
11298] BELIEF THAT A CREATION IS A PART OF DEITY.
11309] BELIEF THAT DEITY IS MUTABLE.
113110] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY IS FINITE
113211] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY IS NOT ABSOLUTE.
113312] THE BELIEF THAT THE WORLD IS NOT PER SE SEORSUM.
113413] THE BELIF THAT A CREATION IS EQUAL IN ANY ONE OF ITS ATTRIBUTE TO A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.
68
35
35
69
113514] THE BEIEF THAT DEITY IS NOT ETERNAL.

113615] THE BELIEF THAT THE WORLD OR ANY PART OF ANY POSSIBBLE WORLD EXIST IN DIVINE ESSENTIA ,DIVINE
1137OUSIA ,DIVINITY,GODHEAD,DIVINE NATURE.
113816]THE BELIEF THAT CREATIONS ARE PARTS OF DEITY.
113917] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY IS PART OF CREATIONS [WORLD], ETC.
114018] a)THE BELIEF THAT POSSIBILITY OF CREATION AND CREATURES EXIST IN THE DIVINE ESSENCE.b) THE BELIEF
1141THAT THE WORLD AND THINGS IN THE WORLD EXIST INSIDE THE DIVINE ESSENCE/GODHEAD.
114219] THE BELIEF THAT DEITY TAKES FORM OF WORLD AND THINGS IN THE WORLD. Etc.
1143To believe that Created Beings and Uncreated Being are One In Essence or to believe that Created Beings are
1144Part and Parcel Of Uncreated Being or both , such believes are certainly SHIRC beyond doubt. The Objection
1145Maker wants than the Word Shirc /Shirk/Shirck may not be used for such believes. But if this is not Shirc
1146then nothing canbe termed as Shirc. One may wonder why the Objection Maker does not think that to
1147believe that Creations Exist in Deity Intrinsically is not Shirc or Created Beings [ Creations ] are Included In
1148DiVINE Essence. It may be seen that the Objection Maker is Of The View That unless and other wise All
1149created Beings are believed to be equal to Deity in each and every Regard with out any single Exception and
1150they and Deity are PART AND PARCEL of Deity Only then it is Shirc. Al Ayaz: Billah Taala.
1151
1152 SEMETIC RELIGIONS HAVE NOTHING TO LEARN FROM NON SEMETIC RELIGIONS IN ORDER TO CORRECT THEIR
1153ALLEGED ERRORS. HOW EVER THEY HAVE TO LEARN NON SEMETICS IN ORDER TO ERASE MISCONCEPTIONS.
1154IT MAY BE NOTED THAT IN THE ENTIRE MUSLIM HYSTORY THERE WAS A MAN OF BANS BARAILI [UNITED
1155PROVINCES INDIA NAMED AS AHMAD RADA SHAH, WHO BELIEVED THAT TO BELIEVE THAT DIVINE KNOWLEDGE
1156AND THE PROPHETIC KNOWLEDGE ARE EQUAL IN ALL REGARDS WITH THE DIFFERENCE THAT DIVINE
1157KNOWLEDGE IS ETERNAL AND PROPHETIC KNOWLEDGE IS NOT, THEN THIS IS NOT SHIRC. BUT NONE AGREED
1158WITH HIM]. SEE FOOT NOTES OF ADDAULATUL MAKKIAH, TEXT AND THE FOOT NOTES ALL ARE BY THE AUTHOR
1159RADA SHAH OF BANS BARAILI [1856AC-1930AC] ,UNITED PROVINCES , BRITISH INDIA [1857AC-1947AC]
1160The Objection Maker does want that the belief that the World and things in the World are part and parcel
1161of Deity may not be termed as Shirc .The Deity is Infinitely Beyond and Absolutely Transcendent from this.
1162IT IS VERY STRANGE THAT THE OBJECTION MAKER SEES NO OBJECTION IN THE BELIEF THAT CREATIONS ARE
1163PART AND PARCEL OF UNCREATED DEITY. If to believe that Fallible are the part and parcel of Unsalable Deity
1164is not SHIRC then nothing can be called SHIRC , not even the Polytheism.
1165 The objections not related to the present discussion are neglected.
1166NOTE:=
11671]It may be noted that Polytheists have tried to make a virtual Harmony between
1168Monotheism and Polytheism by claiming that the Supreme Being [Deity] Menifesteth ,
1169Incarnatesth , Theophanizes in a number of lower gods or demigods which are just forms of
70
36
36
71
1170the one and same Sureme Being. But this is nothing but Shirc. For example Shiu/Shiva is
1171not Vshnu. If both were one and the same then Spouse Of Shiva is the Spouse Of Vishnu.
1172But this is not the case. If Shiva, Vishnu and Barahma all are the Angelic Manifestations of
1173Only One Deity say Barmh then why Barahma is rarely worshipped , and why there are
1174only two or three temples for Barahma. Such dogmas cannot MAKE POLYTHEISM
1175MONOTHEISM.
11762]This does shew that they are gods and demigods. Does the objection maker wants to say
1177that the Human Manifestations of God Barmh [Say Rama or Krishna]]and the Angelic/Super
1178Human Menifestations of Barmh [ Say Shiva or Vishnu] are one and the same?
11793] Are the alleged Divine forms just helpless puppets in the hand of Deity Barmh.
11804] If a Divine Form of the Supreme Being a Supreme Being. If yes then there are more then
1181one Supreme Being. I.e there are Supreme Beings. If no then it is just a creation and
1182worshipping of creations is a kind of Polytheism hence a kind of Shirc as well.
1183
1184 OBJECTION#13:=
1185If God is eternal, His capabilities would also be eternal otherwise
1186 He would have diminished and no longer a God.
1187 Gods word is eternal because His capability to produce words is eternal. His words forms, meanings and
1188purpose may change but not its potency. If the Quran is in this form today, it could be in another form
1189tomorrow. Divine knowledge, in one form or another, has always been and would always be available to man.
1190ANSWER:=
1191It is accepted that deity is eternal. Divine capabilities are are dive attributes. So plurality of divine
1192attributes are accepted in the objection. So plurality is not singularity. This implies at least some
1193sort of distinction between divine attributes and divine essence. This may be a real one or a
1194logical one or of some other type. If plurality of forms of quran are possible, the possibility of the
1195possible does not imply its occurrence or existence or both.
1196
1197
1198[see
above]
1199For sake of arguments [ at least one] let it be suppose thatit is possible that the divine eternal
1200speech have more then one form then it it not necessary that it is impossible to have only one
1201form. it may be said that a form of quran which is in the line of actualization
1202Not just in the domain of possibilities and contingencies is a creation and all creations are subject
1203to corruption then the form of quran must be a subject of corruption.
72
37
37
73
1204An answer to this objection is as follow:=

1205Corruption of a possible creation is possible, neither necessary not absurd [impossible].
1206But possibility of a thing doeth not imply the occurrence of the thing. Since possibility neither
1207imply existence nor im[ply actualization. So it this case supposed for the sake of arguments if
1208athe only actualized form of quran is possible to be corrupted , it is also possible that it is not
1209corrupted. Neither corruption is necessary nor not- corruption is necessary. Now to save qurans
1210form is also possible for deity. So deity pave power to save the form of the quran from
1211corruption. So if the created form of uncreated quran is saved by the omnipotent deity there is no
1212corruption it quran.
1213It must be noted that divine knowledge is omniscience and a divine attribute . divine knowledge
1214is eternal,essential,necessary,absolute,infinite,simple, with out any exception encompasses every
1215object of knowledge [ object of knowledge = all that can be known whether possible or necessary
1216or absurd, not necessary an existent]. So this is impossible that entire knowledge is available to
1217any creation. It is absolute- absurd not just relative- absurd. [ absolute -impossible not just
1218relative- possible].
1219Note#1:= Terms like Absolute-Impossible etc are terms may not sound grammatical, some may
1220suggest to use terms like Absolutely Impossible but the sense can only be preserved if the term
1221Absolute-Impossible is used.
1222Note#21=: Divine Energies and Divine Capabilities are Divine Attributes And Nothing But Divine
1223Attributes..
1224Note#3:= This does make a distinctions between Divine Attributes and The Celebrations. The
1225objection Maker Accepts that: His capabilities would also be eternal otherwise He would have
1226diminished and no longer a God. If the Celebrations are not Eternal then does Deity Diminish? If the Answer
1227is Negative then Celebrations are Not Attributes. If the Answer is Affirmative then Celebrations are
1228Attributes. There is no escape from this Dilemma.
1229Note#4:= If Quran hath several Per Se Possible Forms it is not Necessary that it changes its form as suggested
1230by the Objection Maker.If change is possible conservation in the present form with out any change is also Per
1231Se Possible. Now the problem reverts to Relative Necessity and Relative Absurdity.
1232Note#5:= The learned Objection Maker says that He would have diminished and no longer a God
1233This means if Deity is not Eternally Infallible the He Ceaseth to be Deity. As Creations are not Infallible the
1234cannot be eternally infallible , hence the are not Deities and it is a flaw or a defect in Divine Essence is
1235there is a Per Se Possibility or Per Se Contingency of being the Part and Parcel of Deity. A disgrace and
1236disarmament of the Deity and Divine Perfection.
1237
1238
1239OBJECTION#14:=
74
38
38
75
1240We use the word God or Allah or Krishna when we anthropomorphise the phenomenon called life and thereby
1241often forget that God, however called is but life or existence.Forms may change (die), But life is eternal
1242and ever celebrating its potency in various and endless forms and names.
1243ANSWER:=
1244DEITY HAS NO FORM. THE WORD FORM IF USED IN CASE OF DEITY ONLY MEANETH DIVINE ESSENCE. SO THERE
1245IS NO FORM OF DEITY EXCEPT DIVINE ESSENCE. THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE DIVINE NATURE. IN CASE OF DEITY
1246ESSENCE AND NATURE ARE ONE AND HAVE THE SAME MEANING. IF IT IS SUPPSED THAT DIVINE ETERNAL
1247ATTRIBUTES HAVE DIFFERENT NON ATTERNAL FORMS EVEN THEN IT IS NOT IMPLIED THAT THE DEITY I.E DIVINE
1248ESSENCE HAVE DIFFERENT ETERNAL FORMS. BUT LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT THE DIVINE DEITH HATH SOME NON
1249ETERNAL FORMS, THEN NO FORM IS DEITY,EACH FORM IS A NOT-DEITY , A NOT-GOD.SIMILARLY NO FORM OF
1250ANY DIVINE ATTRIBUTE IS A DIVINE ATTRIBUTE.
1251Note Only Divine Vita [Life] is Eternal, Not Divine Life is Not Eternal.
1252Also Non Eternal Lives are corruptible [I.E THEIR CORRUPTION IS ABSOLUTE-POSSIBLE (ABSOLUTELY
1253POSSIBLE)]. The number of people Die each day is a Certain Proof of the Claim. But Deity Cannot die, since
1254this is Absolute -Absurd.
1255The Problem Of Noun Krishna. If the word Krishna is used for the Divine Essence i.e Deity like Barmh or
1256Brahman then it would have been a different case. But Krishna is a proper noun of a human being , who
1257claimed to be a Divine Incarnation . So it is a problematic noun. Even Dayanand the founder of Arya Samaj
1258sect do not call God as Krishna or Rama etc . [ If he calls God by these Nouns Please QUOTE HIS OWN WORK]
1259So it is a different case. Attempts are made to equate Jesus[IESOUS] and Krishna but even this is not
1260successful in the least sence.When it is Impossible to say Jesus and Krishna are One it is primly Impossible to
1261say God and Krishna are one. Some Hindu Missionaries have tried to equate Jesus and Krishna to target some
1262Christians but not even a single attempt was successful. The natures of incarnation of Jesus as according to
1263RC is very DIFFERENT from the nature of Incarnation in Major Hindu sects. ANY HOW KRISHNA IS NEITHER
1264JESUS NOR YAHVAH, SIMILARLY KRISHNA IS NEITHER ALL-H NOR YAHVAH.WHAT SO EVER IS TRUE FOR KRISHNA
1265IS ALSO TRUE FOR RAMA. HINDU REFORMIST PANDIT DIANAND ALSO DENY INCARNATIONS AND HE BELIEVE
1266THAT NEITHER KRISHNA IS GOD NOT RAMA IS GOD.
1267What is the actual point, the point it is not just easy to make such great claims which cannot be proved. If
1268some one takes them AXIOMATICALLY others have equal right to reject this Axiom.They may reject this
1269Axiom.
1270 NOTE: DEITY CANNOT DIE BUT NOT-DEITY LIVINING BEINGS CAN DIE. SUPPOSE THAT DEITY HATH SEVERAL
1271FORMS . SUPPOSE THAT THE NUMBER OF FORMS ARE INFINTE OR UNCOUNTABLE BY ANY HUMAN MIND IF
1272FINITE, THEN NO FORM OF DEITY IS DEITY ,SINCE Forms may change (die) BUT DEITY CANNOT DIE
1273(CHANGE). DEITY IS IMMUTABLE. IF THE DEITY / DIVINE LIFE /DIVINE EXISTENCE VELEBRATES
1274HIMSELF/ITSELF IN A NUMBER OF VARIOUS FORMS EVEN THEN :=
12751)NO [ALLEGED] CELEBRATION OF DEITY IS DEITY.
12762) NO [ALLEGED] FORM OF DEITY IS DEITY .( SEE ABOVE).
1277SO IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE DEITY MAY ASSUME A FORM EVEN THEN NOUN OF A FORM IS NOT THE
1278NOUN OF THE DEITY.IT MAY BE NOTED A FORM IS NOT A NATURE AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS BELIEVE
76
39
39
77
1279THAT ONLY NATURES CAN BE ASSUMED. BUT THE OBJECTION MAKER CANNOT REDUCE THE ENTIRE WORLD
1280INTO A NATURE. SO EVEN FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TRINITARIAN CHRISTIANDOM IT IS ABSOLUTE1281IMPOSSIBLE THAT DEITY ASSUMES THE ENTIRE WORLD AS A NATURE.
1282THE
NUCLEUS OF THE PROBLEM.
1283It appears that the problem in the Heart Of the Objection Maker is as follow:=
1284If Divine speech Of Deity is Eternal but its Non Eternal forms may may also be called Divine
1285Speech/Word then any

1286Form of Deity may be called a Deity.
1287ANSWER:= There are two types of Speaches but Deity is Not Only Of ONE TYPE but Only One. That is
1288the reason
1289 any Non Eternal Form Of Eternal Divine Speech may be called as Divine Speech, but any Supposed
1290Possible Form Of Deity cannot be called

1291Deity. But this is not the real answer since the Principle Position is as follow:=
12921] It is Per Se Absurd For Deity To Assume or to Take any Form.
12932] Each type of Divine Speech is not a form of one an other or any one of them is the form of other,
1294Although they may be connected.
1295 .
1296
1297OBJECTION#15:=
1298Can we here consider the issue as to whether the Quran was created by Allah or is it the uncreated eternal word of Allah? I
1299personally believe that the Quran cannot be an uncreated phenomenon unless it is propositioned that the Quran is Allah.
1300ANSWER:=
1301THIS OBJECTION HATH BEEN ANSWERED. THIS IS JUST A REPEATATION. FOR DISCUSSION PLEASE SEE ABOVE.
1302SEE PAGE 4
ETC.
1303Note : 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
1304words cal-mah and lafz: mean word.
1305Any How phrase word of Deity is not incorrect, but the Phrase Speech Of Deity is preferable.
1306OBJECTION#16:=
1307Quran was communicated to Mohammad by Gabriel in the form of spoken Arabic. It was later consolidated into the form of written Arabic. In
1308what 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
1309would Allah have retained it? In the eternal formless silence, of course.
78
40
40
79
1310ANSWER:=
1311IT CAN BE COMMUNICATED DIRECTLY. SINCE THE ACT OF SPEAKING IS NOT ETERNAL. BUT THIS IS ONLY A CORALLERY OF A
1312MORE FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM. THE EMANATION OR ISUUANCE OF DIVINE ACT OR DOINGS FROM DIVINE
1313ATTRIBUTES OR QUALITIES.
1314THE WORD SCILENCE IS USED IN SEVERAL MEANINGS. IN GENERAL A PERSON WHO HAS NOT STUDIED THEOLOGY AND
1315PHILOSOPHY DOES THINK IT IS JUST ABSENCE OF [KNOWN] SOUNDS. A THEOLOGICIAN MAY CONSIDER SCILENCE AS ABSENCE OF
1316SPEECH OR ABSENCE OF WORDS.
1317SO IN THE FORMER SENSE ON MAY TERM IT AS FORM-LESS SCILENCE. BUT IN THE LATTER STATED SENSE , A SPEECH WHAT SO
1318EVER IT IS NOT SCILENCE.
1319OBJECTION#17:=
1320Is sound and silence one and the same thing?
1321Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes.
1322
1323 The formless eternal silence takes on the form of ephemeral sound. Ephemeral creation is the celebration of the eternal Creator. The creator is the
1324celebration - the eternal creator’s endless ephemeral celebrations.

1325ANSWER :=
1326THIS IS SOME WHAT A COMPLEX OBJECTION.
1327THE QUESTION Is sound and silence one and the same thing?is discussed above. See
1328Objection #16.
1329THE QUESTION WITH AN ANSWER:=
1330 Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes.Is also discussed above.
1331Now we come to the most new part of the Objection.
1332The Objection Maker says:=
1333The formless eternal silence takes on the form of ephemeral sound. Ephemeral creation is the celebration of the eternal Creator. The creator is the
1334celebration - the eternal creator’s endless ephemeral celebrations.

1335IF EACH CELEBRATION IS ETERNAL THEN NON ETERNAL EVENTS ARE IMPOSSIBLE. IF EACH CELEBRATION IS NOT ETERNAL, THEN
1336THEY ARE CORRUPTIBLE, FALLABLE, EVEN IF THEY ARE ONE IN ESSENCE OF DEITY. One again the Objection Maker uses the word
1337Celebration. 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
1338with 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
1339Creation 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
1340different 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
1341Deity. 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.
1342Since 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.
80
41
41
81
1343Actually 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
1344Accident or Non Ephemeral Substance is a celebration as according to the sense of the Objection Maker. Creations Of Deity are Distinct From Deity. No
1345Creation say world Existeth In Divine Essence.
1346PROBLEM OFC ELEBRATION:=
1347 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
1348dangerous claim . Uptill now the attempted proof of this claim is found to be as below:=
1349ALLEGED PROOF:=
1350God 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
1351Godhead where a thing can be created. To suggest such a place or space implies that God and Godhead are Finite.
1352Refutation:=
1353This 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
1354Impossible 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.
1355So 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
1356Attributes Absolute-Impossible Upon [Unto] Deity. Also no Celebration can penetrate in God and Godhead. Deity is impenetrable. So no Celebration can
1357exist in Deity or in His Divinity [Godhead/Divine Essence].
1358There 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
1359cannot be a Celebration.
1360According 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
1361Beingness [Existence] even if they are supposed to be residing in Godhead or God or both.
1362So not all the Hindu Sects or Cults agree with the Objection Maker.
1363OBJECTION#18:=
1364So is the Quran created or eternal? The Quran is the created form of the eternal uncreated formless silence. Ditto other
1365scriptures.
1366
1367ANSWER:=
1368ONE MAY CALL IT ETERNAL DIVINE SPEECH AS FORMLESS SCILENCE IF HE OR SHE LIKES IT BUT ONE MAY
1369NOT CALL IT SO IF ONE MAY NOT LIKE IT. AS FOR THE OTHER SCRIPTURES , IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT
1370THEY ARE ALSO LIKE QURAN. SEE THE WORKS OF HADIS, THE SCRIPTURES YET NOT DIVINE SPEECH.
1371QURAN IS NOT THE ONLY MUSLIM ARABIC SCRIPTURE, BUT BOOKS LIKE BUKHARI , MUSLIM, MUVATTA,
1372TARMIZI ETC ARE ALSO MUSLIM SCRIPTURES . THOUGH INITIALLY THEY WERE ORAL TRADITIONS BUT
1373ONCE WRITTEN THEY DO BECOM SCRIPTURES. SO NOT ALL SCRITURES ARE SPEECH OF DEITY. It may be noted
1374that if Speech is inaudible ,it may not be called scilence in the meaning if Speechlesness.
1375Conclusion:=
1376 Qura:n is not Eternal FormlesScilence But Qura:n is Eternal Formless Speech. If by the
1377word silence it is means that there is no Accidental Sounds then even Deity is in Eternal
1378Silence , not just Eternal and Perpetual Divine Speech.
82
42
42
83
1379
1380OBJECTION
#19:=
1381Is creation and creator one and the same thing? Yes.
1382ANSWER:=
1383A]Creation and Creator are not the same. Since :=
13841] The Creator Is Certainly Not A Creation.
13852] The Creations are Not Eternals and Creator Is Eternal.
13863]Creator is Absolute Necessary Existent and Creations Are Absolute Possible Existents.
13874] It Is Absolute Absurd that Singularity Is Plurality and Plurality Is Singularity.
13885]Singularity is Not Plurality and Plurality Is Not Singularilty. See Above:1389B] 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
1390only One Essence.
1391THE DOGMA OF CELIBRATION MAY BE REJECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:=

1392Either 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
1393Esse ,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
1394is 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
1395Being then Supreme Being. But a Celebration is neither the Supreme Being nor the Necessary Being. Since Supreme Being and Necessary Being
1396are 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
1397regard. 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
1398and becomes a Hypostasis in Divine Esse, and if in Divine Esse then in Divine Essence ,SINCE DIVINE ESSE AND DIVINE ESSENCE ARE
1399ONE AND THE SAME. IF a Hypostasis in Divine Essence [GODHEAD\DIVINITY] then Deity Since a Hypostasis in the Divine Essence [If the
1400Divine 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
1401believes He accepts that Celebrations are not Deity in All REGARDS [See Above].
1402If the Divine Essence is not Communicable to the Celibration then it is Incommunicable, Distinct Per Se Seorsum. In this case the Celebration is
1403not 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
1404Excluded from It.
1405C] 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
1406thing also say the converse.
1407Similarly a number of people say Deity is in time but some of them also say Time is in Deity.
1408If the Word IN is used in the meaning of COMMUNICABLE then:=
1409 If A is Communicable to B then B is Communicable to A.

1410This Implies that If A is in B then B is in A, if the world In means :=
1411Communicable To.
1412D]If Creations are celebrations and Celebrationsare not Per Se Subsistent, but they Subsist and Exist inthe Deity then they are Assumed in the
1413Deity.If they are Assumed in the Deity then they are either Assumed in the Divine OUSIA [Godhead\Divinity] or in the Divine Hypostasis.
1414But Divine Ousia Cannot Assume any thing whether the thing is SUBSISTENT OR INSUBSISTENT.There fore if the Deity Can Assume any thing,
1415the 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
1416Hypostases [At least One] in the Divine Ousia . If it is assumed that the learned Objection Maker does believe in Hypostasesin Divine Ousia [At
1417Least One] then the Hypostasis [If There Is Any In Divine Ousia] Can Assume Only Natures. It Cannot Assume Per Ser Subsistents
1418,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
1419the World are Just Natures, neither Per Se Subsistent nor Per Se Seorsum , but Existing and Subsisting in the Rational Hypostasis, which in tern
1420Exist 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
1421Natures 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
1422only if:=
1423a] 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
1424but 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
1425Divine 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
1426nothing 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
1427World 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
1428Hypostasis 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
1429Female Human Natures, Angelic Natures, [Non Divine]Spiritual Natures,Hemi Human Natures etc. Not to mention Natures of Non Living things.
1430Also the Celebrations in this case do lack some thing [ in this case] which make them to fall short from being Substances, Subsistents, Ens ,
1431Substrata etc.Some thing missing.Now if such a thing is Possible since there is no Impossibility of Non Divine Substances then the question is
1432how 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
1433Objection Maker and a very difficult choice indeed.
1434If the Deity Hath become all things which do exist in the World and the very world itself then:=
1435] 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.,
1436Deity 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.
1437]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.
1438The Deity is the Time, and also The Deity is the Space.
1439] Deity Commiteth all sorts of [transitive] Crimes, Sins , Transgressions etc. what so ever eg.,lying,cruelity,injustice brutality, terrorism
1440Cannibalism .
1441] Deity Commiteth all Sexual Activities by becoming male living beings and their female counterparts.
1442 Deity conceives ,and gets pregnan by becoming Women.
84
43
43
85
1443] There are several intransitive Acts which cannot be Ascribed to Deity yet the Dogma Of Celebration suggests the Deity does them by
1444becoming Creations like Expansion, Contraction,Explosion,Sleeping, Moving etc.
1445]There is no Non Divine Substance,but Natures Of Non Divine Substances in the World.
1446This means that Deity is Doing all Transatives acts by becoming Subjects [Agents] and Objects in the World. One Celebration Of Deity doing a
1447Transact ACT to an other Deity is always doing things to Himself whether the Acts or Good or Bad or Evil what so ever
1448The consequences of Dogma Of Celebrations in Divine Ousia stated above are Indispensible and inevitable.
1449Even the learned Objection Maker is not likely to accept these consequences of this Dogma. Assuming a Nature means nothing but to become a
1450being of the Nature.
1451Conclusion:=
1452The Dogma of Celebration involves Deity in each and every flaw, defect, bad, evil . This dogma is a disgrace to Divine Being [Deity/God / Barmh
1453Eshvera etc].This Dogma may leads to the view that there is nothing evil in the world, even cannibalism is not evil etc.
1454
1455
1456E] It may be noted that the learned Objection Maker Does neglect the Problems and Objections on the DOGMA OF CELEBRATIONS and
1457Make objections on others.
1458Sometimes Objections are as blind as love .
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463Now we quote Pandit Dayanand Sarsoti who tried to defend Eternity Of Vedas. What so ever he said was inspired by Christian and Muslim
1464Works.His words for Vedas Do Serve our Purpose:=
1465
1466
1467
Search
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.
1468
1470Chapter
4,The Eternity of the Vedas
1471The Vedas having been produced by God and all powers of God being eternal, their
1472eternity is self-evident.
1473Here someone might say that the Vedas could not be eternal, because they
1474consisted of words, and words, like a jar, were effects i.e., things made or fashioned.
1475The words being non-eternal, the Vedas should necessarily be admitted to be so.
1476No, they cannot be admitted to be non-eternal, because words are eternal as well as
1477effects, (i.e., not-eternal).
1478The relations of words and meanings which exist in the knowledge of God must be
1479eternal, but, those, which exist in ours, are effects (i.e., non-eternal). (
1)
1480 All powers of Him must be eternal whose knowledge and acts are eternal, without a
1481beginning and innate and inherent in Him. The Vedas being the knowledge of such a
1482being can never be called non-eternal.
1483[THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT
1484DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE.]
86
44
44
87
1485Q. But, there were no books in existence and consequently no acts of learning and
1486teaching the Vedas were possible at the time when all this universe lay dissolved
1487and disintegrated
1488in its causal state and when all gross effects were non-existent. How, then, do you
1489admit the Vedas to be eternal?
1490A. ~ This objection can be raised in respect of books, ink, paper, etc., and acts of
1491man, but not in respect of the acts and powers of God. We believe the Vedas to be
1492eternal because they are co-eval with and a part of Gods knowledge. [IF THEY
1493COEXIST WITH DIVINE OMNISCIENCE THEN THEY ARE NOT THE OMNISCIENCE SINCE
1494THE SAID STATEMENTDOES NOT MEAN THAT DIVINE OMNISCIENCE CO-EXISTS WITH
1495IT SELF .IF VEDAS CO EXIST WITH DIVINE KNOWLEDGE THEN ALL THE SPEECH OF
1496HUMAN BEINGS ALSO COEXIST WITH DIVINE KNOWLEDEGE , ALL THE HOLY BOOKS
1497OF ALL RELIGIONS ALSO CO EXIST WITH DIVINE KNOWLEDGE LIKE HEBREW BIBLE
1498OF JUDAISM , CHRISTIAN NEW TESTAMENT,GITA OF SANYATHATHAN DHARMA ETC
1499ETC. SO THIS ARGUMENT GO ON PROVING ETERNITY OF ALL HOLY BOOKS OF
1500DIFFERENT RELIGIONS. EVEN GITA AND RAMAYAN ARE ETERNAL BY THIS ARGUMENT.
1501IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT GITA , NEW TESTAMENT ETC DO NOT CO EXIST WITH DIVINE
1502KNOWLEDGE THEN DIVINE KNOWLEDGE CEASES TO BE OMNISCIENCE.]
1503It follows, therefore, that the Vedas cannot be non-eternal simply because the acts
1504of teaching and learning and the books are non-eternal. The knowledge of God is
1505eternal and infallible and, therefore, the relations between the letters, words and
1506meanings in the Vedas subsist for all times. They are the same in the present kalpa
1507as they were in the past and shall remain the same in the future also.
1508[THE SAME IS TRUE FOR OTHER BOOKS AND HUMAN WORDS , SINCE THE RELATION
1509OF THEIR WORDS AND MEANINGS, WORDS AND MEANINGS ALL CO EXIST WITH
1510DIVINE KNOWLEDGE . IF THEY CO EXIST IN ONE CALPA THE CO EXISTED IN EVERY
1511CALPA OF THE PAST AND SHALL CO EXIST IN EVERY CALPA IN FUTURE. SO THEY ARE
1512ALSO ETERNAL BY THIS ARGUMENT. IF THEY DO NOT CO EXIST IN A SINGLE CALPA
1513THEN DEITY [BARMH] DOES CEASE TO BE OMNISCIENCE.]
1514Hence it is said in the Rigveda 8:8, 48. The great Creator, made the sun and the
1515moon just as He had made them before! The words the sun and the moon in the
1516verse are class names and their meaning is that the plan of the names and their
1517meaning is that the plan of the creation of the sun and the moon in the present
1518kalpa is the same as that which existed in Gods knowledge in the previous kalpa,
1519because His knowledge is not liable to increase or decrease or variation. The same
1520is true of the Vedas, for, they too, are the products of His knowledge. [IT MEANS
1521THAT VEDAS ARE PRODUCTS AND THE DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IS THE PRODUCER. IT IS
1522EVIDENT THAT THAT THE PRODUCER IS NOT ANY ONE OF ITS PRODUCT. SO DIVINE
1523KNOWLEDGE IS NONE OF THE FOUR VEDAS. ALSO THE SAME IS TRUE FOR OTHER
1524BOOKS AND WORDS STATED ABOVE].
88
45
45
89
1525We shall now give some quotations from the works on the science of grammar, etc.,
1526which go to prove the eternalness of the Vedas. Sage Patanjali, the author of the
1527Mahabhashya, says, The words are eternal. Eternal words must needs consist of
1528unchangeable and immoveable letters which are not subject to elision,
1529augmentation or substitution.
1530 [ THIS IS BASED ON THE SAYING OF SAGE PATANJALI. BUT ARE HIS WORDS SO
1531TRUSTWORDY THAT THEY CAN DECIDE THE ETERNITY OR NOT ETERNITY OF VEDAS
1532WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DIVINE WORDS?
1533BUT IF THIS IS TRUE THEN IT IS NOT ONLY TRUE FOR VEDAS BUT FOR ALL THE
1534BOOKS AND WORDS STATED ABOVE].
1535This remark occurs in many places in the Mahabhashya from the 1st anhika
1536onwards. There is also the following observation which occurs in the commentary on
1537the aphorism ANEUN, A word is that which is perceived with ear, understood by the
1538intellect, rendered perceptible by being pronounced and which inheres in space.
1539The meaning is that all words are eternal whether they be Vedic (peculiar to the
1540Vedas) or Loukika (used by the generality of mankind), because they are composed
1541of letters which are imperishable and immoveable and are not subject to elisions,
1542augmentation and substitution. Words are eternal because in them there is neither
1543apaya = elisions, disappearance, nor, upajana = augmentation, nor vikaraa =
1544substitution.
1545 [BUT THIS GO ON PROVING THE ETERNITY OF ALL WORKS AUTHORED SO FAR AND
1546ALL THE WORDS SPOKEN SO FAR ].
1547The author of the Mahabhashya anticipates the objection that words cannot be
1548eternal because there are rules for their elision, etc., in the Ganapatha, Ashtadhyayi
1549and the Mahabhashya.
1550In the commentary on the aphorism DAADHAADHVADAADOU, he observes as
1551follows:- In the opinion of Panini, the son of Dakshi, complete words are substituted
1552for complete words, because if the change had taken place in one portion only the
1553eternalness (of words) would not be established. It means that whole groups are
1554substituted for other whole group of letters, i.e., specified groups are
1555substituted for other specified groups, e.g., the place of the word-group VEDAPAAR
1556+ GAM = U + SU + BHOO + SHAP + TIP. They are mistaken who thing that in this
1557group AM of GAM, U of U, U of SU OO of BHOO, SHA, PA of TIP are elided because it
1558has been said that the change does not occur in a portion only.
1559In the opinion of Acharya Panini, the son of Dakshi, the eternalness of a word would
1560not be established if elision, augmentation and substitution were to be confined to a
1561portion of a world only. When it is said that AT is added or BHOO is changed into
1562BHAA the meaning is as explained above.
90
46
46
91
1563A word is as defined as that which is perceived with the organ of hearing, is
1564understood by means of intellect, becomes manifest on being pronounced and
1565inheres in space. This definition of word also shows that it is eternal. The effort used
1566in pronouncing (a letter) and the act of hearing it ceases to exist after a moment.
1567The author of the Mahabhashya says that speech resides in one letter at a time.
1568The action of speech terminates with the pronunciation of each
1569letter.
1570We should, therefore, conclude that it is the act of speech and not the
1571word itself that is non-eternal.
1572[THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR TANACH, NEW TESTAMENT ,GITA ETC AS WELL. POINT
1573TO BE NOTED PANDIT DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS
1574IN DIVINE ESSENCE.]
1575
1576
1577Q But the word also like the action of speech comes into existence when it is
1578pronounced. How can it, then, be eternal?
1579A. ~ A word, like space (Akasha), remains unmanifested in the absence of means,
1580although it is pre-existent. It becomes manifest through the action of breath (prana)
1581and speech.
1582[ Menifestation is Either a Quality Of the Pre-Existent [Eternal] or an Act.Of the Pre
1583Existent. In either case it Must be Eternal, Since Qualities and Acts Of An Eternal are
1584Eternal even According to Pandit Dianand Sarsuti. So it is either Eternally Manifested
1585or it is Impossible to be Manifested, ]
1586 For example, in pronouncing the word GOU: so long as speech is engaged with the
1587letter G it has nothing to do with the letter OU and when it is engaged with the
1588letter OU it has no concern with the visargah.
1589It is therefore, the act of speech and pronunciation which is subject to elision and
1590augmentation and not the word itself which is indivisible, uniform and available
1591everywhere. Where there are no acts of speech and air, words can neither be
1592pronounced nor heard. We, therefore, conclude that words are eternal like space.
1593According to the grammatical science all words are eternal, what to say of the Vedic
1594words.
1595[IT IS MEEKLY ACCEPTED THAT ALL THE WORDS SPOKEN SO FAR AND ALL THE
1596BOOKS AUTHORED SO FAR ARE ETERNAL. IF SO THEN WHY ONLY VEDAS ARE
1597SAID TO BE ETERNAL, AS IF NO OTHER WORK [BOOK] OR WORD IS ETERNA. IT
92
47
47
93
1598IS JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLES OF NEW DELHI ARE HUMANS BEINGS
1599AS IF ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT. IS THIS NOT SOME THING
1600PROBLEMATIC].
1601
1602The sage Jaimini also has established the eternalness of words. Says he, in his
1603Purvamimansa I.1;18. It (the word) is surely eternal because it is manifested for the
1604sake of others. The meaning of the aphorism is this.
1605[The word surely is used with a view to remove doubts about the non-eternalness
1606of words.]
1607A word being imperishable is eternal. [THIS MEANS THAT ONE THAT IS NOT
1608ANNIHILATABLE IS ETERNAL. POINT TO BE NOTED].Since the purpose of pronouncing
1609a word is the conveying of information to another it cannot be non-eternal. If it were
1610so, the information that such and such was the connotation of the word cow would
1611be incapable of being conveyed by means of a non-eternal word.[PROOF IS
1612REQUIRED FOR THIS CLAIM, ANY HOW IT IS APPEARENTLY GOOD].This can be
1613possible only when the words are eternal, for, in that case alone can there be a
1614constant relation between the signifier and the thing signified. This is also the
1615reason why many speakers are able to pronounce simultaneously the same word
1616cow at different places and also to pronounce it at different times. Jaimini has
1617adduced several arguments in support of the eternalness of words.
1618Again, sage Kanada, the author of the Vaisheshika aphorisms also says : The Vedas
1619are authoritative because they are His word and because they contain an exposition
1620of Dharma.
1621Vaisheshika I.1:8 . The meaning of the aphorism is that all men should acknowledge
1622the eternal authority of the four Vedas, because they enjoin the performance of
1623Dharma as a duty and are the word of God.
1624[THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR JEWISH BIBLE AS WELL:= eg
1625 All men should acknowledge the eternal authority of the four TORAH, because It
1626enjoin the performance of Dharma[Religion] as a duty and are the word of God.
1627
1628
1629Similarly, the sage Goutama also says in his Nyaya Shastra; The authoritativeness
1630of verbal proof is like that of the Veda and the medical science (Ayurveda) and it has
1631been declared by the Aptas (trustworthy persons).
94
48
48
95
1632Nyaya II, 1:67. Its purport is that all men should acknowledge the authoritativeness
1633of the Vedas which are eternal and are the word of God, because all the great Yogis,
1634Brahma, etc., who were righteous, free from deceit, treachery and other similar
1635defects, merciful, preachers oftruth, and masters of learning have admitted the
1636authoritativeness of the Vedas to be of the same nature as that of the Mantra and
1637the Ayurveda. Just as one considers a mantra, which reveals a scientific principle to
1638be true and authoritative when its truth is experimentally established, and, just as
1639one, on observing that the use of medicines prescribed in one portion of the
1640Ayurveda cures disease, comes to have faith in the medicines prescribed as the
1641other portions of the same, so, on being satisfied, by direct cognition of the truth of
1642a proposition mentioned in one portion of the Vedas, one ought to believe in the
1643truth of the contents of their remaining portions which deal with subjects that are
1644incapable of direct proof.
1645Sage Vatsyayana also deliver himself to the same effect in his commentary on this
1646aphorism. Says he, Thus inference is drawn from the fact that the seers and the
1647expositors were one and the same. The same trustworthy persons who were the
1648expositors of the Vedas were also the expositors of the medical science. From this
1649fact we infer that the Vedas are as much authoritative as the medical science.
1650Hence the argument, that the words of the Vedas are of eternal authority, because
1651they have been acknowledged to be such by trustworthy persons. Its purport is that
1652as the word of a trustworthy person is authoritative so the Vedas also should be
1653admitted to possess authority because they also are the word of the perfectly
1654trustworthy God and their authoritativeness has been acknowledged by all
1655trustworthy persons. Consequently the Vedas, being Gods knowledge, their
1656eternalness follows as a matter of course.
1657Sage Patanjali also observes as follows on this subject:1658He is the teacher of the ancients also, because He is not limited by time, Yoga
1659I.1:26.
1660God is the teacher of all of the ancients such as Agni, Vayu, Aditya, Angiras,
1661Brahma, etc. who were born in the beginning of creation, of the moderns such as
1662ourselves
1663and of those also, who are to be born in future. God is called the teacher because
1664He imparts knowledge of true substances by means of the Vedas. He is eternal
1665because He is not affected by the action of time.
1666The afflictions born of ignorance, etc. sinful acts or their impressions touch Him not.
1667In Him there is highest knowledge and wisdom, innate and eternal. The Vedas are
1668His word. They are, therefore, necessarily eternal and full of truth.
1669The remarks of Acharya Kapila also, on this subject, which occurs in the 5th Chapter
1670of his Sankhya Shastra, are the same effect. Says he; (The Vedas), having been
1671produced by His own power, carry their authority within themselves, Sankhya V. 51.
96
49
49
97
1672[THIS MEANS THAT THE DIVINE POWER IS THE PRODUCER AND VEDAS ARE
1673PRODUCED ONES. AS PRODUCERS (ACTIVE PARTICIPLE) AND PRODUCED ONES
1674(PASSIVE PARTICIPLE) ARE MUTUALLY DISCTINCT THEN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE IS NOT
1675VEDAS AND VEDAS ARE NOT DIVINE OMNISCIENCE].
1676The meaning of this is that as the Vedas have been brought to light by the chief
1677inherent power of God, one need to acknowledge their self-authoritative and eternal
1678character.
1679Sage Krishandwaipayana Vyasa also makes the following observations on this
1680subject in his Vedanta Shastra:- He is the source of the
1681Shastra Veda). Vedanta I.1:34.
1682It means that Brahma is the source and cause of the Rig and the other Vedas which
1683are the seat and repository of numerous sciences illumine all subjects like a lamp
1684and deal with all knowable things.
1685It is impossible that the author of such Shastras as the Rigveda and others which
1686are encyclopaedias of universal knowledge should be any but an omniscient being.
1687It is evident that he who expounds a subject knows more than what he writes as
1688Panini did in the domain of the science of grammar.[THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR
1689HEBRAIC,GREEK AND ARABIC SCRIPTURES.]
1690Shankarcharya, in his commentary on this aphorism says that a person, who writes
1691upon it, is so well known in the world that it is not necessary to labor the point
1692further.
1693This goes to show that the Shastra of the Omniscient God must needs be eternal
1694and must contain knowledge of all things. In the same chapter of the Vedanta
1695Shastra occurs another aphorism, viz, And for
1696purport of which is as follows:- God, is Omnipresent, etc., and pervades all things on
1697all sides. There is not a single atom (paramanu) in which He is not present. [DEITY
1698IS FAR BEYOND EACH AND EVERY PARMANU.DEITY IS PER SE TRANCEDENCE FROM
1699PENITRATING IN ATOMS /PARMANUS AND SPIRITS ETC.]He is the maker of the whole
1700universe.[NOT JUST MAKER BUT A CREATOR,I.E ONE THAT MAKETH THINGS FROM
1701NOTHINGAND HATH THE POWER TO DO SO.] He is mighty [NOT JUST MIGHTY BUT
1702ALMIGHTY] and possessed of the threefold body, the gross, the subtle and the
1703causal. Even an atom (paramanu) cannot penetrate Him. [SO THE CELEBRATIONS
1704CANNOT PENETRATE DIVINE ESSENCE] Being impenetrable, He is incapable of
1705receiving a wound. (2)
1706He is not bound by the bonds of arteries, etc., and hence nothing can bind or throw
1707a veil over him. He always remains away and aloof from such defects as ignorance,
1708etc. He is never touched by sin, nor does He ever commit a sinful act. He is
1709Omniscient; He bears witness to and is the knower of the minds of all. He is without
1710the three causes, the efficient, the material and the general.
98
50
50
99
1711He is the universal father [THIS ASCRIBES THE QUALITY OF GENERATION TO DEITY],
1712but of Him the generator there is none. He always exists by His own might, God, the
1713supreme Self [i.e OUSIA SINCE DIVINE OUSIA IS THE DIVINE SELF
1714(GODHEAD\DIVINITY)], is all[OMNI] existence, all [OMNI]
1715consciousness and all[OMNI] bliss. He imparted the true knowledge of things to his
1716eternal subjects in the beginning of creation by revealing the Vedas. [SUBJECTS
1717ARE NOT ETERNAL] Whenever he creates
1718 [MANUFACTURES OR FASIONS OR ASSEMBLES ,SINCE CREATION IN ITS REAL
1719AND PURE MEANING AS USED IN SEMETIC RELIGIONS IS NOT ACCEPTEB BY
1720DIANAND SARSUTI/SARSOTI] the world He vouchsafes the Vedas, the repositories of
1721all knowledge, to His creatures for their benefit. [IF ENTIRE DIVINE OMNISCIENCE IS
1722CONTAINED IN FOUR SANSCRIT VEDAS THEN ALL THE NON SANSCRIT/SANSKRIT
1723WORKS ARE IN VEDAS. THIS IMPLIES THAT VEDAS ARE NO MORE SANSCRIT, SINCE
1724DIVINE OMNISCIENCE INCLUDES NON SANSCRIT SCRIPTURES AS WELL].
1725Everyone should, therefore, believe that the Vedas are eternal. They are Gods
1726knowledge always remains uniform and unchanged. [DIVINE OMNISCIENCE ARE FAR
1727BEYOND VEDAS., IT IS NOT LIMITED TO VEDAS, DIVINE OMNISCIENCE ENCOMPASS
1728VEDAS AND NON VEDIC HOLY BOOKS AS WELL, SECULAR WORKS ETC.] The Vedas
1729can, with as great certainty be shown to be eternal on reason as on authority. One
1730should acknowledge the eternalness of the Vedas according to the maxim that
1731something cannot come out of nothing and nothing cannot produce something.( 3)
1732That alone will exist in future which exists at present.
1733It is impossible that a thing which has no root should have branches.( ) To hold the
1734contrary opinion would be like seeing the marriage of the son of a sterile woman. If
1735she has a son she cannot be sterile and if she has no son no one can see his
1736marriage. ( )Those very considerations apply to the case in hand. If God be devoid
1737of infinite knowledge, He would not be able to impart it to others, no one would be
1738able to acquire knowledge and experience; for, nothing can grow which
1739has no root. Nothing is seen in the world which has been produced without a cause.
1740We shall now state what is the actual experience of all men. We retain the
1741impressions of that only which has been the subject of our direct cognition and we
1742remember and know that only of which we retain the impressions.
1743This knowledge alone supplies us with the motives of action and inaction.
1744(attraction and repulsion). It cannot be otherwise. Whosoever reads Sanskrit gets
1745the impressions of that language only and of no other. [THE SAME IS TRUE OF
1746HEBREW,LATIN,GREEK,ARABIC ,PERSIAN,SINDHI ETC].
100
51
51
101
1747In this way if God had not instructed and taught men in the beginning of creation no
1748one would have been able to come by experience that is requisite for acquisition of
1749knowledge. [ IT IS CORRECT THAT DEITY IS THE ONLY TEACHER BUT THE QUESTION
1750IS DID HE TEACH THROUGH VEDAS. IF SO THEN VEDAS ARE NOT THE BOOKS OF
1751LEARNING SANSKRIT. SO HOW DID MEN LEARN SANSKRIT WHEN IT WAS REVIELD TO
1752THEM. THIS MEANS MEN DID KNOW SANSCRIT PRIOR TO THE ALLEGED REVIELATION
1753OF VEDAS].
1754Without such experience there would have been no impressions and without
1755impressions there would have been no remembrance and without remembrance
1756there would have been no knowledge, not even the semblance of it.
1757[THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT
1758DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE. IF
1759SOME STATEMENTS ARE NOT TRUE FOR QURAN , IT MAY NOT CAUSE ANY PROBLEM.
1760THE BASICS MAY BE COSIDERED.]
1761
1762Q. But why? Men have a natural bent to act and in their activities they experience
1763pleasure and pain. So, gradually and in course to time they must increase their
1764stock of knowledge. Why should it then be believed that the Vedas were produced
1765by God?
1766A. ~ We refuted this objection while treating of the origin of the Vedas. We proved
1767there that even now no one acquires knowledge and is able to increase it without
1768receiving instruction from others; so, man could not have made progress in learning
1769and knowledge without having received instruction from God in the beginning
1770through the Vedas.
1771There we illustrated our meaning by the case of children kept in a wilderness
1772without instruction and also by the cause of the dwellers of forests. We sat that such
1773children and dwellers of forest so could neither acquire knowledge, nor, learn the
1774use of human speech, without instruction let alone the question of the origin of
1775knowledge (through experience).
1776Therefore, the knowledge contained in the Vedas, which has proceeded from God,
1777must needs to be eternal like all of His attributes. [IF VEDAS ARE ETERNAL THEN IT
1778IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT DIVINE KNOWLEDGE IS CONTAINED IN THEM SINCE ONE
1779ETERNAL CANNOT BE CONTAINED IN AN OTHER] The name, the attributes and the
1780actions of an eternal substance must themselves be eternal, because their
1781substratum itself is eternal. [THIS IS TO ACCEPT THAT THE ONE WHO IS THE AGENT
1782OF ACT OF PROCEEDING IS NOT THE VERY ACT OF PROCEEDING, AND ONE WHICH IS
1783PROCEEDED IS NEITHER THE ACT OF PROCEEDING NOR THE AGENT OF ACT OF
1784PROCEEDING. IT IS VERY SIMPLE THAT THE ACT OF PROCEDURE ,THE AGENT OF ACT
1785OF PROCEDURE AND THE THE ONE WHICH IS THE RESULT OF THE ACT OF
102
52
52
103
1786PROCEDURE ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER].

1787Existence of producer and if the producer itself happens to be the result of
1788combination it will have its own producer and so on ad infinitum. That which itself is
1789the product of combination cannot have the power of combining prakriti or the
1790atoms (paramanus); for, the latter will be subtler than itself. The subtler is the Atma
1791(pervader) of the grosser; for, the former is capable of penetrating into the latter as
1792fire penetrates into iron.
1793As fire, on account of its subtle composition can enter into the hard and gross iron
1794and separate its particles from one another, so, water, being subtler than earth, can
1795enter into its particles and combine them into a ball or separate them from one
1796another.
1797God is above conjunction and disjunction and is all-pervading. He is, consequently,
1798able to bring about conjunction and disjunction according to law. It cannot be
1799otherwise. [LAWS ARE DESCRIPTIVE OR PRESCRIPTIVE. IN EITHER CASE
1800OMNIPOTENT DEITY CAN VIOLATE THEM]
1801We being ourselves within the sphere of combination and disjunction are unable to
1802combine or separate prakriti or paramanus. If God also were within that sphere He
1803would be, like us, incapable of bringing about combination and disjunction proceed,
1804being
1805the first cause of the things coming into existence by means of combination and
1806disjunction, is not under their sway. Without the first cause there would be no
1807beginning of combination and disjunction.[DEITY CANNOT BE THE FIRST CAUSE IN
1808THE DAYANANDI SYSTEM.1) ACCORDING TO HIS SYSTEM MATTERIALS LIKE PERCRITI
1809PERMANU ETC ARE ETERNAL BUT THE UNIVERSE IS NOT. HOW EVER DEITY IS
1810ALWAYS MAKING A UNIVERSE AND AFTER IT PERISHES ITS MATTERIAL STILL EXISTS,
1811FROM THE MATTERIAL DEITY MAKES AN OTHER ONE. AS THIS IS A BEGINNINGLESS
1812THERE IS NO FIRST.2) THERE IS NO FIRST UNIVERSE AS ACCORDING TO DAYANANDI
1813SYSTEM OTHERWISE ACCORDING TO RESPECTED DAYANAND IT MEANS DEITY WAS
1814IDLE AND INERT] The Vedas having been revealed by, and having always existed
1815in, the knowledge of God who is the first cause of combination and separation, who
1816remains ever unchanged in His essence, who is without a beginning, eternal,
1817unborn, and whose might endures for ever, their eternalness and the truthfulness of
1818the knowledge contained in them are established.* [THE SAME CANBE SAID FOR
1819QURAN AS WELL. POINT TO BE NOTED PANDIT DIANAND DID NOT USE THE DOGMA
1820THAT CREATIONS EXISTS IN DIVINE ESSENCE. ALSO VEDAS ARE FINITE WORKS WITH
1821A BEGINNING AND WITH AN END, FROM THE FIRST PAGE OF FIRST VEDA TO THE
1822LAST PAGE OF LAST VEDA. IF DIVINE OMNISCIENCE IS CONTAINED IN THEM THEN
1823THEY MUST HAVE INFINITE NUMBER OF PAGES. THIS IS A PROOF THAT THEY
1824CANNOT CONTAIN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. IF THESE FINITE NUMBER OF PAGES AND
1825FINITE NUMBER OF WORDS FROM THE FIRST WORD OF FORST VEDA TO THE LAST
1826WORD OF LAST VEDA ARE IN DIVINE OMNISCIENCE THEN THE DIVINE OMNISCIENCE
1827IS INFINITELY MORE THEN THESE WORDS . FOR EXAMPLE THERE ARE MANY OTHER
104
53
53
105
1828THINGS IN OMNISCIENCE OF DEITY BESIDE VEDAS. LAST NOT THE LEAST IT MEANS
1829THAT THE MEANING OF VEDAS GOES FAR BEYOND THE SANSKRIT MENANINGS. SO IF
1830A WORD IN SANSCRIT DOES NOT MEAN A THING , IT MEANS THAT IS SHOULD SINCE
1831THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO INCLUDE ALL ABSOLUTE INFINITE OMNISCIENCE IN
1832FINITE WORDS OF VEDAS EVEN IN DIVINE OMNISENCE. ].
1833
1834NOTE:
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MUSLIMS DO NOT AGREE WITH

1835DIANAND SARSUTI ON SEVERAL ISSUES.
1836BUT THIS IS PRESENTED JUST TO PROVE THAT ONE MAY USE SOME ARGUMENTS TO
1837DEFEND SUCH OBJECTION.
1838FOOTNOTES:=
1839(1) THE WORDS SPOKEN BY HUMAN BEINGS AND THERE MEANINGS ALL ARE IN
1840DIVINE OMNISCIENCE. SO IN THIS CASE OF SENSE THE HUMAN WORDS ARE ALSO
1841ETERNAL. THERE ARE THE FOLLOWING SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE VEDAS AND THE
1842WORDS OF HUMANS,1] WORDS IN BOTH CASES ARE NOT ETERNAL WHETHER
1843READING OR WRITING OR SOUNDS OR PRONOUNCIATIONS ETC. 2] THE WORDS
1844WHETHER OF VEDAS OR HUMANS BOTH ARE IN KNOWLEDGE OF DEITY, THEIR
1845MEANINGS ARE ALSO IN THE OMNISCIENCE, THEIR CONNECTION IS ALSO IN
1846OMNISCIENCE. SO IF ON SOME GROUNDS VEDAS ARE CALLED ETERNAL, HUMAN
1847WORDS ARE ALSO ETERNAL ON SAME GROUNDS.
1848(2)IT MAY BE NOTED THAT PANDIT DIYANAND SARSUTI DID NOT SAY THAT
1849PARMANUS ARE IN DIVINE ESSENCE BUT SAYS THAT DEITY IS IN PARMANUS. THE
1850DIFFERENCE IN MEANINGS OF DEITY IN PARMANU IS DIFFERENT FROM PARMANUS
1851IN DEITY IS OBVIOUS. ALSO THE BASIC NATURE OF PRAMANU IS NOT EXPLAINED. IF
1852EACH PARMANU ARE JUST POINT MASSES THEN THEY CANNOT CONSTITUTE A BODY
1853OR ANY THING ELSE. SUPPOSE THAT THREE OF THEM ARE PLACED SIDE BY SIDE
1854SUCH THAT ONE OF THEM IS BETWEEN THE TWO. NOW IF EACH ONE ON THE
1855EXTREME SIDES TOUCHES THE MIDDILE ONE THEN THERE ARE ONLY THE
1856FOLLOWING CASES. 1) ALL OF THEM OVERLAP AND CONCIDE WITH EACH OTHER.
1857IF SO THEN ALL THREE OF THEM OCCUPY ONE AND THE SAME SPACE. THEY CANNOT
1858CONSTITUTE ANY BODY IN THIS CASE.2) IF THE DO NOT OVERLAP ONE AN OTHER
1859THEN THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE CASES.
18602,1) THE PARMANU AT EXTREME SIDES TOUCH THE MIDDLE ONE SUCH THAT EACH
1861ONE TOUCHES THE MIDDLE ONE BUT THE MIDDLE ONE IS AN OBSTRACLE BETWEEN
1862THEM SO THE PARMANU AT EXTREME SIDES CANNOT TOUCH EACH OTHER DUE TO
1863THE MIDDLE ONE. IN THIS CASE THE MIDDLE ONE CAN BE DIVIDED IN TWO PARTS ,
1864a) ONE WHICH TOUCHES THE ONE AT RIGHT SIDE BUT NOT THE ONE ON LEFT SIDE.
1865b) ONE WHICH TOUCHES THE PARMANU AT LEFT SIDE AND NOT THE RIGHT SIDE. IF
106
54
54
107
1866SO THEN THE MIDDLE PERMANU IS NOT A POINT MASS. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE
1867SUPPOSITION THAT ALL THREE ARE POINT MASES.2,2) NO TWO OF THE THREE
1868TOUCH EACH OTHER. SO THEY ARE DISTINCT FROM ONE AN OTHER AND THERE IS A
1869GAP BETWEEN EACH ONE OF THEM. IN THIS CASE THEY CANNOT CONSTITUTE A
1870BODY. THE MATHEMATICAL THEOREM THAT THERE ARE INFINITE POINTS BETWEEN
1871ANY TWO DISTINCT POINTS CANNOT BE USED TO SHEW THAT ALL THE ACTUAL
1872BODIES IN THE WORLD ARE CONSTITUTED BY MATHEMATICAL POINTS. SO IT IS
1873REQUIRED TO SHEW HOW THE BODIES ARE CONSTITUTED BY THERE PARMANU
1874[FARMANU].
1875(3) RESPECTED PANDID DID NOT PROVIDE ANY PROOF FOR THIS. THIS SHEWETH
1876THAT HE HAS TAKEN IT AXIOMATICALY. THERE IS NO PROOF IN SUPPORT OF THIS
1877CLAIM .
1878(4) ONCE AGAIN THE PROOF OF IMPOSSIBILITY IS NOT GIVEN AS IF IT IS AN AXIOM.
1879(5) EVEN A STERILE WOMAN CAN BECOME PREGNANT IF DEITY WILLETH. IF A
1880WOMAN IS STERILE THEN NATURALLY SHE CANNOT BECOME PREGNANT. BUT THIS
1881DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEITY CANNOT CREAT PREGNENCY IN HER. THE FALLACY IN
1882THE ARGUMENT IS THAT IT IS ASSUMED THAT LAWS OF NATURE CANNOT BE
1883VIOLATED OR SUSPENDED OR ALTERED. SO THIS ARGUMENT IS BASED UPON THE
1884CONCEPT OF DENIAL OF MIRACLES. NOT ONLY STERLITE WOMAN CAN BECOME
1885PREGNANT BUT A PURE VERGIN CAN ALSO BECOME PREGNANT WITH OUT ANY MAIL
1886INTERVENTION AND CAN CONCEPT IMMACULATELY.SINCE MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE.
1887COMMENT:=
1888IT MUST BE NOTED THAT RESPECTED PANDIT DIYANAND BELIEVED THAT
1889FOLLOWING THINGS ARE ETERNAL:=
18901] PARCRATI
18912]PERMANUS
18923] SPIRITS
18934]SPACE
18945]FOUR VEDAS
18956]DIVINE DOINGS AND QUALITIES.
108

Refutation of A Hindu Objection Maker On The Eternity of AL-QURAN

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Refutation of A Hindu Objection Maker On The Eternity of AL-QURAN

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw

[Pick the date]

BISMILLAHIR RAHMAN IR RAHIM

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

63truth for truth has necessarily to be eternal.

69BAHRATA MANU ETC.

732] IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A THING TO BE TRUTH, THAT IT MUST BE ETERNAL.

A LOGICAL AXIOM IS A STATEMENT :

147SYSTEM, IF THEIR RESPECTIVE SYSTEMS OF BELIEVES ARE AXOMATIZED. BUT ACTUALLY IT

THIS CONUNDRUM IS INVALID:=

THE OBJECTION SEEMS TO BE AS FALLOW:=

THUS THE NUMBER OF DEITIES BECOMETH TWO.

ESSENCE. REASON CITED:=

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

[ MONO- ETERNALISM IS DIFFERENT FROM MONOTHEISM]

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

246[Part Two Of The Conundrum]

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

case whether is Created or Uncreated

This is all what Respectable Objection Maker did say:=

The Question is as follow:=

Are Vedas Vedas Creations Or Not..[1]

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

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

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

Brahman / Barmh is Not Composite.R-2.

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

LET IS BE SUPPOSED THAT NO VEDA IS GODC-3

Respected Objection Maker.

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

THE THING IS CREATED OR ETERNAL.

There are Four Types Of Things:-

3] Acts or Doings Of God

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

LET IT BE SUPPOSED THAT:=

The Conundrum is INVALD on Quran.

ARE ALSO ONE IN ESSENCE.

REPLYING THE OBJECTION:=

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

2]Quran and God are Not One In Essence.

HINDU SECTS AND CULTS:=

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

411UNACCEPTABLE CLAIM NOT EVEN WORTHY OF A REFUTATION. [SEE OBJECTION#8, ]

423a number of Deities One In ESSENCE.

426Plurality of Eternals On In Essence does not imply Plurality Of Deities.

432All Muslims Believe that Quran Is an Attribute.

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

446CONTINGENT BUT IMPROBABLE.

448IMPROBABLE. BUT IT IS JUST A PERSONAL INCLINATION TOWARDS IMPROBABILITY ,EVEN

453EXISTENTS 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.

SINCE DEITY IS THE SAVIOR OF AL QURAN AND SAVING OF QURAN IS RELATIVE-NECESSARY

463[RELATIVELY NECESSARY]. CORRUPTION OF QURAN IS NOT RELATIVE NECESSARY. DEITY IS AN ABSOLUTE

SO EVEN IF CORRUPTION OF QURAN IS POSSIBLE IT IS A SUBJECT OF POSSIBILITY OF

NOTE:= THE OBJECTION MAKER SAYS:=

DOES THIS NOT SHEW THAT VEDAS ARE NOT ETERNAL?

1324celebration - the eternal creator’s endless ephemeral celebrations.

1334celebration - the eternal creator’s endless ephemeral celebrations.