Saturday, 11 February 2012

Re: [] Re: Beware : Manappuram


Whether it is Muthoot or Manappuram, they are all money lending companies against gold. They take several documents signed from the borrowers. They give loans to the extent of the equal value of the gold deposited. But after three months with the application of interest the loan balance will exceed the value of gold. They will give notice to the borrower. And if the loan is not redeemed within say 15 days they may auction and sell away the gold and with the proceeds they will adjust the loans balance. This is business and they always thrive in their business. You deal with them only if you agree to their terms.


----- Original Message -----
From: M. Nandakumar
Sent: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 17:27:03 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Re: [] Re: Beware : Manappuram

What about Integrated Finance Company Ltd owned by Manaorama Group (MRF the main culprit). Many have lost heavily. With political support and blessings from the corrupt judiciary the Case has not fetched any water so far. Since I am also a victim of Integrated Finance swindling, I wrote to Shri V.S.Achuthandan when he was the Chief Minister of Kerala and now to Sri Oommen Chandy. The former had the courtesy at least to respond through a note from his Secretary saying that the matter will be probed (but, in vain) and the latter is still keeping silent. Whether it is Muthoot , Nano Excell , LIS or Manappuram it is always a risky game to invest in such enterprises

From: ganesh v pillai <>
To: Keralites <>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:16 AM
Subject: [] Re: Beware : Manappuram

I think. and i strongly believe that this is the game of Muthoot itself.. there is a cocus working behind it against all other finance companies to save muthoot.. a business stunt... very cheap.... let muthoot fight the battle of business by offering better services and profits to the public... defaming some company for the sake of thier business and destroy other company by this method is not acceptable... time has changed...... the same method was adopted aganist LIS .. it was running.. very smooth... hired the mastermind from them and later with the political support statewise and central wise they sued and finished them... pathetic. dirty game....

...Join Keralites, Have fun & be Informed.


Recent Activity:
KERALITES - A moderated eGroup exclusively for Keralites...
To subscribe send a mail to
Send your posts to
Send your suggestions to

To unsubscribe send a mail to



Re: [] Customer Agony Ford FIESTA


This kind of experience is not only for cars. Buy a computer or an a/c or any other machine from any of the dealers. The talk sweetly about the AMC(annual maintenance cortract). Then the fleecing starts. Either in the name of repairing charges, or cost of spares they take as much money as possible. I think it is in the blood of the keralites. They dont do any work, for whatever little work they do, they take maximum cost.

ramachandra Menon

----- Original Message -----
From: vijay pillai
Sent: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:06:54 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Re: Re: [] Customer Agony Ford FIESTA

dear  all .these experiences are with a lot of people in india. So follow the golden rule. Once you finish your free serveice with your dealer, do your serveice with your local small service private centre, your vehicle will be trouble free, beleive me, it my personal experience.  regards.

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:44:28 +0530  wrote

Dear Sunil

This is similair to those who own Maruti. The dealer fleece the owners of the cars on some pretext or another. In my case,I had bought Maruti Zen Estillo from Popular Vehicles Ernakulam. After 2 years,they call every three months with an alert of Service due and once the vehicle is given for normal servicing,they will inform various parts having become obsolete and needs to be changed and the bills rake up heavily.

I understand here that since margins are very small interms of selling the vehicle,the dealers make excellent use of service and make money.

Within 4 years,the entire original parts of the car would have been replaced if given to the dealer and there is no module to stop this harassment/fleecing by the dealer/s


Ramachandran M

>From: Sunil Kumar Vohra
>To: Keralites  
>Cc: rakeshmittal1954  
>Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 10:09 PM
>Subject: [] Customer Agony Ford FIESTA
Dear Friends
I got this mail from a brother Officer who committed the blunder of buying a FORD FIESTA In view of his experiences I feel we should all be very careful before buying such an expensive vehicle .  not get carried away by sales gimmicks .-
Ford is a good car for two years only for as long as it is not taken to service centre. your agony starts the moment you enter into workshop. I purchased this car on 21 Jun 2009. within few days one of the bulbs fused. I took it to workshop for check-up, reached at 0930hours, opening jobcard took 25 minutes, first checkup was done at 1250 hours, immediately they went for lunch. After lunch it was found by that one of the wire was trapped in bolt causing shot circuit. Problem was finally
resolved at 230pm with a bill of Rs 85(cost of bulb) which was finally waved off

after giving them a mouthful.The agony does not end here. Every time the workshop people have a way of wasting at least one hour forty-five minutes (delay in opening jobcard and presentation of final bill).

Once your car finishes two years of running, you will start getting one shock after another as one or the other part gets faulty that needs to be replaced with a fat bill.Even today I am undergoing the agony of owning a ford as the car is in the workshop since 01 Feb 2012 for want of a part (some wire that is essential to run the engine). The wender has now been requested by the ford people to make the wire. I am not sure how long my agony is going to last.

I pray every day to the God to reduce my agony and give me some peace of mind.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Sunil Kumar Vohra  wrote:

Dear Rakesh

Please let me the above so that are friends can be warned.Regards

>Col S.K Vohra
>Army Medical Corps

Recent Activity:
KERALITES - A moderated eGroup exclusively for Keralites...
To subscribe send a mail to
Send your posts to
Send your suggestions to

To unsubscribe send a mail to



[] A Lovely Tharattu Song from a Lovely brother...........

Recent Activity:
KERALITES - A moderated eGroup exclusively for Keralites...
To subscribe send a mail to
Send your posts to
Send your suggestions to

To unsubscribe send a mail to



[] who wrote Bible?


Bible says:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works," (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

We may draw three most important points from this passage directly:

1. All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration of God. The subject of this sentence is "all scripture." Since in the context already (v. 15) he had noted his interest as only in the "sacred scripture," this generic reference to "all writing" is defined as having to do with only those books which may be viewed as "Scripture." These are solely those books esteemed by the Jews to be of divine authority. Thus, all sacred scripture is described as having been "given by inspiration of God." The works of Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, etc., may be "inspired" in the sense of having been the product of profound human inspiration and perspiration, but the books of the Bible are different. Likewise, the written works of other religions, which may even be esteemed by them as sacred writings, are purely of human origin. Once again, the books of the Bible are different. They are "inspired," the text explains, "of God."

The Greek terminology is very helpful in appreciating precisely how this inspiration works. The word is theopneustos, which literally means "God-breathed." Technically the term "inspired" is incorrect, for it assumes "inbreathed," and is often used to describe the men who wrote scripture as "inspired." The passage itself says that the books of the Bible are "God-breathed," that is, they are the fruit of the breath of Almighty God, not the inspiration of men. The idea of God directing the men who wrote scripture is found in 2 Peter 1:20, 21. Here God is defining the product of their work, the books, as "God-breathed," i.e. the very breath of God.

Therefore Timothy, and those of our time also who read and study the Bible, can know that our time is well spent. We are not ruminating upon the words of mere men, but the very words of God, "breathed out" by Him.

2. All Scripture Is Profitable. Profit may be derived from spending time with the books of the Bible. We may gain some information about matters of historical interest and about the ancient cultures of the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, Greece and Rome. But these are merely incidental to the main thrust of Scripture. The Bible was written to be "profitable" for Timothy and for us.

The ASV translates the relevant portion of v. 16, revealing that it is ''profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." Clearly then, God breathed out his Scripture that we might be profited in the areas of teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. If the people of God are to function as a group directed by God in every age, then some such literature must guide them in the areas of teaching, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. This is precisely what the Bible claims to be. Our interest in the language, history, cultures of the ancient Near East, etc., are purely peripheral as we study the Bible. This book provides us with spiritual guidance which is "profitable."

3. That The Man of God May Be Complete. Here the ASV rendering of the word artios, is preferable to the King James "perfect." The person who understands the scriptures, who has them at his disposal when needed and necessary, is fitted appropriately for the occasion. You will appreciate the apostle's meaning perfectly if you are doing a job which requires a wrench which is "metric" but all you have is a set of wrenches in American "inch" format. They will not work. You do not have the right tools to do the job. Or, if you are trying to reach into a close space with a crescent wrench, when what you really require is a ratchet with an extension. You just cannot do the job. You must have the right tools! Paul says that in sacred Scripture we are supplied with the tools that fill our tool box up, supplying us with just the right appliance for every occasion of need.

There is a problem, though. Too few of us have learned to use the tools with which we have been supplied. We have all we need. It is just that some of us have not learned to use the tools we already have. Let's all of us work on this predicament to rectify it. Read and study your Bible regularly!

Recent Activity:
KERALITES - A moderated eGroup exclusively for Keralites...
To subscribe send a mail to
Send your posts to
Send your suggestions to

To unsubscribe send a mail to



Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!


Dear Fazal Feroz
You have the right to agree with John or any other one. No one questions here your rights. Majority of the people in this world are believers in God and the scriptures of all religions confirm the same one God.A minority people try to confuse the minds of those believers by hook and crook stories. Those who questioned the existence of God in their first mail (eg. mail of John 03.02.12)QUOTE."Try to understand that your life is nobody's mercy or generosity, but a pure matter of evaluation and chance in terms of time. Work hard and find your destiny rather than try to make alliance with super power or almighty and find an easy way out for life's miseries."UNQUOTE now accepted the truth that there is God.(Mail of John 10.02.12)QUOTE."So the simple fact of the matter is there is god". and again he says, "no god. That is all". I don't know what does this guy try to establish and why do you people agree with this guy.See the statement of Mr. John below.
"So the simple fact of the matter is there is god, but no god. That is all.". (10.02.12).
So my dear Fazal Feroz, as you said "It is better to listen coz there is no harm in listening" we have to listen and understands the things very well and analyse it properly.  
I hope you are a best listener. So please try to read the attached files and listen and analyse it properly and understand the facts. Again I repeat, You have your opinion and I have my opinion. No need of fighting or breeding hatred between anyone.
Thank you
Best Regards

From: Fazal Feroz <>
To: "" <>; HYDER <>
Sent: Sunday, 12 February 2012, 6:00
Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
Hello guys

Sorry for the Late response but the fact is that I really agree to John We just lissen to people and screw ourselves and confuse its the human who confuses and then blames the rest. It is better to listen coz there is no harm in listening things but doing mite cause you guys alot.

Live Life Happy and Enjoy with others God bless Every Body.
Faisal A.R. Feroz
From: John Thomas <>
To: HYDER <>; "" <>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
Dear Hyder,

Thank you for the cut paste from

What I said or rather asked was a very simple point. Every believer in god, irrespective of religions, agrees that there is god without any chance for doubt. That is quite clear. Yet they call their own god as real and say others are fake and useless.

So the simple fact of the matter is there is god, but no god. That is all.

Thank you all for having a creative discussion on this point. Please do not preach hatred against other gods or believers in those gods. If you could do that much the world would be more beautiful.

Thank you Sabu for keeping your mind free. A preconditioned mind is a bane which prevents a human from enjoying the beauty of free thinking.


From: HYDER <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
Dear All,
The greatest question

The greatest question humanity faces is as follows: "is there a God?"

While the choice of this to be the greatest question for humanity may appear odd the truth can be ascertained simply. We have all had come to our own personal conclusions on the matter in some way. By definition even atheists have, otherwise they would not have come to any conclusion. Some of us grapple with it constantly. Others will only consider it again if close to death, serious injury, dealing with bereavement or languishing in jail. However, no one has completely avoided the question and our individual responses have undoubtedly and significantly shaped us. This is because all other questions are potentially affected by the answer and a particular direction in life is fixed once a decision is made.

Other, similar questions such as "are we created?" or even "why are we here?" could have been chosen but the point is the same. The answer to this question is critical because one's choice clearly manifests itself in everyday life and our answers to this one query undoubtedly affect how we live. In any case, the fault line between the secular and the religious has become abundantly clear and may even be widening in an increasingly polarised world.
A Fresh Approach

The aim of this chapter is not to preach but to mark out how best to look at the question of belief (or disbelief) in a Creator. Like the other chapters ahead the line of reasoning is that difficult questions must be tackled with a fresh and sincere approach. If we remain bitterly entrenched within our respective viewpoints we can only arrive back at an intellectual dead-end.

Furthermore there must be agreement that one can only impartially assess other approaches to life by first removing all previous convictions. Judging a point of view of reality (and not the reality itself) through another point of view is unreasonable and can only lead to a distorted outlook. Take for example the tendency for secular audiences to examine Islam (a view) through the lens of 'modernity' (another view). Any look at Islam from a secular point of view reduces it to a personal affair, an individual moral code and a set of ethics with little to say about life's affairs. To do so is to fail to appreciate that Islam has its own worldview, ideology and complete way of life distinct from any other including the Enlightenment model of the Philosophes like Voltaire and Diderot or the Communism of Marx and Lenin.

It is only by returning to a discussion on the reality at hand that productive debate can flourish. It could be nothing except beneficial to examine key topics free from the influence of preconceived notions. Only then could we arrive at a view. Whilst we aim to address contemporary issues such as politics and equality vis-a-vis Islam it should be clear that prejudging the debate is of little help to anyone.

It is not only a view such as Islam that suffers when viewed through a secular prism. The subject of 'belief' does too. When western liberals discuss 'belief' they betray a practised ease in portraying it in stark contrast to reason. The secular assumption is that belief in a Higher Being cannot be based on reason and is, to a greater or lesser degree, based upon emotion, hence the words 'rational belief' appear contradictory. Of course liberals have often had just cause to do so with many notable examples throughout history. St. Thomas Aquinas argued belief in the Trinity must be based on faith alone and Danish religious philosopher, Soren Aabye Kierkegaard felt it was inappropriate to base belief in a Creator on reason, even emphasising the necessity of irrational leaps of faith.

However not all believers in a Creator do so on the basis of pure emotion. How could they? It goes without saying that absolutely nothing can be proved, confirmed or established through emotion. Could emotion prove what DNA is made of? Could emotion confirm the Congo lies south of the equator? Or could emotion conceivably establish that the political instability in the Balkans during the 1990's was exacerbated by American determination to reduce Russia's influence in the region, increase Europe's dependency upon her and confer new legitimacy to NATO when it appeared increasingly redundant after the Cold War?
We can agree, in fact we must surely agree, that the answer is no but that only discounts 'belief' based on pure emotion which was an unfounded assumption to begin with. It certainly does not eliminate 'belief' itself as an option especially if we can verify that 'belief' in a single Almighty Creator can be based on reason and ration.

Ironically, secular liberals are often quite patronising to believers, even if believers themselves, but there's little that can be done about it if 'belief' is permanently tainted with the brush of emotion, leaps of faith or even imitation. It becomes easy to dismiss the idea of believing in a Creator. The point to note is that the vacuum left by this manoeuvre (implying 'belief' is always emotional) allows secular liberals to promote their own framework to tackle the greatest question i.e. the scientific method.
Science against certainty?
The scientific method was a result of the Enlightenment that began in Europe in the late 17th Century. It is important to note the ultimate aim of the Enlightenment was freedom, in particular the liberation of people from the influence of religion. It was widely known that the Church had hindered progress in all fields of life socially, economically and scientifically via the intolerance to inquiry it had imposed upon the continent. The intellectual elite of Europe saw this as backward superstition, obsolete tradition and narrow-minded bigotry and hoped their own project would smash the domination of the Church and lead to 'modernity'.
The European scientists and philosophers felt reason was the most central human faculty so they argued to be allowed to exercise it by questioning everything through scientific endeavour. They sought to challenge ideas that were held in a dogmatic manner i.e. where questioning was not allowed. This led them to clash directly with Church leaders and the political establishment who both maintained that some things were totally certain, sacred and should not be questioned.

On the surface, the determination to question to arrive at conclusions and also to use reason instead of emotion cannot be faulted. However the 'modernist' trend went further. Anything that claimed to be certain (i.e. claimed to be Divine) had to be confronted and opposed via reason, questioning and scientific enquiry. The commitment to use reason in all cases was hostile to any idea on life that did not originate from the human mind. This included religious guidance. Enlightenment philosophers refused to give anything an amnesty from debate and called for people to be brave enough to do without 'belief'. Immanuel Kant eloquently summed up the Enlightenment mission as the:

Sapere aude means 'dare to know' but Enlightenment philosophers felt being certain was never a possibility. They equated certainty with dogma and felt compelled to fight it. After they won their intellectual clash in Europe they set about introducing secularism at a state level. Secularism is not the absolute denial of religion. It is generally not that antagonistic to religion as long as religious guidance is prevented from taking part in decisions and denied a role in public life. When this step was taken, the secular liberal democratic nation-state, a new model for organising society, was born.

17th Century empiricists such as Locke, as well as his 18th Century successors Berkeley and Hume, felt knowledge was not innate but was instead based on the senses alone. The 19th Century positivist movement of Comte developed from these ideas and felt thought would evolve from religious thinking (the lowest, most immature level) up to the highest 'positive' level (science). Once it had evolved it would be used in every issue. Science was seen as the height of knowledge since it never left itself open to dogma. Science challenged everything and never lapsed into certainty and absolute truths. We also find logical positivism and analytic philosophy lead by the Vienna Circle and Wittgenstein of the 20th Century. British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell summed up the position when he wrote:

From this brief timeline we witness the development of an agenda deep within the modernist project that has filtered through somewhat to today's scientific and philosophical establishments; there is a hatred for absolute certainty.

It is correct to dismiss unquestioning dogma since it is irrational, unstable and no different to emotional faith. Questioning is clearly imperative if one is to answer the greatest question satisfactorily but the secular fear of certainty does not seem particularly rational either. Scientific thought therefore does not prize certainty but instead asks an unending, ever-increasing set of questions.

The scientific model

If one were to ask exactly how to apply scientific thought the answer should soon be familiar, as we were all taught the scientific model at school. Although the terminology differs at times the stages are roughly the same across the globe. They begin with a hypothesis followed by the design for an experiment. The next three steps of testing, observation and ongoing recording are repeated as often as necessary. Finally a conclusion is reached and an evaluation of the experiment conducted. The scientific model is widely held to be capable of assessing any issue.

Three aspects of the model stand out.

The first aspect is that subjectivity cannot be completely eliminated e.g. linguists argue that the words with which we set out a scientific project reveal inevitable preconceptions.

The second aspect is that any results are speculative. The probability of error is an accepted constant in the scientific model so other conditions exist to minimise these facts. They include ensuring a fair test, ensuring the sample population is representative and also considering a control sample.

Thirdly is the requirement for identifying a variable so it can be isolated from other variables, subjected to new conditions and observed.

From this we can see a variable must be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed for the scientific model to apply. Let's examine these four steps in turn:

a)        If variables cannot be identified the scientist would have nothing to test.
b)        Without a variable isolated from other variables there is no way of knowing what
the results of testing are a consequence of. One could be testing multiple variables. The
trials would be useless.
c)        If a variable can be identified and isolated but not manipulated then no
experiment can proceed.
d)        If a variable can be identified, isolated and manipulated but no observation is
possible then no conclusions can be drawn, nothing can be verified and the true
scientist would not waste the time or effort.

So only if a variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated and observed could we then begin the remaining stages of the scientific model i.e. hypothesis, plan, test, subjugate, observe, record, retest and conclude. If no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed then it is clear that the scientific model cannot apply.

This leads us to a dilemma. What if we can find instances where the scientific model cannot apply, where no single variable can be identified, isolated, manipulated or observed? This would conclusively disprove that the scientific model is capable of answering every query or even that science is the most evolved form of thinking. This would necessarily lead us to conclude that science is a branch of thinking applicable only in certain instances leaving us to locate another form of thought.

An example would be the following: What leads people in Athens, Greece to live longer on average than those in Mumbai, India? The query is too vague for the scientific model to apply especially if we find that relative life expectancy differs widely based on date of birth, household income and access to basic health care. A more defined query would be: Exactly what leads socially excluded, female teenagers from broken homes in the 10% most deprived wards in Athens, Greece to live longer on average than those in Mumbai, India?

Even though we have delineated the question further a number of variables still remain such as diet, sanitation, disease, relative cost of living and road deaths. We should also consider climate, pollution, state welfare and violent crime. Police brutality, government corruption, unemployment, the expertise of emergency services and literacy should not be ignored. What about the strength of civil society, religious observance, divorce rates, prevalence of drug abuse, quality of food hygiene and level of sex education?

Would it be possible to isolate just a single variable? Would it be possible to subject individuals to new conditions under a controlled environment to ascertain findings? For the scientific model to apply here, only one variable should be tested at a time so it would not be possible to provide a 'scientific' response. The only answer possible would be that there are many factors, some of more weight than others but this not a very 'scientific' conclusion.

We could also ask, for example, how to construct experiments based on the scientific model to address these statements:        

i.       Sport - Was Mike Tyson a better boxer than Muhammed Ali?
ii.      Language – Which piece of literary work rates higher: Chaucer's Wife of Bath,
Shakespeare's Hamlet or Dickens' Hard Times?
iii.      Politics – Was Margaret Thatcher a more successful Prime Minister than Tony
iv.      Life – Why do we exist?
v.       History – Was Muslim Spain the most tolerant place on Earth during the 13th

To answer the final query a single variable that leads to tolerance would have to be identified and scientifically defined. We would then need to be capable of subjecting other societies during the period to laboratory conditions in order to isolate the variable leading to tolerance. A criterion for evaluation, comparison and measurement would be required and the experiment would have to conclude objectively.The scientific model is clearly not built for all types of enquiry.

The question is never why… only how

It is also important to note that the scientific model is concerned with questions of how things work rather than why. So science would be interested in answering how the universe began, not why the universe began. How does a scientist begin to answer why the universe began? The questions of how and why are completely different but scientists unable to answer why instead often answer how and expect it to be sufficient.

Science can answer how things rust, not why and how we see the colour orange. Take an example of grass. Why is it green not bright blue or deep red? The scientific answer is that chlorophyll absorbs blue and red light while reflecting green. Of course this is an answer for how but we are expected to accept it as the answer for why as well.

That is not to say the scientific model itself is fatally flawed. It is not. It just has a place and cannot be used to answer every question. The scientific method is fantastic when dealing with technology, which must always be challenged. Imagine no entrepreneur ever sought to build safer motorcars since they were certain they had the safest or if attempts to eradicate all known diseases ended in hopelessness and despair. The scientific model provides us with the framework necessary to deal with these and other inconclusive matters. However it has definite limitations that render it incapable of tackling other questions and, after all, we are examining the model with a view to answering a particular question i.e. why are we here? With this in mind there can be no doubt that the scientific model cannot apply here in a discussion of why we exist (rather than how we exist).

So how best to answer the greatest question?

To this point emotional faith and the scientific model have both been found wanting when answering the greatest question. This is since emotion confirms absolutely nothing and the scientific method does not apply to questions of why things happen, only how and only in instances where the subject matter is tangible, variables can be isolated, manipulated and repeated testing can take place.

If we are to accept the scientific model of the positivists was the highest, most evolved method of thought there is the vexing question of what kind of thought process human beings had to utilise before the Enlightenment. There was certainly no reference to the scientific method in the Dark Ages of Europe. Were human beings primitive 'thinkers' before the work of Bacon, Kepler, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal and Newton in the 17th Century? This would mean Copernicus was a primitive thinker despite formulating heliocentric theory in 1541 CE. This would mean Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was a primitive thinker since he died in 1037 CE despite writing Al-Qanun fi-l Tibb (the Canon). What opinion should we have on the thought of Albategnius (Ibn Sinan al-Battani) when his experiments in the late 9th Century led to determination of astronomical coefficients like the precession 54.5" a year and inclination of the ecliptic 23º 35' with stunning accuracy. He also noticed an increase of 16º 47' in the longitude of the sun's apogee since the time of Ptolemy which led to the discovery of the motion of solar episodes. The mathematician Al-Khwarizmi lent his name to the algorithms he developed and founded modern algebra (from his book Kitab al-Jabr wal-Muqabalah). Fibonacci translated his work but he died in 850 CE. Let us go back even further to Euclid, Zeno, Aristotle, Plato and Socrates all active between 400 and 300 BCE and Pythagoras even earlier. Were they all primitive thinkers?

If not, then we are looking for an alternative way to think, one more natural, suited to the nature of humans, one without an irrational fear of certainty, the way humans think regardless of circumstance, time and place. We are searching for the rational method of thinking.

We can examine this method of thinking individually. If one were to ask you how you think about things, what would your answer be?

I answer in the following manner. Look around you. The images of what you see transfer into your head. Reach out and touch an inanimate object such as a wall, a chair, a desk, a PC, a book. Your senses are transferring impressions into you so you can ponder over them.

What stages of the process of thought can we determine from this?

Sensation took place, without which one could not ponder over things. There is also a need for reality as our senses can only be aware of things if they exist in a tangible form. There's definitely some transfer of the sensed reality, as the sensation must get to your mind so you can 'think' about the sensed reality. Lastly there's a judgement.

However something intrinsic is missing from the steps outlined thus far. This is so as sensation alone is not enough to understand a reality. One could sense a new reality forever and still move no closer to comprehension if one had no information on the issue to explain the reality. Both sensation and some degree of information are necessary.

The following examples should illustrate this. Let us begin within an example of language. If one were to pick up a book in classical (fusHa) Arabic and stare at the letters, word after word, page after page without having some understanding of Arabic (the previous information) it would not matter how much sensation took place. Reading
and understanding Arabic would be impossible if one did not have the slightest appreciation of the Arabic language. Sensation alone is not enough.

Let us imagine one who had never left a primitive village and had absolutely no idea of life outside of the rural sphere. What would a complete newcomer to a big city make of simple things like double yellow lines, zebra crossings and post boxes using sensation alone (i.e. without having any previous information on them)? Completely alone on the street at night a set of traffic lights could be sensed but would make no sense. The sensation of the sequence (red man, green man for pedestrians and red, amber, green, amber, red for vehicles) would take place but what next? In order to comprehend them the villager would be forced to look elsewhere for information either by asking others or attempting to collect some information. Observing (sensing) the response of pedestrians and traffic to the lights would provide the information. What happens when the lights go red? Why do some stop and others go? What was the flashing light when a car speeds through a red light? What was that loud, beeping sound from that angry driver?

Once the information was collected the villager could face the reality (lights go green), sense (see the green light), transfer the sensation to the brain, link it to the information already held (green man means walk as the vehicles are not free to go) and would lead to judgement (the villager
would cross the road).

What about a grown man who had been kept in a cave from birth, had never even seen daylight and only been subjected to the most rudimentary ideas and information on life. He would surely struggle in the cockpit of a Boeing 747 or operating the safety controls of a nuclear power plant as without previous information no thought could take place.

The necessity of previous information for thought

What is missing from all the examples above is the previous information that explains the reality. Linking this previous information to the sensation is what leads to thinking. Sensation alone is not enough. This is also solves the problematic question of what the mind is. The mind is the previous information. From this we can now place the five stages of the method of thinking in correct order.

1.        Reality
2.        Sensation of the reality
3.        Transference of the sensed reality to the brain
4.        Linking the sensation with the previous information, which is the mind. The linking
is the actual process of thinking leading to thought
5.        Judgement upon the reality

This is the process we all use to think about things. We would not utilise emotion or the scientific model to read a magazine, visit the WC or work out if the car was out of petrol. We would use the five-stage process outlined above and it is necessary to use this rational method to answer the greatest question.

The rational method is the basis of all thinking, even science. No experiment could be constructed without previous information (e.g. how to read and write). In fact the rational method can be found directly in many of the social sciences such as sociology and psychology. Science is incapable of testing human behaviour, as it requires tangible matter to experiment on. Social scientists either resort to prescribing Prozac for depression or follow a model of observation. Psychologists and sociologists make multiple observations of subjects over set periods without attempting to scientifically subject them to new conditions. An example of how to do so would be to take the human being out of the natural environment into a controlled environment (which incidentally is not natural for humans) and attempt to isolate what makes the human behave in certain ways. Periodic observation leading to a conclusion, without manipulation, is a part of the rational method not the scientific. Specific elements of the social sciences are also not scientific. Psychoanalysis (studying dreams etc.) fails as a science as its answers can never be verified and depend upon repeated observation without manipulation i.e. it is part of the rational method.

The rational method is clearly the natural thinking process at the base of other forms of thought (scientific, logical, philosophical, legislative etc.). It is the only method of thought that leads to certain knowledge, definite answers and truth. Use the five-stage rational method to answer basic question such as if you exist ("cogito ergo sum"/"I think therefore I am"), if you have hair, if you have ever drunk water, if you can fly etc. The answers are certain if the sensation and linking to previous information is done correctly so now all that is left is to utilise it to find the answer to the greatest question.

It would, of course, be inappropriate to come this far in the discourse and only apply thought in a lazy, irresponsible and shallow manner. Rational thinking requires us to sense precisely, ponder over the information deeply and link this to the information we already hold in a profound and enlightened way.

When we examine everything within the range of our sensations we come to the following two conclusions:

1.        We cannot sense (see, touch, hear, smell or taste) a Creator
2.        Everything we can sense is dependent on something else and has a limit of some
kind that it cannot surpass

We must be clear on the first point. We cannot sense a Creator. Some would have us believe in aliens or in 'mother nature' but this cannot be accepted as we have already denied emotion and blind imitation a role in this endeavour. Others would have us end the discussion here since no Creator can be sensed. Such people cite the phrase 'seeing is believing'. The predicament with this is that this implies the opposite (i.e. 'not seeing equals nothing to believe in'). This is blank, vacuous and weak.

Sensing a Creator is not a prerequisite to prove a Creator exists and never has been. We see many things in our daily lives without knowing who exactly is responsible but the result leads us to believe something definitely was responsible e.g. a sculpture requires a sculptor etc. The material cause of the sculpture would be clay but the efficient cause of the artwork would be the sculptor.

The proof of a Creator is in whether we can find evidence of creation.

This can only be proved or disproved by applying rational thought. So far the first conclusion (cannot sense a Creator) is of little help. So any answer will have to come from the second conclusion, which is the deep enlightened view on all we sense i.e. everything is limited and dependent.

Is everything we can sense limited?

We should examine the statement and particularly what a limit means in this context. Here's a passable working definition:

Whatever is limited has a dependency somewhere or how. It is limited if it depends on something else. This can be in many ways. Does it depend on a space to exist within? Something is limited if it is contingent and requires something peripheral to it in order to bring it into existence i.e. a cause. It cannot sustain itself forever and deteriorates accordingly. We can find or deduce either a beginning or end point or both. The space it occupies can be measured and its attributes quantified. It has boundaries it cannot exceed and obstacles it cannot overcome. It is conditional; unable to prevent itself from being affected and swayed by external factors. It can be contained and is subject to constraints and thresholds. It is limited since its constituent parts are limited as they can be measured. Also it can produce or reproduce but cannot create something else out of nothing. It can be increased and/or reduced. In short it is finite since its restrictions are inherent and unavoidable. Such a thing can be marked out as limited and dependent i.e. created.

So is everything we can sense limited and dependent? Let us examine a few options. atoms require a space to exist within. Human beings are limited as we cannot fly, see into the future or escape death. Space, and the entire universe, consists of limited things such as atoms planets, stars and comets which themselves are measurable and we know the sum of limited things must be limited.

To ask if cold is limited is to ask an incoherent question. Cold cannot be measured as it is not a thing, it is the absence of a thing i.e. heat. Heat can be measured (the SI measurement is in joules), can be increased and, like all other forms of energy, requires a cause to initiate it. When we want to feel warmer we switch on radiators or light campfires. Heat results from something and is therefore limited.

Light and sound are waves. Sound is a mechanical wave. A mechanical wave can be described as a disturbance that travels through a medium, transporting energy from one location to another location. A light wave can travel through a vacuum since it does not require a medium. Both are characterised by definable properties. Light waves have intensity (brightness), polarisation (angle or vector) and frequency (colour) so the colour red is the reflection of light at a specific wavelength.

Sound waves are characterised by velocity, frequency, its wavelength and its amplitude so the intensity of sound is measured in decibels.

Both the speed of light and sound are measurable. Furthermore light is definitely limited otherwise it would always be daylight or to put it another way it would never be dark. By the same token if there is ever silence then sound must also be limited.

Can we think of infinite length? Length is measurement of something and is not a thing itself. The same can be said of numbers, which are simply a chronological form of measurement of other things. The question should not be if numbers reach infinity but if the items represented by numbers can reach infinity. We cannot guess out of our own desire for it to be true (that would be irrational, emotional belief) and we have no such previous information. Also numbers themselves cannot be without limit since every number is finite, as is the following number. Since whenever we proceed upwards we proceed towards another finite number we can never exceed the barrier of infinity.

Are ideas such as love limited? This can be answered by reference to the working definition of a limit. Is the idea of love able to exist independently of anything else or is it contingent and dependent on something else to initiate it? Ideas are inherently conditional on a mind to think of them. Ideas have no independent existence external to a mind so they are limited. Therefore love, like all other ideas, is limited. Of course if someone was willing to attempt to prove that an idea, like love, had an independent existence they are most welcome to try but both the rational and scientific methods require a reality to examine and ideas are clearly not tangible.

We can conclude that everything we can all sense is limited to some degree. One may wonder why this conclusion is important but it matters as it narrows down the options available in our search for a conclusive answer to the greatest question.

Do limited things equal a Creator?

Now we accept that all things we can sense are limited and have the rational framework of thinking in place there can now only be four possible answers to the greatest question:

1.        The universe has existed for an infinite length of time so no creation ever took
place regardless of the existence of limited things (No Creator)
2.        Limited things bought other limited things into existence (No Creator)
3.        Limited things all depend upon each other in an unlimited cyclical chain of mutual
dependencies (No Creator)
4.        Limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited cause (Creator)

We can be sure there are no other possible answers and that these four choices are all mutually exclusive i.e. that none of these options can be true at the same time as another. Therefore, let us examine these alternatives in turn beginning with the possibility that the universe has existed for an infinite length of time.

The idea of infinity has always been problematic since there is a distinction between a possible infinite and actual infinite. A figure can increase towards infinity but will never get there (since numbers are limited). We can therefore say this process is indefinite rather than infinite. Students of calculus will recognise this for the example of the function f(x) = 1/x. If one increases x indefinitely, one increases it without limit, and as x becomes very large, the function f(x) becomes very small. The graph of the function (a hyperbola) provides a straight line that is tangential to the curve at infinity, nevertheless, this will never be actualised; it will never be the case. A line on a graph that tends towards infinity will edge closer to the axis (towards a possible infinite) but will never get to the axis let alone cross it (actual infinite). Even Aristotle argued against an actual infinite; a fact which the Arab philosopher Al-Kindi famously used against him in his refutation.

Georg Cantor, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 19th Century, initiated the mathematics of the infinite (along with Weierstrass and Dedekind) known as transfinite arithmetic. Though the discipline aims to deal with the paradoxes of infinity 'it offends common sense at every point' (Monk, 1997). Even if we acknowledge that real numbers are greater than natural numbers (because natural numbers are a sub-set of the reals) and that there is no such thing as the next point in a continuous series of points can there really be 'higher infinities'?

While Cantor argued for higher infinity he denied actual infinity and his work on set theory is fundamentally problematic for supporters of actual infinity. Set theory can be understood utilising the examples of axes. All things that can be used to attack others can be placed in a collection or set called 'weapons'. The set called 'weapons' has subsets such as swords, guns and axes.

To a set theorist the sentence 'all axes are weapons' is really saying 'the set of axes is a subset of weapons'. In other words 'every member of the first set (axes) is a member of the second (weapons)'. A dilemma arises when we discover that Cantor proved that for any set, another set with more members (the original set's power set – consisting of all its subsets) is constructible. If a set has n members then there will be at least 2n subsets of it and 2n is always greater than n.

This leads us to the Cantor Paradox that states that a set of all sets cannot exist since each attempt at a total set would immediately produce a larger one. Thus there is no greatest set (cf. Zuckerman, 1974) and no infinity.

Even David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the 20th Century, has similarly argued against actual infinity:

However despite these concerns let us examine the claim in the best traditions of debate and discourse. If the universe has always existed then the claim is that there has been an unlimited, infinite length of time before now; this known as regressus ad infinitum or infinite regression, which means continual subtraction by one. It is helpful in this instance to think of time as a chain of events. Things happen in sequential order, one moment after another so an infinite length of time can be equated with an endless chain of events. The claim that the universe has always existed is a claim that the universe has always existed up this moment. This means an eternity has passed up to this moment. This means we are currently at the end of an endless chain of events. This is impossible.
If an endless chain of events had to occur before this point we would never exist since an endless chain could never finish. I would not be writing these words and you would not be reading them now. This is so because the event in the unlimited chain of events immediately preceding our current actions (indeed our very existence) would depend upon the one before it and the one before it but this chain would never get to this moment as it is eternal and endless.

Since we do exist, I am writing this chapter and you are reading this chapter the contradiction of the claim of infinite regression should now be apparent.

This can be thought of like reserving a book from the university library that is in heavy demand (for the sake of argument let us agree this is the only copy available). If there were four people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four to finish before using it for your assignment. Similarly if there were four thousand people in the queue before you for the book then you would have to wait for the four thousand to finish before using it. If an unlimited, infinite (i.e. endless) number of reservations stood between you and the book you would never receive it as an endless number sequence would never end.

The same example is often illustrated by reference to a sniper requiring an instruction from his superior in his chain of command to open fire. Of course his superior has to wait till his own superior directs him and so on up the chain. If the chain of command were only ten minutes long the sniper would have to wait ten minutes for the command to fire. If it were one hundred years long the sniper would take one hundred years for the command to fire. If the chain were unlimited, it would be infinite, endless and the sniper would never receive the order to fire. It is not possible for an event to exist at the end of an endless chain of event thus we cannot exist at the end of infinity. The universe has not always existed.

Many thinkers and philosophers from John Philoponus to Al-Ash'ari to Al-Ghazali to Kant proposed similar arguments. Aquinas partially assimilated the work of Averroes (Ibn Rushd) - who believed in the eternity of the universe - to offer his own variant refutation known as the 'traversal of the infinite'. Unlimited time before now means an infinite series of events has been completed. This means an endless journey across infinity has ended (infinity has been travelled across/traversed). Traversal requires both a beginning and end like any other journey but any start point we can think of for our journey is only a finite amount of time ago.  Thus infinity cannot have been traversed since that is the whole point of infinity. It therefore cannot be true that the universe has always existed.

We must also be aware that saying the universe has always existed leaves one open to contradiction. If one said it then repeated a year later this implies infinity has just increased by a year. This contradicts the work of Ibn Hazm on the temporality of the universe when he stated that infinity cannot increase (reductio ad absurdum, third proof). This would mean the time elapsed from the beginning of time to the Norman Conquest of 1066 is also the same as the time elapsed from the beginning of time to the Fall of Saigon (Vietnam War) in 1975 and so on until today.

Others have questioned whether we could exist within an infinite chain of events, which is tantamount to proposing there is an infinite sum of finite events. Let us suppose we are exactly half way within the infinite chain of events. Infinity would have then been halved. If we were to picture the same with matchsticks then we select the median matchstick (the one exactly in the middle) of an infinite number of matchsticks. The infinite number of matchsticks is halved. Both halves add up to infinity but are infinite themselves. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of matchsticks would equal infinity. This then produces apparent contradictions that the part is equal to the whole and that there could loads of infinities.

Now let us remove three matchsticks from the infinite sum. We have established that any fraction of the infinite sum is equal to infinity but we can be sure that three matchsticks do not add up to infinity. Thus something cannot beinfinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite events must be finite. We can thus conclude that we could not exist within an infinite chain of events.

Also after removing three matchsticks would both halves still add up to infinity or have we actually reduced the number of matchsticks? If one were to argue that removing three matchsticks would not reduce the amount from infinity then this is tantamount to arguing we have an infinite number of matchsticks no matter how many are removed. Now let us propose that we remove all the matchsticks. Do we still have an infinite number or just no matchsticks? Remember infinity cannot be reduced. We must point out here that whether we remove three or all we are still reducing the amount of matchsticks and this contradicts infinity since infinity cannot be reduced.

The second answer i.e. that limited things bought other limited things into existence if true would mean there was no need for a Creator but it contradicts reality. Could a limited thing bring itself into existence without need of something else? Could it survive and subsist without dependency on other things? Could a limited thing have always existed? Could a limited thing bring other things into existence from nothing?

These notions flatly contradict the previous information we possess on limited, dependent things. The previous information we have is that limited things do not and cannot bring themselves other things into existence and that there is always some dependency. This is part of the definition of a limited thing.

Arguing that the original limited object could have always existed (without a cause) means it is not limited, rather it is unlimited. This is the same as the first assertion that there was no start point and the universe has always existed. In effect it is another claim for an unlimited chain of events before this point and we have already refuted this.

The third answer was that all limited things depend upon each other in an unlimited cyclical chain of mutual dependencies.  The proposal is that all limited things manage their dependencies in a flawless system whereby each limited thing supports another in some intricate web. Therefore the claim is there is no need for a Creator, as this web would mean no requirement for a beginning or a cause. While is suggests that all limited things would continue to exist forever due to the support each limited thing receives from others this clearly is not the case as things die out, fade and deteriorate constantly.
Instead it is often illustrated with other examples such as when humans are buried where they become fertiliser for the trees and plants so they can themselves eat the plants before being buried. The most famous example is the water cycle where for water to exist it depends upon rain and for rain to exist it depends upon clouds and clouds depend upon evaporation of water.

The flaw here is that nothing in the cycle can exist until something initiates the cycle. We know A depends upon B and B depends upon A, this is a form of mutual dependence. So for A to exist B needs to exist but B doesn't exist until A exists, therefore nothing would exist. This simple demonstration proves that things cannot depend upon other things in the form of a cycle i.e. mutual dependence without something external first initiating the cycle.

If it is agreed that these three options have been rebutted then we arrive at the fourth and final option, which was that limited things were bought into existence by an unlimited first cause (Creator). This cause has to be eternal, without bounds otherwise it would be limited and dependent. The Creator is something unlimited and independent that every other thing ultimately depends upon. For this independent force to exist then it must be other than limited, i.e. other than quantifiable and definable. Therefore this independent thing must be unlimited. This necessitates that this unlimited, independent force chose to create and was not forced to create. Choice signifies will and intelligence. As a result we come to the rational conclusion that a limitless, infinite, intelligent force created the universe.

This is the proof that there is a Creator.

This unlimited cause (Creator) can only be one. If there are two or more then none of these causes can be unlimited. If the causes can each be separated, isolated and counted then they cannot be unlimited. The cause can only be unlimited if it is one, alone without partner, all-powerful, without beginning or end.

We can conclude this section by adding that the greatest question can be answered conclusively without resorting to emotion or by stretching the scientific model into realms it cannot deal with. Belief does not have to be emotional. In fact if it is built on rational thought, then is inherently built upon the greatest faculty of humanity, the mind.
Why can we not sense the Creator?

From the rational method we know we can only think about reality. Our senses can only pick up on reality so the question is whether the Creator is a reality within the reach of our senses? This can be understood in another way. Can a limited being ever conceive of the unlimited?

It could not be possible to sense something unlimited. No one would rationally argue the five senses of human beings could pick up anything beyond the universe. To perceive or sense the Creator would to contend that the Creator is within the bounds of the known universe. By definition whatever is unlimited cannot be contained by anything even the universe (otherwise we would have found a limit). The unlimited has no boundaries, constraints or restrictions.

Now we have established that we have a Creator it may feel natural that we should pause, if even for a second, to ponder over the enormity of the conclusion.

We are created. Creation is proof of a Creator. There is a Creator.

However we cannot rest now. The question of a Creator is the greatest because it affects the direction of our lives. So the next stage of the discussion is critical. We cannot pretend to have any conception of what is beyond our senses. That would contradict the rational method. We need to be informed by the unlimited Creator. It is completely irrational to think otherwise but since we cannot sense the Creator we have to now decide on the next step. One option is to guess blindly, using one's own limited mind to decide right and wrong, on why we were created, if there is a purpose, what we should expect in terms of accountability, punishment and reward etc. This step cannot be discouraged enough. One would not hear a knock at the door and just 'guess' it was a visit from the local dentist to pull out one's front teeth. One would not buy a can of cola and just 'guess' the can was full of nerve gas. So why guess when it comes to the answer to the greatest question? Human beings are rational, using thought to elevate the social condition. We have already refuted emotion, blind imitation and leaps of faith and instead emphasised using reason and ration. It is still necessary to hold to this principle.

The only reality we have is that a Creator exists.

From: Sabu m k <>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 February 2012, 16:49
Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
Yes there is no question of real GOD or duplicate GOD or your GOD or their GOD.
The real question is whether there is any GOD. Not one GOD or multiple GOD.

From the talking since the original question, as every one knows, the replies as per each one belief. What the religions teaches them since younger age simply quotes on the mails. If we think deeply there is no need of a ONE GOD but all are natural things and only we people create the GOD for each of them their own reasons.

The religion like Muslim/cristian/Budha/gines/sikh/parsis  (pls don't think or question it from any religious eye) are prophetic (pravachaka) religion. That means these religouns are established by some prophets/gurus. So the views also by such Gurus/prophets only. They write a books as like the constitution and insist the followers to follow the same strictly.

There are some modernisation or split inside even there and different views are  noticed here also. The Hindu actually not from any such prophetics or a certain Gurus. It is regional inhabitans and there is no particular book we can't say like a constitution and what a hindu and what a non hindu and how they worship or such. Instead the VEDAS,  they simply support all type of beliefs even no god concept too. The six schools of Hinduisam based on the vedas even consisting NO GOD , ie of logics thinking.  again quoting abt them below.

So please all come out of religious thoughts and think freely ..

Basically there are 6 indian philosophies. And all these six philosophies considered vedas as Pramanas. 
1. Samkyas
2. Yoga
3. Nyaya or logics
5. Mimamsa,
6. VedantaThis school gives raise to dvaita and vishishtadvaita(advaita tatva was there from the begining),
Each of these schools was headed by mentors who wrote sutras on respective schools of philosophy. But however once vedanta(advaita) philosophy was resurrected by Shankaracharya, other schools of philosophies are less heard. 
Advaita, dvaita and vishishtadvaita are branches of vedanta school of philosophy only. Each of these branches are based on Brahmasutra written by Vyasa mahashri. They only differ each other by different interpretation of brahmasutra. 
Vedanta philosophy was described by advaita alone from the very beginning itself, but late after Shankara's time dvaita, vishishtadvaita, dvaitadvaita etc came. 
I dont know where you have got this information that these gurus told to follow caste system. And for your information, no one has to do war with these philosophies but it's an ideological discussion. 
The Indian thinkers of antiquity (very much like those of the post-Socratic Greek philosophical schools) viewed philosophy as a practical necessity that needed to be cultivated in order to understand how life can best be led. It became a custom for Indian writers to explain at the beginning of philosophical works how it serves human ends (puruṣārtha).
Brahmin thinkers centered philosophy on an assumption that there is a unitary underlying order (rta) in the universe[5] which is all pervasive and omniscient. The efforts by various schools were concentrated on explaining this order and the metaphysical entity at its source (Brahman). The concept of natural law (Dharma) provided a basis for understanding questions of how life on earth should be lived. The sages urged humans to discern this order and to live their lives in accordance with it.
In modern times, the most important school of Hindu philosophy is vedanta, which is further divided into three ways of understanding the same truth as dvaitavisisthadvaita and advaita. While these concepts might seem different and sometimes contradictory, they represent the three stages of the development of the human consciousness, and find their reconciliation inachintya bheda abheda.


Hindu philosophy

  • Nyaya, the school of logic
  • Vaisheshika, the atomist school
  • Samkhya, the enumeration school
  • Yoga, the school of Patanjali (which provisionally asserts the metaphysics of Samkhya)
  • Purva Mimamsa (or simply Mimamsa), the tradition of Vedic exegesis, with emphasis on Vedic ritual, and
  • Vedanta (also called Uttara Mimamsa), the Upanishadic tradition, with emphasis on Vedic philosophy.
These are often coupled into three groups for both historical and conceptual reasons: Nyaya-Vaishesika, Samkhya-Yoga, and Mimamsa-Vedanta. The Vedanta school is further divided into six sub-schools: Advaita (monism/nondualism), also includes the concept of AjativadaVisishtadvaita(monism of the qualified whole), Dvaita (dualism), Dvaitadvaita (dualism-nondualism), Suddhadvaita, and Achintya Bheda Abheda schools.
The six systems mentioned here are not the only orthodox systems, they are the chief ones, and there are other orthodox schools such as the "Grammarian" school.[7] These six systems, accept the authority of Vedas and are regarded as "orthodox" (astika) schools of Hindu philosophy; besides these, schools that do not accept the authority of the Vedas are categorized by Brahmins as unorthodox (nastika) systems.[7] Chief among the latter category are Buddhism, Jainism and Carvakas.

Jain philosophy

Jainism came into formal being after Mahavira synthesized philosophies and promulgations of the ancient Sramana philosophy, during the period around 550 BC, in the region that is present day Bihar in northern India. This period marked an ideological renaissance, in which the Vedic dominance was challenged by various groups. Buddhism also arose during this period.
Jain philosophy is traditionally believed to have been revived by Mahavira, whom the Jains see as the 24th and final Jain Tirthankar (enlightened seers), a line that stretches to time immemorial. The 23rd seer, Parsva is traditionally dated to around 900 BC.
Jainism is not considered as a part of the Vedic Religion (Hinduism),[9][10][11] even as there is constitutional ambiguity over its status. Jain tirthankars find exclusive mention in the Vedas and the Hindu epics. During the Vedantic age, India had two broad philosophical streams of thought: The Shramana philosophical schools, represented by BuddhismJainism, and the long defunct and Ajivika on one hand, and the Brahmana/Vedantic/Puranic schools represented by VedantaVaishnava and other movements on the other. Both streams are known to have mutually influenced each other.
The Hindu scholar Lokmanya Tilak credited Jainism with influencing Hinduism in the area of the cessation of animal sacrifice in Vedic rituals. Bal Gangadhar Tilak has described Jainism as the originator of Ahimsa and wrote in a letter printed in Bombay Samachar, Mumbai:10 Dec, 1904: "In ancient times, innumerable animals were butchered in sacrifices. Evidence in support of this is found in various poetic compositions such as the Meghaduta. But the credit for the disappearance of this terrible massacre from the Brahminical religion goes to Jainism."
Swami Vivekananda  also credited Jainsim as one of the influencing forces behind the Indian culture.
Jain is a follower of Jinas, spiritual 'victors' (Jina is Sanskrit for 'victor'), human beings who have rediscovered the dharma, become fully liberated and taught the spiritual path for the benefit of beings. Jains follow the teachings of 24 special Jinas who are known as Tirthankars ('ford-builders'). The 24th and most recent Tirthankar, Lord Mahavira, lived in c.6th century BC, which was a period of cultural revolution all over the world. Socrates was born in Greece, Zoroaster in Iran, Lao‑Tse and Confucious in China and Mahavira and Buddha in India.The 23rd Thirthankar of Jains, Lord Parsvanatha is recognised now as a historical person, lived during 872 to 772 BC... Jaina tradition is unanimous in making Rishabha, as the First Tirthankar.
One of the main characteristics of Jain belief is the emphasis on the immediate consequences of one's physical and mental behavior.[17] Because Jains believe that everything is in some sense alive with many living beings possessing a soul, great care and awareness is required in going about one's business in the world. Jainism is a religious tradition in which all life is considered to be worthy of respect and Jain teaching emphasises this equality of all life advocating the non-harming of even the smallest creatures.
Non-violence ( Ahimsa) is the basis of right View, the condition of right Knowledge and the kernel of right Conduct in Jainism.
Jainism encourages spiritual independence (in the sense of relying on and cultivating one's own personal wisdom) and self-control  which is considered vital for one's spiritual development. The goal, as with other Indian religions, is moksha which in Jainism is realization of the soul's true nature, a condition of omniscience (Kevala Jnana). Anekantavada is one of the principles of Jainism positing that reality is perceived differently from different points of view, and that no single point of view is completely true. Jain doctrine states that only Kevalis, those who have infinite knowledge, can know the true answer, and that all others would only know a part of the answer. Anekantavada is related to the Western philosophical doctrine of Subjectivism.

Buddhist philosophy

Buddhist philosophy is a system of beliefs based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, an Indian prince later known as the Buddha (Pali for "awakened one").
From its inception, Buddhism has had a strong philosophical component. Buddhism is founded on the rejection of certain orthodox Hindu philosophical concepts. The Buddha criticized all concepts of metaphysical being and non-being as misleading views caused by reification, and this critique is inextricable from the founding of Buddhism.
Buddhism shares many philosophical views with other Indian systems, such as belief in karma, a cause-and-effect relationship between all that has been done and all that will be done. Events that occur are held to be the direct result of previous events. However, a major difference is the Buddhist rejection of a permanent, self-existent soul (atman). This view is a central one in Hindu thought but is rejected by all Buddhists.

--- On Wed, 2/8/12, John Thomas <> wrote:

From: John Thomas <>
Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
To: "" <>
Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2012, 1:16 AM

Dear Mathew,
You were a kid when you attended your Sunday schools just like me and other Christian kids. But you are a completely grown up man with fully grown brain. So just imagine the simple things mentioned in bible like why god needed dust to create human! He could have done it just by blink of an eye. Because 5000 years earlier human brain was trying to imitate a process of making ADA or VADA or bread from the wheat powder. We call it lack of imagination. No one needed to take this as an offense as these are not the proprietary products of anyone. 
Your comment about Laly S. posting on Hindu gods itself shows how bad you guys treat each other when it comes to 'your god' and ' their god'. This is exactly why I said, a minimum understanding is required on who is real god.
From: Mathew Paul <>
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
പേരുകൊണ്ട് ഒരു ക്രിസ്ത്യാനി ആണ് താങ്കള്‍ എന്ന് കരുതുന്നു. എങ്കില്‍ സണ്‍‌ഡേ ക്ലാസ്സില്‍ പഠിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടാകുമല്ലോ. ദൈവം ആരാലും സൃഷ്ടിക്കപ്പെട്ടവനല്ല, എല്ലാറ്റിനും മുന്‍പേ ഉള്ളവനും എല്ലാം സൃഷ്ടിച്ചവനും അന്ത്യം ഇല്ലാത്തവനും സര്‍വ വല്ലഭനും(എല്ലാം അറിയുന്നവനും) എല്ലാറ്റിനും ആദി കാരണമായവനും ആണെന്ന്. പിന്നെന്തിനീ സംശയം?  മുപ്പത്തി മുക്കോടി ദൈവങ്ങളെപറ്റി എസ്‌. ലാലി നല്‍കുന്ന വിവരണം വിശ്വസനീയമല്ല. അഥവാ ആണെങ്കില്‍ തന്നെ ഹിന്ദുമത വിശ്വാസികള്‍ എത്ര പേര്‍ അത് സമ്മതിക്കും എന്ന് അറിഞ്ഞുകൂടാ.
2012/2/6 shamsudheen k <>
Dear Brothers,
We should learn the concept of GOD in each relegion from the holly scriptures of different religion viz: vedas, bible, quran etc... As I understand all these talk about one and only one God. The attributes of God in all relegion basically is, Creator, cherisher, sustainer, almighty, loving, merciful, forgiving, just etc etc. Please dont see what people do? Its man who try to manipulate the beliefs with vested interest or expressing his own idea from his limited knowledge or to escape from his responsibility. 
Its true that human is noble, but when separated from all the rules and regulation he is a worst animal. That is the reason every country, nations, bodies create its law.  These laws are created by man. But man has limitations of his knowledge and hence the laws are also having its limitations. One of the attribute all relegion talks about God is he knows everything. So he can only give a correct law or guidelines. When we are leaving the guidelines from the God or we are fabricating our own into that, we will have different concept of God. Its not the relegious scripture who created different concept of God but man. Even if billions of people believe in billion concepts of God or deny the existance of God the truth is God is one and only one.
As a good citizen of our country we have to follow the law of our country. As a good creature of God we have to follow his law. When we follow the law we have to make sure its from the god. For that we can apply all criteria to analyse it within the purview of human's knowledge. When we understand its from God we have to follow it to become a noble creature in all sense.
These all are my understanding with my limited knowledge. You may or may not agree. If your intention of raising the question is true my request is you have to search the truth until you find it.
I will never intentionally hurt anybodies belief or emotion, If anybody felt so in any of my words its not intentional and I request you to forgive me.
Thanks & regards,
Sent: Sunday, 5 February 2012 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
Dear sir,
I liked the below narrated kindergarten story very well. Thanks. But it doesn't answer anything that I raised in my email.
Who is god? Jahova or Allah or Jesus or Vishnu or Parama Sivan or anyone else? If it is one amongst this list, why? What about others in the list and people who believe in them? If none in the list, why? Any conclusive answer? Or do you just believe in some fairytale where there is no question in the story?
First of all understand the simple fact that there is not even a common minimum understanding between believers
of different religions/gods about who is god. They just ridicule one another and expect others to end up in hell.
From: HYDER <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2012 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
A man went to a barbershop to have
his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As 
the barber began to work, they began
to have a good  conversation.
They talked about so many things
and various subjects.

When they eventually touched on the
subject of God,
the  barber said: 'I don't believe
that God exists.'    

'Why do you say that?' asked the
customer.  'Well, you just have to go
 out in the street to realize that
God doesn't exist. 

Tell me, if God exists, would there
be so many sick people? Would
there be abandoned children?
If God existed, there would be neither
suffering nor pain. 

I can't imagine a loving God who would
allow all of these things.' 

The customer thought for a moment,
but didn't respond because he didn't
want to start an argument.
The barber finished his job and the
customer left the  shop. 
Just after he left the barbershop, he
saw a man in the street with long,
stringy, dirty hair
and an  untrimmed   beard. 

He looked dirty and unkempt.
The customer turned back and
entered  the barbershop again
and he said to the barber: 

'You know what? Barbers do not exist.'    

'How can you say that?' asked the
surprised barber. 'I am here, and I am
a barber. And I just worked on you!'

'No!' the customer exclaimed. 'Barbers
don't exist because if they did, there
 would be no people with dirty long
hair and untrimmed
beards, like that man outside.'
'Ah, but barbers DO exist! That's what
happens when people do not come to me.' 

'Exactly!' affirmed the customer. 'That's
the point! God, too, DOES exist! That's
what happens when people do not go
 to Him and don't look to Him for help.     
That's why there's so much pain and
suffering in the world.'
From: John Thomas <>To: "" <> Sent: Friday, 3 February 2012, 9:49Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
After Laly S. had published this post with the above subject, several believers responded to this subject have a common agreement that 'there is god'. Someone even went further and said 'there should be a god'.
But the interesting part comes next. Who is this god?! Each one claims that it is the god he/she believes! The rest are all fakes and lies! What a pity my friends!
First of all whoever harp that there is a god should try for a collective consensus amongst the believers on this matter. Otherwise it is a joke. 
Try to understand that your life is nobody's mercy or generosity, but a pure matter of evaluation and chance in terms of time. For every parent, if the born children are two or three, unborn are hundreds or thousands. So be thankful to your parents for being one of those lucky two or three rather than the unfortunate hundreds who lost a chance to have a glimpse of this marvelous world. Work hard and find your destiny rather than try to make alliance with super power or almighty and find an easy way out for life's miseries.
From: HYDER <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!

ദൈവം, സത്യദൈവം, സാക്ഷാല്‍ദൈവം, പരമേശ്വരന്‍ എന്നിവക്കുള്ള അറബി നാമമാണ് 'അല്ലാഹു'. ഇസ്ലാം ഏറ്റവും പൂര്‍ണവും വിശിഷ്ടവുമായ ദൈവനാമമായി സ്വീകരിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത് 'അല്ലാഹു'വിനെയാണ്. ഈ പദത്തിന് ബഹുവചനമോ ലിംഗഭേദമോ ഇല്ല. സാക്ഷാല്‍ ദൈവത്തെക്കുറിക്കാനല്ലാതെ മറ്റൊന്നിനും ഈ പദം ഉപയോഗിക്കാറുമില്ല. ഇസ്ലാമില്‍ ദൈവത്തിന് മറ്റനേകം നാമങ്ങള്‍കൂടി അംഗീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുണ്ടെങ്കിലും അവയെല്ലാം ഗുണനാമങ്ങളാണ്.  അനറബി ഭാഷകളില്‍ 'അല്ലാഹു'വിന് സമാനമായ ഒറ്റപദം സുപരിചിതമല്ലാത്തതിനാല്‍ അറബികളല്ലാത്ത മുസ്ലിംകളും ദൈവത്തെ അവന്റെ ഏറ്റം വിശിഷ്ട നാമമായ 'അല്ലാഹു' എന്നുതന്നെ വിളിച്ചുവരുന്നു. അല്ലാഹു ഇസ്ലാംമതം അവതരിപ്പിക്കുന്ന ഒരു പ്രത്യേക ദൈവമാണെന്നും മുസ്ലിംകളുടെ മാത്രം ആരാധ്യനാണെന്നും ചിലര്‍ തെറ്റായി മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. യഥാര്‍ഥത്തില്‍ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ മുഴുവന്‍ ദൈവമാണ് അല്ലാഹു. സാക്ഷാല്‍ ദൈവം എന്ന അര്‍ഥത്തില്‍ എല്ലാ മതക്കാരും അറബിഭാഷയില്‍ അല്ലാഹു എന്ന പദം തന്നെയാണ് ഉപയോ ഗിക്കുന്നത്. ബൈബിളിന്റെ അറബി തര്‍ജമകള്‍ 'യഹോവ' എന്ന പദത്തിനുപകരം ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നത് 'അല്ലാഹു' എന്നാണ്. ഇസ്ലാമിന് മുമ്പ് അറേബ്യയിലെ ബഹുദൈവവിശ്വാസികള്‍ എല്ലാ ദൈവങ്ങള്‍ക്കും മീതെ ഒരു പരമേശ്വരന്‍ ഉള്ളതായി വിശ്വസിച്ചിരുന്നു. ആ പരമേശ്വരനെ അവര്‍ വിളിച്ചിരുന്നതും അല്ലാഹു എന്നാണ്. ഈ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിനു പിന്നില്‍ അതിനെ സൃഷ്ടിച്ചു പരിപാലിക്കുന്ന ഒരു മഹാശക്തിയുണ്ട്. അവനാണ് സാക്ഷാല്‍ ദൈവം. ഇസ്ലാമിന്റെ ഭാഷയില്‍ അല്ലാഹു അവന്‍ അദൃശ്യനും അത്യുന്നതനും അതുല്യനുമാകുന്നു. "അവനെപ്പോലെ യാതൊന്നുമില്ല'' (ഖുര്‍ആന്‍ 42: 11). "കണ്ണുകള്‍ അവനെ കാണുന്നില്ല. കണ്ണുകളെ അവന്‍ കാണുന്നു'' (6: 103). "അവന്‍ അത്യുന്നതനും അതിഗംഭീരനുമാകുന്നു' (2: 255). മനുഷ്യന്റെ ഇന്ദ്രിയങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് ഗോചരമാകുന്ന സകലത്തില്‍നിന്നും ഭിന്നമാകയാല്‍ മനുഷ്യന് അവന്റെ രൂപം സങ്കല്‍പ്പിക്കാനാവില്ല. മനുഷ്യനെ സംബന്ധിച്ചിടത്തോളം അവന്‍ രൂപരഹിതമാകുന്നു. അതിനാല്‍ അവന്റെ ചിത്രമെഴുതാനോ പ്രതിമയുണ്ടണ്ടാക്കാനോ കഴിയില്ല; പാടില്ല. മനുഷ്യന്‍ അവന്റെ പേരില്‍ ഉണ്ടാക്കുന്ന ചിത്രങ്ങളും പ്രതിമകളുമൊന്നും അവന്റെതാവുകയുമില്ല. പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിനു പിന്നില്‍ ഇങ്ങനെയൊരു അദൃശ്യഹസ്തം പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്നുവെന്നതിന് തെളിവായി ഇസ്ലാം ചൂണ്ടിക്കാണിക്കുന്നത് ഈ ഭൌതികപ്രപഞ്ചത്തെ തന്നെയാണ്. പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ വൈപുല്യം, ഗാംഭീര്യം, അതിന്റെ വൈവിധ്യമാര്‍ന്ന ഘടകങ്ങള്‍ തമ്മിലുള്ള രഞ്ജിപ്പ്, പരസ്പരപൂരകത്വം, യുക്തിയുക്തത, ലക്ഷ്യോന്മുഖത തുടങ്ങിയവയെല്ലാം അതിന്റെ പിന്നില്‍ സര്‍വശക്തവും സര്‍വജ്ഞവുമായ ഒരസ്തിത്വത്തിന്റെ ആസൂത്രണപാടവവും നിര്‍മാണവൈഭവവും വിളിച്ചറിയിക്കുന്നു. പ്രാപഞ്ചിക ദൃഷ്ടാന്തങ്ങള്‍ ചൂണ്ടികാണിച്ചുതരുന്ന ആ അദൃശ്യസാനിദ്ധ്യമാണ് അല്ലാഹു. കണിശമായ വ്യവസ്ഥകളനുസരിച്ച്, കടുകിടതെറ്റാതെ നിരന്തരം പ്രവര്‍ത്തിച്ചുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്ന പ്രപഞ്ചമാകുന്ന ഈ തൊഴില്‍ശാല, അതിനുപിന്നില്‍ ഒരു ഈശ്വരനുണ്ടെന്നു മാത്രമല്ല വിളിച്ചോതുന്നത്; പ്രത്യുത ആ ഈശ്വരന്‍ ഏകനും അഖണ്ഡനും അവിഭാജ്യനും അനാദിയും അനന്തനുമാണെന്നുകൂടി അസന്നിഗ്ധമായി വിളിച്ചോതുന്നു. ഒന്നിലധികം ഈശ്വരന്മാര്‍ക്ക് ഈ മഹാപ്രപഞ്ചത്തെ ഇത്ര കൃത്യമായ നിയമങ്ങളനുസരിച്ച് പ്രവര്‍ത്തിപ്പിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് ഇത്ര ഭദ്രമായി നിലനിര്‍ത്തി കൊണ്ടു പോകാനാവില്ല. ഖുര്‍ആനിലൂടെ ദൈവം പറയുന്നു: 'ഭൂമിയിലും ഉപരിലോകങ്ങളിലും പല ദൈവങ്ങളുണ്ടായിരുന്നുവെങ്കില്‍ അവ എന്നേ നശിച്ചുപോയിട്ടുണ്ടാകുമായിരുന്നു.'(21:22)"ബഹുദൈവവിശ്വാസികള്‍ വാദിക്കുന്നതു പോലെ അല്ലാഹുവിന്റെ കൂടെ വേറെയും ദെവങ്ങളുണ്ടായിരുന്നുവെങ്കില്‍ അവരെല്ലാവരും പരമാധികാരപീഠത്തിലെത്താന്‍ മത്സരിക്കുമായിരുന്നു.' (17:42) അല്ലാഹുവില്‍-സാക്ഷാല്‍ ദൈവത്തിലുള്ള വിശ്വാസത്തിന്റെ അനിവാര്യഘടകമാണ് ദൈവത്തിന്റെ ഏകത്വത്തിലുള്ള വിശ്വാസം. ദൈവാസ്തിക്യത്തെ നിഷേധിക്കുന്നതും പല ദൈവങ്ങളുടെ ആസ്തിക്യം അംഗീകരിക്കുന്നതും ഇസ്ലാമിന്റെ ദൃഷ്ടിയില്‍ ഏതാണ്ട് ഒരുപോലെയാണ്. രണ്ടുകൂട്ടരും യഥാര്‍ത്ഥദൈവത്തെ നിഷേധിക്കുകയാണ്. ഏകനായ അല്ലാഹു സര്‍വസല്‍ഗുണസമ്പൂര്‍ണനാകുന്നു. വിശിഷ്ട ഗുണങ്ങളെല്ലാം അവയുടെ കേവലമായ അവസ്ഥയില്‍ അവനില്‍ സമ്മേളിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു. യാതൊരു തരത്തിലുള്ള ന്യൂനതയും അവനെ സ്പര്‍ശിക്കുന്നില്ല. "അവനാണ് അല്ലാഹു.അവനല്ലാതെ ദൈവമില്ല. കാണുന്നതും കാണാത്തതും അറിയുന്നവനാണവന്‍. അവന്‍ ദയാപരനും കരുണാമയനുമാണ്. അവനാണ് അല്ലാഹു. അവനല്ലാതെ ദൈവമില്ല,രാജാധിരാജന്‍; പരമപവിത്രന്‍, സമാധാന ദായകന്‍, അഭയദാതാവ്, മേല്‍നോട്ടക്കാരന്‍,അജയ്യന്‍, പരമാധികാരി, സര്‍വ്വോന്നതന്‍, എല്ലാം അവന്‍ തന്നെ. ജനം പങ്കുചേര്‍ക്കുന്നതില്‍ നിന്നെല്ലാം അല്ലാഹു ഏറെ പരിശുദ്ധനാണ്. അവനാണ് അല്ലാഹു. സ്രഷ്ടാവും രൂപരചയിതാവും അവന്‍ തന്നെ. വിശിഷ്ടനാമങ്ങളൊക്കെയും അവന്നുള്ളതാണ്. ആകാശഭൂമികളിലുള്ളവയെല്ലാം അവന്റെ മഹത്വം കീര്‍ത്തിച്ചുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. അവനാണ് അജയ്യനും യുക്തിജ്ഞനും (59: 22-24) ജ്ഞാനം, ശക്തി, അധികാരം, കാരുണ്യം, നീതി തുടങ്ങിയവ അല്ലാഹുവിന്റെ മുഖ്യഗുണങ്ങളാണ്. എല്ലാ സംഗതികളിലും ത്രികാലജ്ഞനാണല്ലാഹു. അവനറിയാതെ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തില്‍ ഒരിലയനങ്ങുക പോലും ചെയ്യുന്നില്ല. സൃഷ്ടികള്‍ രഹസ്യമായും പരസ്യമായും പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്നതുമാത്രമല്ല, അവരുടെ ഹൃദയങ്ങളിലുണരുന്ന വിചാര വികാരങ്ങള്‍ പോലും അവന്‍ അറിയുന്നു. അറിവ് മാത്രമല്ല, അറിവനുസരിച്ച് പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കാനുള്ള കഴിവും അധികാരവും കൂടി അവനുണ്ട്. അവന്‍ ഇഛിക്കുന്നത് സംഭവിക്കട്ടെ എന്നുകല്‍പിക്കുകയേ വേണ്ടൂ. അത് സംഭവിക്കുകയായി. പ്രപഞ്ചത്തെ സൃഷ്ടിച്ചുവിട്ട് മാറിനില്‍ക്കുകയല്ല അവന്‍; എല്ലാം നേരിട്ട് നിയന്ത്രിച്ചു കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുകയാണ്. പ്രപഞ്ചത്തില്‍ അവനിഛിച്ചതു മാത്രം നടക്കുന്നു. അവനാണ് സകല സൃഷ്ടികളുടേയും രാജാവും നിയമശാസകനും. അവന് ആരുടെ മുമ്പിലും കണക്ക് ബോധിപ്പിക്കേണ്ടതില്ല. എല്ലാവരും അവന്റെ മുമ്പില്‍ കണക്കു ബോധിപ്പിക്കണം. പരമദയാലുവും പരമകാരുണികനുമാണ് അല്ലാഹു.പരമദയാലു, പരമകാരുണികന്‍ എന്നിവ 'അല്ലാഹു'വിനു ശേഷമുള്ള ഏറ്റവും വിശിഷ്ടമായ ദൈവനാമങ്ങളാണ്. സജ്ജനത്തേയും ദുര്‍ജനത്തേയും അവന്‍ ഈ ലോകത്ത് ഒരുപോലെ പരിപാലിക്കുന്നു. അല്ലാഹുവിനെ നിഷേധിക്കുകയും ധിക്കരിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നവര്‍ക്കുപോലും ജീവിതവിഭവങ്ങള്‍ ചൊരിഞ്ഞു കൊടുക്കുന്നു. എന്നാല്‍ സജ്ജനത്തെ അവന്‍ പരലോകത്ത് പ്രത്യേകം അനുഗ്രഹിക്കുന്നു. അല്ലാഹുവിന്റെ സൃഷ്ടിസ്ഥിതിസംഹാരങ്ങളഖിലം നീതിയിലധിഷ്ഠിതമാണ്. അവന്‍ സ്വയം നീതി പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുകയും പ്രപഞ്ചത്തില്‍ നീതിസ്ഥാപിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നു. തന്റെ ശാസനകള്‍ അനുസരിച്ച് ന്യായമായ കര്‍മഫലം നല്‍കുന്നു. ശിഷ്ടജനത്തെ രക്ഷിക്കുകയും ദുഷ്ടജനത്തെ ശിക്ഷിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുക അല്ലാഹുവിന്റെ നീതിനിഷ്ഠയുടെ അനിവാര്യതാല്‍പര്യമാകുന്നു. പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്റെ സ്രഷ്ടാവും ഉടമയും പരമാധികാരിയുമെന്ന നിലയില്‍ അല്ലാഹു മാത്രമാണ് സകല സൃഷ്ടികളുടേയും സ്തുതി സ്തോത്രങ്ങളും ആരാധനയും അര്‍ഹിക്കുന്നവന്‍. അവനല്ലാത്ത യാതൊരസ്തിത്വവും ആരാധനക്കര്‍ഹമല്ല. ഒക്കെയും അവന്റെ സൃഷ്ടികളും അടിമകളും മാത്രമാകുന്നു. എല്ലാവരും അവനെ മാത്രം ആരാധിക്കാനും വഴിപ്പെടാനും കടപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. മുകളില്‍പ്പറഞ്ഞപ്രകാരമുള്ള ഏകനും അഖണ്ഡനും അവിഭാജ്യനും സ്രഷ്ടാവും ഉടമയും പരമാധികാരിയും പരമകാരുണികനും നീതിനിഷ്ഠനുമായ അസ്തിത്വത്തെ അല്ലാഹു-സത്യദൈവം-ആയി അംഗീകരിക്കുകയും, അവനെമാത്രം വഴിപ്പെടുകയും പ്രാര്‍ത്ഥിക്കുകയും അവനല്ലാത്ത സകല അസ്ഥിത്വങ്ങള്‍ക്കുമുള്ള ആരാധനയും വഴിപ്പെടലും നിഷേധിക്കുകയുമാണ് ഇസ്ലാമിലെ തൌഹീദ്-ഏകദൈവ വിശ്വാസം. അല്ലാഹുവിന് ഏതെങ്കിലും തരത്തിലുള്ള ബഹുത്വം അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ അവന്റേതുമാത്രമായ ഗുണങ്ങളിലും അധികാരാവകാശങ്ങളിലും മറ്റാര്‍ക്കെങ്കിലും പങ്കാളിത്തം ആരോപിക്കലും അവര്‍ക്ക് ആരാധനയും അടിമത്തവും അര്‍പ്പിക്കലും ബഹുദൈവത്വം-ആകുന്നു. മാപ്പര്‍ഹിക്കാത്ത അധര്‍മവും കടുത്ത ദൈവനിന്ദയും കൊടിയ തിന്മകളുടെ ഉറവിടവുമാണിത്. ജീവിതം പൂര്‍ണമായി അല്ലാഹുവിന് സമര്‍പ്പിച്ച് അവനെമാത്രം വഴിപ്പെട്ട് ജീവിക്കലാണ് ഇസ്ലാം. മുഴു ജീവിത മേഖലകളിലേക്കും ആവശ്യമായ ജീവിത മാര്‍ഗം അല്ലാഹു കാണിച്ചു തന്നിരിക്കുന്നു. ആ ജീവിത ക്രമത്തിനും ഇസ്ലാമെന്ന് തന്നെയാണ് പറയുക. വിധി വിശ്വാസം സര്‍വലോകങ്ങളിലും നടക്കുന്ന സൃഷ്ടി-സ്ഥിതി സംഹാരങ്ങളഖിലം അല്ലാഹു നിശ്ചയിച്ച നിയമങ്ങളും വ്യവസ്ഥകളുമനുസരിച്ച് അവന്റെ അറിവോടെ മാത്രം നടക്കുന്നു. പ്രപഞ്ചത്തില്‍ നടക്കുന്ന ഒരു പുല്‍ക്കൊടിയുടെ അനക്കം പോലും അവന്റെ അറിവിനും ഇഛക്കും അതീതമല്ല. പ്രപഞ്ചത്തില്‍ ഒരില വീഴുന്നുപോലുമില്ല; അത് അവന്‍ അറിഞ്ഞിട്ടല്ലാതെ. (ഖുര്‍ആന്‍. 6:59) കാരണം, പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിലെ ഓരോ അണുവിന്റെയും സൃഷ്ടാവും ഉടമയും നിയന്താവുമാണവന്‍. അവന്റെ അറിവിനും ഇഛക്കും അതീതമായി വല്ലതും സംഭവിക്കുകയെന്നാല്‍-അതെത്ര നിസ്സാരമായിരുന്നാലും ശരി--പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്മേലുള്ള അവന്റെ ഉടമസ്ഥതയും നിയന്ത്രണവും സമ്പൂര്‍ണമല്ല എന്നാണര്‍ഥം. സൃഷ്ടി പ്രപഞ്ചത്തെ സമ്പൂര്‍ണമായി ചൂഴ്ന്ന് നില്‍ക്കുന്ന നിതാന്തവും സക്രിയവുമായ അധികാരത്തിന്റെയും വിധികര്‍ത്തൃത്വത്തിന്റെയും അനിവാര്യതയാകുന്നു പ്രപഞ്ചത്തില്‍ സംഭവിക്കുന്നതെന്തും-അതു നല്ലതാവട്ടെ, ചീത്തയാവട്ടെ-അവന്റെ വിധിക്കു വിധേയമായിരിക്കുക എന്നത്. ഈ വിധിവ്യവസ്ഥ തന്നെയാണ് ഒരര്‍ഥത്തില്‍ പ്രകൃതി നിയമം. തീക്ക് ചൂട്,മഞ്ഞിനു തണുപ്പ്,കണ്ണിനു കാഴ്ച, ഭൂമിക്ക് ആകര്‍ഷണ ശക്തി തുടങ്ങിയവയൊക്കെ ദൈവത്തിന്റെ വിധികളാകുന്നു. അവയെ പ്രകൃതി എന്നു വിളിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ അവക്കു പിന്നിലുള്ള സക്രിയവും ജാഗ്രത്തുമായ വിധാതാവിനെ ഉദ്ദേശിക്കാറില്ലെന്നു മാത്രം. അന്ധവും അബോധവുമായ ശക്തിയായിട്ടാണല്ലോ പ്രകൃതി കണക്കാക്കപ്പെടുന്നത്. പ്രകൃതിയുടെ ഓരോ കണികയുടെയും,ഓരോ സ്പന്ദനത്തിന്റെയും പിന്നില്‍ സുശക്തവും സര്‍വജ്ഞവും സബോധവുമായ ഒരു വിധാതവുണ്ട് എന്ന യാഥാര്‍ഥ്യത്തെക്കൂടി ഉള്‍ക്കൊള്ളുന്നതാണ് വിധിവ്യവസ്ഥ എന്ന പ്രയോഗം. വിധി വ്യവസ്ഥ അഥവാ പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിന്‍മേലുള്ള അല്ലാഹുവിന്റെ അധികാരവും അറിവും മനുഷ്യന്റെ പ്രവര്‍ത്തന സ്വാതന്ത്യ്രത്തില്‍ ഇടപെടുന്നില്ല."ഓരോ മനുഷ്യന്റെയും ഭാഗധേയം നാം അവന്റെ കഴുത്തില്‍ തന്നെ ബന്ധിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു''(ഖുര്‍ആന്‍ 17:13)."ഓരോരുത്തരും തങ്ങളുടെ മാര്‍ഗത്തില്‍ പ്രവര്‍ത്തിച്ചു കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുകയാണ്. ആരാണ് സന്‍മാര്‍ഗസ്ഥരെന്ന് നിന്റെ നാഥന് നന്നായറിയാം''(17:84)."നിശ്ചയം,അല്ലാഹു മനുഷ്യരോട് അല്‍പം പോലും അനീതി ചെയ്യുന്നതല്ല. പക്ഷേ മനുഷ്യന്‍ അവരോടു തന്നെ അക്രമം ചെയ്യുന്നു എന്നതത്രെ യാഥാര്‍ഥ്യം''(10:44) തീക്ക് ചൂടുണ്ടാവുക എന്നതും അതില്‍ പതിക്കുന്ന വസ്തു കരിഞ്ഞു പോവുക എന്നതും വിധിയാണ്. മനുഷ്യനാണ് തീയില്‍ ചാടുന്നതെങ്കില്‍ വെന്തുമരിക്കുക എന്നതും വിധിയുടെ ഭാഗം തന്നെ. ആരൊക്കെ,എന്തൊക്കെ എങ്ങനെയൊക്കെ തീയില്‍ പതിക്കുമെന്നും കത്തിച്ചാമ്പലാകുമെന്നുമുള്ള അറിവ് അല്ലാഹുവിന്റെ ജ്ഞാനത്തിന്റെ ഭാഗമാകുന്നു. പക്ഷേ,ഒരാളെ അഗ്നികുണ്ഡത്തില്‍ ചാടിക്കുന്നത് അല്ലാഹുവിന്റെ ഈ വിധിയും അറിവുമല്ല. അത് അയാള്‍ സ്വയം എടുത്ത തീരുമാനമാണ്. തീയില്‍ ചാടി പൊള്ളലേറ്റവന്‍, തീക്കു ചൂടുണ്ടാവുക,അതില്‍ പതിച്ചവര്‍ക്ക് പൊള്ളലേല്‍ക്കുക തുടങ്ങിയ പ്രകൃതി നിയമങ്ങളെ ആക്ഷേപിക്കുന്നതിലര്‍ഥമില്ല. അതു പോലെ നിരര്‍ഥകമാണ് വിധിയെ പഴിക്കുന്നതും. ദൈവത്തിന്റെ ഇഛയോ അറിവോ മനുഷ്യനെ യാതൊന്നിനും നിര്‍ബന്ധിക്കുന്നില്ല. മനുഷ്യന്‍ പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്നതെല്ലാം സ്വന്തം ഇഛയനുസരിച്ചും സ്വതന്ത്രമായ തീരുമാനമനുസരിച്ചുമാകുന്നു.സ്വതന്ത്രമായി അനുഷ്ടിച്ച കര്‍മങ്ങളുടെ ഉത്തരവാദിത്വം അനിവാര്യമായും അതിന്റെ കര്‍ത്താവിനുണ്ട്. ആ ഉത്തരവാദിത്വത്തിന്റെ പേരിലാണ് പരലോകത്ത് മനുഷ്യകര്‍മങ്ങള്‍ വിചാരണക്കും രക്ഷാ ശിക്ഷകള്‍ക്കും വിധേയമാക്കപ്പെടുന്നത്.
From: laly s <>
To: Keralites <>
Sent: Tuesday, 31 January 2012, 17:01
Subject: [] ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ? ......!
Fun & Info @
ദൈവം ഉണ്ടോ?
എല്ലാ മനുഷ്യരും ഒരു പ്രാവശ്യമെങ്കിലും ചിന്തിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള ഒരു കാര്യം ആയിരിക്കും ഇത്. ഈ കുറിപ്പിലുടെ ദൈവം ഉണ്ടെന്നോ ഇല്ലെന്നോ സ്ഥാപിക്കാനുള്ള ശ്രമം അല്ല മറിച്ച് വസ്തുതകള്‍ യുക്തിസഹമായി പരിശോദിക്കാന്‍ ആണ് ഇവിടെ ശ്രമിക്കുന്നത്. വായിക്കുന്നവര്‍ എന്നോട് യോജിക്കണം എന്ന് യാതൊരു നിര്‍ബന്ധവുമില്ല. പക്ഷേ അഭിപ്രായം രേഖപെടുത്തുമ്പോള്‍ വെറുതെ ചീത്ത എഴുതി വിടാതെ കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ ഗൌരവത്തോടെ വിലയിരുത്തണം എന്നു മാത്രം ഒരു അഭ്യര്‍ത്ഥന ഉണ്ട്.

മനുഷ്യന്റെ എഴുതപെട്ട ചരിത്രം നമ്മള്‍ക്ക് ലഭിക്കുന്നത് ഏതാണ്ട് അയ്യായിരം വര്‍ഷങ്ങള്‍ക്കു മുന്‍പുള്ളത് മാത്രമാണ്. അതിനു മുന്‍പുള്ള മനുഷ്യനെ പറ്റിയും അവന്റെ ജീവിതരീതിയെ പറ്റിയും ശാസ്ത്ര പരീക്ഷണങ്ങളിലൂടെയും മറ്റും മനസിലാക്കി എടുക്കാനേ സാധിക്കു.

മത ഗ്രന്ഥങ്ങളായ ഖുര്‍ആന്‍, ബൈബിള്‍ എന്നിവ അനുസരിച്ച് ആദവും ഹവ്വയും ആണ് ആദ്യത്തെ മനുഷ്യര്‍. അവരുടെ ഉത്പത്തിയെപറ്റി പറയുന്ന കഥ ശാസ്ത്രീയ വിശദീകരണങ്ങളുമായി ഒരു രീതിയിലും പൊരുത്ത പെടുന്നവ അല്ല.

ഹിന്ദു പുരാണത്തില്‍ പറയുന്ന ദശാവതാര കഥ പ്രതീകാതമകമായി പരിണാമ സിദ്ദാന്തമാണ് അവതരിപ്പിക്കുന്നത്‌ എന്നു വാദിക്കാവുന്ന സ്ഥിതി വിശേഷമാണ് ഉള്ളത്. ഡാര്‍വിന്റെ പരിണാമ സിദ്ദാന്തം നമ്മള്‍ ഒരു വരിയില്‍ അവതരിപ്പിച്ചാല്‍ ഏതാണ്ട് ഇങ്ങനെ ചുരുക്കാം.

ജലത്തില്‍ ജീവന്‍ ഉണ്ടാകുന്നു - ജലത്തിലെ ബഹുകോശ ജീവികള്‍ - ജലത്തിലും കരയിലും ജീവിക്കുന്ന ജീവികള്‍ - കരയില്‍ ജീവിക്കുന്ന ജീവികള്‍ - മനുഷ്യന്‍

ഇനി നമ്മള്‍ ദശാവതാര കഥ എടുത്താല്‍

മത്സ്യം (ജല ജീവി) - കൂര്‍മം (ജലത്തിലും കരയിലും) - വരാഹം - നരസിംഹം (കരയില്‍) - വാമനന്‍ (മനുഷ്യന്‍)

ഇനി നമുക്ക് ശാസ്ത്രീയമായി കാര്യങ്ങളെ ഒന്നു സമീപിക്കാം. പരിണാമ ഫലമായി പുരാതന മനുഷ്യന്‍ ഉണ്ടാകുന്നു. അവന്‍ മൃഗ സമാനനായി ജീവിക്കുന്നു. മൃഗങ്ങളെ പോലെ ഇര പിടിക്കുകയും ഗുഹകളില്‍ ജീവിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നു. കാലക്രമേണ അവന്‍ ചിന്തിക്കാന്‍ തുടങ്ങുകയും ഇര പിടിക്കാന്‍ പ്രാകൃതമായ ആയുധങ്ങള്‍ ‍ഉപയോഗിക്കുകയും വാസസ്ഥലങ്ങളില്‍ കൂടുതല്‍ സൗകര്യം ഒരുക്കാനും സ്വന്തം ആവശ്യത്തിനായി മൃഗങ്ങളെ ഉപയോഗിക്കാനും തുടങ്ങി.
അവിടെ നിന്നും പടി പടിയായി വളര്‍ന്ന അവന്‍ കൃഷി ചെയ്യാനും ആഹാര സാധനങ്ങള്‍ സംഭരിച്ചു വെക്കാനും പഠിച്ചു. ഒപ്പം ശത്രുക്കളെ കീഴടക്കാനും അവന്‍ ആയുധങ്ങള്‍ ഉപയോഗിക്കാന്‍ തുടങ്ങി. പക്ഷേ അപ്പോഴും അവനു മനസിലാകാത്ത / കീഴടക്കാന്‍ പറ്റാത്ത നിരവധി പ്രതിഭാസങ്ങള്‍ അവനു ചുറ്റും ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. കീഴടക്കാനോ മനസിലാക്കാനോ പറ്റാത്തതിനെ ആരാധിക്കുക എന്ന നിലയിലേക്ക് അവന്‍ മാറി. അങ്ങനെ സുര്യനും ചന്ദ്രനും കടലും വെള്ളച്ചാട്ടങ്ങളും എല്ലാം അവന്റെ ആരാധനാമൂര്‍ത്തികളായി മാറി.

ഭാരതീയ പുരാണങ്ങളും വേദങ്ങളും പരിശോധിച്ചാല്‍ നമുക്ക് ഇത് മനസിലാക്കാന്‍ സാധിക്കും. സൂര്യനും ഇന്ദ്രനുമെല്ലാം ദൈവങ്ങളായത് ഇങ്ങനെ ആണ്. ലോകത്തിന്റെ പല ഭാഗത്തും ഇങ്ങനെ പല രീതിയിലുള്ള ആരാധനാ മൂര്‍ത്തികള്‍ ഉണ്ടായിട്ടുണ്ട്. ഗ്രീക്ക് പുരാണങ്ങളും മറ്റും പരിശോധിച്ചാല്‍ ഭാരതീയ പുരാണങ്ങളിലെന്ന പോലെ ഈ സ്ഥിതി വിശേഷം നമുക്ക് മനസിലാക്കാന്‍ സാധിക്കും. ഈ ആരാധനാ മൂര്‍ത്തികളെ പ്രീതിപ്പെടുത്താന്‍ വേണ്ടി പല വിധ അനുഷ്ടാനങ്ങളും ആരാധന സമ്പ്രദായങ്ങളും രൂപമെടുത്തു. ഈ ശക്തികളെ ആരാധിക്കാന്‍ വേണ്ടി ഒരു പ്രത്യേക വിഭാഗം തന്നെ ഉണ്ടായി. അവര്‍ സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ മേല്തട്ടിലേക്ക് ഉയര്‍ന്നു വന്നു
Fun & Info @
-- Mathew P Pulikkattil

Recent Activity:
KERALITES - A moderated eGroup exclusively for Keralites...
To subscribe send a mail to
Send your posts to
Send your suggestions to

To unsubscribe send a mail to