Become God in Sachkhand- Shankara non-dualistic theory aling

[tSingh]

Only if you divide the term into 'Akrit' and 'Krit' with the former being the adjective of the 'krit' or 'creator'. 'Krit' however is not a noun either, it would need a ta suffix, hence kartaa. Both make up a compound adjective.

Thus, what is given is not 'creator' for this is the implied aspect, the term is 'akritkrit' meaning 'not-created created'. Seperately 'akritaakrit' is used in Jaap Sahib with a slightly different meaning. Mahan Kosh has both these terms also.

[Guest Javanmard]

Mashallah Tsingh, correct observation! I was focussing on your "creator of the uncreated"and i had forgotten to look at kirtam indeed. Thanks for reminding me. Yes you are indeed right kritam is also a verbal adjective just like akrita. Which gives "uncreated created" which fits so well with ikomkar and theopanic monism in Sikhi. We are far very far away from Shankara here brother.

[tSingh]

So 'uncreated creator' as you put it was grammatically incorrect, but the previous line which describes the upanishadic forms of ocean, river, well, sets the all important context...that of apparent duality. This then followed in the quoted line with a list of adjectives of Parmatma -advai(t) abinasi then the term 'param prakaashi' tieing in with the whole 'pratbimb' self-illumination thing, then finally 'akritkritang' (creator of the) created uncreated. That fits in snug as a bug with the whole Nirmala boogie I feel. Not 100% advaita like I said, nowhere near the semitic idea of creation as a definitive reality beyond which are other realms either.

[Guest Javanmard]

Tsingh wrote:

"Not 100% advaita like I said, nowhere near the semitic idea of creation as a definitive reality beyond which are other realms either."

Oh my oh my...."semitische Schopfungsvorstellung" (o/ :nazi emoticon)...Tsingh don't you think that's actually oversimplistic? I HIGHLY encourage you to have a closer look at wahdat al wujud and especially the thinkers of the Shirazi and Esfahani school.

"'akritkritang' (creator of the) created uncreated"

Bro I agree that we are dealing here with two verbal adjectives: "uncreated created" but where on earth do you get "creator of ..."? akrit kritam precisely refers to the paradox of divinity, the unity of existence between the divine essence (akrit) and its manifestation (kritam) which is precisely THE big theme of Shi'a philosophy (contrarily to your ideas about

semitische Schopfungsvorstellung o/). This surely is theopanist monism, hence non-dualist but surely not Shankarian. My initial reproach was against "Shankarian non-dualism" not other forms of dualism.

But I like this discussion...The waves (kritam) are not illusions, they exist yet at the same time they only exist in relation to the stream (akrit). The relation between the stream and the waves is one of:

a. the stream expressing itself in multiple endless forms (I was a Hidden treasure...)

b. the relation between the two is that of unity of existence.It is monistic without condemning the waves to being illusions and respects the very necessity for the stream to express itself, not out of need but rather because it is its very nature. Fits perfectly with ikomkar.

[namjap]

Shankarachariya's expounded theory of Maya is parallel to Einstein's Law of Relativity. Details can be found in Paul Twitchell's book "Dialogues with the Master".