Tum ek gorakhdhandha ho.

The poet Naaz Khaalivi is confounded by God's action. He is unable to understand the contradictory acts of God and is complaing to him about his enigmatic nature. The Lyrics is thought provoking. Listen to this transcendental qawaali by ustad Nusrat.

कभी यहाँ तुम्हें ढूँढा, कभी वहाँ पहुँचा,
तुम्हारी दीद की खातिर कहाँ कहाँ पहुँचा,
ग़रीब मिट गये, पा-माल हो गये लेकिन,
किसी तलक ना तेरा आज तक निशाँ पहुँचा
हो भी नही और हर जा हो,
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[ दीद = vision, पा-माल = Trodden under foot, Ruined, गोरखधंधा = puzzle, enigma]

हर ज़र्रे में किस शान से तू जलवानुमा है,
हैरान है मगर अक़ल, के कैसा है तू क्या है?
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[ज़र्रे = grain/speck of dust, जलवानुमा = magical/divine, अक़ल = mind/Thought]

तुझे दैर-ओ-हरम मे मैने ढूँढा तू नही मिलता,
मगर तशरीफ़ फर्मा तुझको अपने दिल में देखा है
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[दैर-ओ-हरम = temple & mosque; तशरीफ़ फर्मा = to take position ]

जब बजुज़ तेरे कोई दूसरा मौजूद नही,
फिर समझ में नही आता तेरा परदा करना
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो

[बजुज़ = except]

जो उलफत में तुम्हारी खो गया है,
उसी खोए हुए को कुछ मिला है,
ना बुतखाने, ना काबे में मिला है,
मगर टूटे हुए दिल में मिला है,
अदम बन कर कहीं तू छुप गया है,
कहीं तू हस्त बुन कर आ गया है,
नही है तू तो फिर इनकार कैसा ?
नफी भी तेरे होने का पता है ,
मैं जिस को कह रहा हूँ अपनी हस्ती,
अगर वो तू नही तो और क्या है ?
नही आया ख़यालों में अगर तू,
तो फिर मैं कैसे समझा तू खुदा है ?
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[उलफत = love/enamoured; अदम = lifeless; हस्त = life; नफी = precious; हस्ती = life/existence ]

हैरान हूँ इस बात पे, तुम कौन हो , क्या हो?
हाथ आओ तो बुत, हाथ ना आओ तो खुदा हो
अक़्ल में जो घिर गया, ला-इंतिहा क्यूँ कर हुआ?
जो समझ में आ गया फिर वो खुदा क्यूँ कर हुआ?
फलसफ़ी को बहस क अंदर खुदा मिलता नही,
डोर को सुलझा रहा है और सिरा मिलता नही
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो

[बुत = idol; अक़्ल = mind/Thought; ला-इंतिहा = boundless; फलसफ़ी = philosopher; बहस=debate]

छुपते नही हो, सामने आते नही हो तुम,
जलवा दिखा के जलवा दिखाते नही हो तुम,
दैर-ओ-हरम के झगड़े मिटाते नही हो तुम,
जो असल बात है वो बताते नही तो तुम
हैरान हूँ मैरे दिल में समाये हो किस तरह,
हाँलाके दो जहाँ में समाते नही तो तुम,
ये माबद-ओ-हरम, ये कालीसा-ओ-दैर क्यूँ,
हरजाई हो जॅभी तो बताते नही तो तुम
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[ माबद-ओ-हरम = temple & moseque; कालीसा-ओ-दैर = church & temple ]

दिल पे हैरत ने अजब रंग जमा रखा है,
एक उलझी हुई तस्वीर बना रखा है,
कुछ समझ में नही आता के ये चक्कर क्या है?
खेल क्या तुम ने अजल से रचा रखा है?
रूह को जिस्म के पिंजड़े का बना कर क़ैदी,
उस पे फिर मौत का पहरा भी बिठा रखा है
दे के तदबीर के पंछी को उड़ाने तूने,
दाम-ए-तक़दीर भी हर सिम्त बिछा रखा है
कर के आरैश-ए-क़ौनाईन की बरसों तूने,
ख़तम करने का भी मंसूबा बना रखा है,
ला-मकानी का बहरहाल है दावा भी तुम्हें,
नहन-ओ-अक़लाब का भी पैगाम सुना रखा है
ये बुराई, वो भलाई, ये जहन्नुम, वो बहिश्त,
इस उलट फेर में फर्माओ तो क्या रखा है ?
जुर्म आदम ने किया और सज़ा बेटों को,
अदल-ओ-इंसाफ़ का मेआर भी क्या रखा है?
दे के इंसान को दुनिया में खलाफत अपनी,
इक तमाशा सा ज़माने में बना रखा है
अपनी पहचान की खातिर है बनाया सब को,
सब की नज़रों से मगर खुद को छुपा रखा है
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो

[हैरत = confusion; अजल = time immemorial; रूह=soul; जिस्म =body; तदबीर = action/diligent दाम-ए-तक़दीर=trick of luck; सिम्त = direction; आरैश-ए-क़ौनाईन = decoration of both world ला-मकानी = homeless; नहन-ओ-अक़लाब = place for praying; अदल-ओ-इंसाफ़ = justice and equity मेआर = benchmark; खलाफत = kingdom]

नित नये नक़्श बनाते हो, मिटा देते हो,
जाने किस ज़ुर्म-ए-तमन्ना की सज़ा देते हो?
कभी कंकड़ को बना देते हो हीरे की कनी ,
कभी हीरों को भी मिट्टी में मिला देते हो
ज़िंदगी कितने ही मुर्दों को अदा की जिसने,
वो मसीहा भी सलीबों पे सज़ा देते हो
ख्वाइश-ए-दीद जो कर बैठे सर-ए-तूर कोई,
तूर ही बर्क- ए- तजल्ली से जला देते हो
नार-ए-नमरूद में डळवाते हो खुद अपना ख़लील,
खुद ही फिर नार को गुलज़ार बना देते हो
चाह-ए-किनान में फैंको कभी माह-ए-किनान,
नूर याक़ूब की आँखों का बुझा देते हो
दे के युसुफ को कभी मिस्र के बाज़ारों में,
आख़िरकार शाह-ए-मिस्र बना देते हो
जज़्ब -ओ- मस्ती की जो मंज़िल पे पहुचता है कोई,
बैठ कर दिल में अनलहक़ की सज़ा देते हो ,
खुद ही लगवाते हो फिर कुफ्र के फ़तवे उस पर,
खुद ही मंसूर को सूली पे चढ़ा देते हो
अपनी हस्ती भी वो इक रोज़ गॉवा बैठता है,
अपने दर्शन की लॅगन जिस को लगा देते हो
कोई रांझा जो कभी खोज में निकले तेरी,
तुम उसे झन्ग के बेले में रुला देते हो
ज़ुस्त्जु ले के तुम्हारी जो चले कैश कोई,
उस को मजनू किसी लैला का बना देते हो
जोत सस्सी के अगर मन में तुम्हारी जागे,
तुम उसे तपते हुए तल में जला देते हो
सोहनी गर तुम को महिवाल तसवउर कर ले,
उस को बिखरी हुई लहरों में बहा देते हो
खुद जो चाहो तो सर-ए-अर्श बुला कर महबूब,
एक ही रात में मेराज करा देते हो
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[नित = everyday, नक़्श = copy/model; ज़ुर्म-ए-तमन्ना = crime of desire; सलीबों = cross; ख्वाइश-ए-दीद = desire for divine vison; सर-ए-तूर = one with a halo/Saint/prophet; बर्क- ए- तजल्ली = blessing of divine menifestation; नार-ए-नमरूद = Furnace of King Nimrod;ख़लील = friend;गुलज़ार = garden;नूर= light शाह-ए-मिस्र= king of Egypt; अनलहक़ = I am the Truth/I am the God; कुफ्र = apostacy; फ़तवे= religious decree तल = desert; तसवउर = think; सर-ए-अर्श = In heaven; मेराज = exaltation]

जो कहता हूँ माना तुम्हें लगता है बुरा सा,
फिर भी है मुझे तुम से बहरहाल गिला सा,
चुप चाप रहे देखते तुम अर्श-ए-बरीन पर,
तपते हुए करबल में मोहम्मद का नवासा,
किस तरह पिलाता था लहू अपना वफ़ा को,
खुद तीन दिनो से वो अगरचे था प्यासा
दुश्मन तो बहर तौर थे दुश्मन मगर अफ़सोस,
तुम ने भी फराहम ना किया पानी ज़रा सा
हर ज़ुल्म की तौफ़ीक़ है ज़ालिम की विरासत,
मज़लूम के हिस्से में तसल्ली ना दिलासा
कल ताज सजा देखा था जिस शक़्स के सिर पर,
है आज उसी शक़्स क हाथों में ही कासा,
यह क्या है अगर पूछूँ तो कहते हो जवाबन,
इस राज़ से हो सकता नही कोई शनसा
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[अर्श-ए-बरीन = from heaven; नवासा = son of one's daughter; फराहम = offer,तौफ़ीक़=concent/support]

आह-ए-तहकीक में हर गाम पे उलझन देखूं,
वही हालत-ओ-ख़यालात में अनबन देखूं,
बन के रह जाता हूँ तस्वीर परेशानी की,
गौर से जब भी कभी दुनिया का दर्पण देखूं
एक ही खाक से फ़ितरत के तzआदत इतने,
कितने हिस्सों में बटा एक ही आँगन देखूं,
कहीं ज़हमत की सुलगती हुई पतझड़ का सामान ,
कहीं रहमत के बरसते हुए सावन देखूं ,
कहीं फुन्कारते दरया, कहीं खामोश पहाड़ ,
कहीं जंगल, कहीं सेहरा, कहीं गुलशन देखूं ,
खून रुलाता है यह तक्सीम का अंदाज़ मुझे ,
कोई धनवान यहाँ पर कोई निर्धन देखूं ,
दिन के हाथों में फक़त एक सुलगता सूरज ,
रात की माँग सितारों से मज़्ज़यन देखूं ,
कहीं मुरझाए हुए फूल हैं सचाई के ,
और कहीं झूट के काँटों पे भी जोबन देखूं ,
रात क्या शै है, सवेरा क्या है ?
यह उजाला यह अंधेरा क्या है ?
मैं भी नाइब हूँ तुम्हारा आख़िर,
क्यों यह कहते हो के तेरा क्या है ?
तुम एक गोरखधंधा हो
[आह-ए-तहकीक = desire to enquire; गाम = step, उलझन = confusion; हालत-ओ-ख़यालात = reality & thought; फ़ितरत= Nature/Characteristic; तzआदत=division/Contradiction/Lie; ज़हमत = Inconvenience ; रहमत= compassion; नाइब=assistant]
नाज़ खियालवी

Here I have tried to put a rough english transalation to the lyrics.

I looked for thee hither and thither
For a look of thee, I went everywhere
The dear ones got ruined and downtrodden
But no one got thee where bout.
Thou art and thou art not
Thou art an Enigma

With what splendor thou art in every speck
But confused is mind that what art thee? Who are thee?
Thou art an Enigma

I do not find thee in temple and Mosque
But see thou in my heart
Thou art an Enigma

If thou art the only one
Then from who do thou you conceal thyself?
Thou art an Enigma

Blesses are those who are lost in thy love
Thou could not be found in temple nor Kaabah
But can be found in broken heart
Thou art hidden as barren
And thou appear as life
If thou art not, then why deny thee?
Even the negation confirms thy existence
What I call existence if not you who is that?
If thou didn’t come in my thoughts then
How did I learn that you are God?
Thou art an Enigma

Confounded I am that what thou art and who thou art?
When palpable then thou become an idol and when not thou become god.
One that can be bounded by logic how can it be boundless?
One that is understood how can it bee God?
Sophist does not find God in philosophy
He tries to untangle the cord but cannot find the end
Thou art an enigma

Neither thou hide nor thou reveal thyself
Thou show thy divinity but do not show thyself
Thou do not solve the fight over temple and mosque
Thou don’t reveal the real thing
I am perplexed that how thou art housed in my heart
Even though thou could not be contained in both the worlds
Why art these temple & mosques and church and synagogue?
Thou are faithless for not showing thy countenance
Thou art an enigma.

The mysticism has taken strange possession of my heart
A confused picture it’s drawn within it
I do not understand what all this puzzle is
What is this game thou have been playing since time immemorial
Thou had made the soul a prisoner of the body
and then had put the sentry of death on it.
Thou make the bird of endeavor fly ‘yet
Thou have spread the net of fate everywhere.
For years thou have decorated the world and hereafter
thou have made the plan of its destruction
Though you claim to be homeless
Yet thou preached places of worship.
This is bad, that good, this is hell, that is heaven
Please tell me what is in this perplexity?
For Adam’s crime thou punish his Progeny
Is that the standard of thy justice?
By giving the earthly kingdom to the man,
Thou have made it into a spectacle
For thy own recognition thou created all
But thou hide thyself from all
Thou art an enigma.

Thou draw pictures and erase it thyself
I don’t know for which crime of desire thou you punish us
Sometimes thou turn a pebble into a diamond
Other times thou will turn a diamond into dust
The prophet who gave life to many dead
thou made him adorn the cross
The one that longed to have thy sight on the Mount Sinai
thou reduced the Mount to ashes with the Lightning of thy Manifestation
thou wished Abraham to be thrown into Nimrud’s Fire
Then thou turned that fire into flowers thyself
Sometimes thou throw a Canaanite into the well of Canaanites
And then deprive Jacob of his sight
thou make Joseph to be put into the slave-mart of Egypt
And then thou only make him the king of Egypt
When someone reaches to the destination of higher spirituality
thou make him to voice: I’m the Truth
Then allow the verdicts of infidelity against Him
Thou send Mansoor to the crucifix
One day he too loses his life
Whom thou make to see Your sight
If a Ranjha goes in thy quest
Thou make him in the charity of Jhang
If some Qais goes in thy quest
thou make him Majnu of some Laila
If Thou love awakens in Sassi’s heart
thou scorch her in a burning desert
If Sohni imagined thee as her Mahival
thou drowned her into the ragging currents
Thou do as thou wish by summoning to the Heaven
in a single night thou can make the Prophet’s Accession to Heaven
Thou art an Enigma

I know thou you feel umbrage about my sayingsyet I’ve a little complaint to makethou were sitting quiet on thy Throne in heaven
When Muhammad’s grandson was scorching in the desert of Karbala
he gave his blood for Your Love
though he was thirsty for three days
His enemies were after all enemies,
but what’s sad is that even thou didn’t offer him Water
Every favor of oppression is the approval of the oppressor
But the oppressed is neither consoled nor comforted
Yesterday he who had a crown on his head
Today I see him with a begging bowl
What is this? If I ask, thy answer is
That no one can get acquainted with this secret
Thou art an enigma

Thou enquiry makes me confused at every step
There is discord between the reality and Ideas
I have become a picture of distress
Whenever I see in the mirror of the world
I see so many contradictions in a single eye
I see one place divided into so many parts
Somewhere I see the autumnal smoke of hardship
Somewhere I see the monsoon showers of blessing
Here I see hissing rivers and there silent Mountains
Here I see a forest, there I see a desert and somewhere else I see a garden
This style of division writhes me
I see some rich and some poor here
In Day’s share, I see only one sun shinning
While the night is bedecked with millions of stars
Here I see the withered flowers of truth
There I see the thorns of lies abloom
What is night? What is morning?
What is light? What is darkness?
After all I’m also your deputy, why thou say “what is thy?”
Thou art an enigma.

Naaz Khiaalvi

For web search convenience I am putting the English transliteration here.

Kabhi Yahaan Tumhein Dhunda, Kabhi Wahaan Pahuncha
Tumhari Deed Ki Khaatir Kahan Kahan Pahucha
Gareeb Mit Ga'ay, Paa-maal Ho Gaye lekin
Kisi Talak Na Tera Aaj Tak Nishaan Pahuncha

Ho Bhi Nahi Aur Her Jaa HoTum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho
Her Zarray Mein Kiss Shaan Say Tu Jalwa Numa Hai
Hairaan Hai Magar Aqal, Ke Kaisay Hai Tu Kya Hai?
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Tujhay Dair-O-Haram Maine Dhunda Tu Nahi Milta
Magar Tashreef Farma Tujhko Apne Dil Mein Daikha Hai
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Jab Bajuz tere koi Dosra Maujood Nahi
Phir Samajh Mein Nahi Aata Tera Purdah Karna
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Jo Ulfat Mein Tumhari Kho Gaya hai,
Usi Kho'ay Huay Ko Kuch Mila Hai
Na But-Khanay, Na Kabay Mein Mila Hai,
Magar Tutay Huay Dil Mein Mila Hai
Adam Bun Ker Kaheen tu Chup Gaya Hai,
Kaheen To Hast Bun Ker Aa Gaya
Nahi Hai Tu To Phir Inkaar Kaisa,
Nafi Bhi Tairay Honay Ka Pata Hai
Mein Jiss Ko Keh Raha Hoon Apni Hasti,
Agar Wo Tu Nahi To Aur Kia Hai
Nahi Aaya Khayaloon Mein Agar Tu,
To Phir Mein Kaisay Samjha Tu Khuda Hai
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho


Hairan Huoon Is Baat Pay, Tum Kaun Ho Kya Ho?
Haath Aao to But, Haath Na Aao to Khuda Ho
Aqal Mein Jo Ghir Gaya La-Intiha Kiyoon Ker Hua?
Jo Samajh Mein Aa Gaya Phir Wo Khuda Kyun Ker Hua?
Falsafi Ko Behas K Ander Khuda Milta Nahi
Dor Ko Suljha Raha Hai Aur Sira Milta Nahi
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Chuptay Nahi Ho, Samnay Aatay Nahi Ho Tum,
Jalwa Dikha K Jalwa Dikhatay Nahi Ho Tum
Dair O Haram K Jhagray Mita'tay Nahi Ho Tum,
Jo Asal Baat Hai Wo Batatay Nahi To Tum
Hairaan Hoon Mairay Dil Mein Sama'ay Ho Kiss Tarah,
Haan'la K Do Jahan Mein Samatay Nahi To Tum
Yeah Mabud O Haram, Yeah Qaleesa-o-Dair Kiyoon,
Harjayii Ho Jabhi To Bata'tay Nahi To Tum
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho


Dil Pe Hairat Nai Ajab Rung Jama Rakha Hai,
Aik Uljhi Howi Tasveer Bana Rakha Hai
Kuch Samajh Mein Nahi Aata K Yeah Chakkar Kia Hai,
Khail Kia Tum Nai Azal Say Yeah Racha Rakha Hai
Rooh Ko Jism K Pingray Ka Bana Ker Qaidee,
Us Pay Phir Mout Ka Pehraa Bhi Bithaa Rakha Hai
Day K Tadbeer K Panchi Ko Uraaney Tune,
Daam-E-Taqdeer bhee Her Sumt Bicha Rakha Hai
Kar K Araish-e-Qounain Ki Barsoon Tu Nai,
Khatam Karne Ka Bhi Mansooba Bana Rakha Hai
La-Makaani Ka Bahr Haal Hai Dawa Bhi Tumhein,
Nahan-o-aQalab Ka Bhi Paighaam Suna Rakha Hai
Yeah Burai, Wo Bhalai, Yeah Jahannum, Wo Bahisht,
Is Ulat Phiar Mein Farmao To Kia Rakha Hai
Jurm Aadam Nai Kiya Aur Saza Baitoon Ko,
Adl O Insaaf Ka Mi'aar Bhi Kia Rakha Hai
De K Insaan Ko Dunya Mein Khalafat Apni,
Ik Tamasha Sa Zamanay Mein Bana Rakha Hai
Apni Pehchaan Ki Khaatir Hai Banaya Sub Ko,
Sub Ki Nazaroon Say Magar Khud Ko Chupa Rakha Hai
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Nit Naye Naqsh Banatay Ho, Mita Daitay Ho,
Janay Kiss Jurm-e-tamanna Ki Saza Daitay Ho
Kabhi Kanker Ko Bana Daitay Ho Heeray Ki Kani,
Kabhi Heeron Ko Bhi Mitti Mein Mila Daitay Ho
Zindagi Kitnay He Murdoon Ko Ata Ki Jiss Nai,
Wo Maseeha Bhi Saleebon Pay Saja Daitay Ho
Khuwahish-E-Deed Jo Kar Baithay Sar-E-Tuur Koi,
Tuur Hee Bark- e- Tajaali Say Jala Daitay Ho
Naar-e-Namrood Mein Dalwatay Ho khud apna Khaleel,
Khud Hee Phir Naar Ko Gulzaar Bana Daitay Ho
Chah-e-kinaan Mein Phainko Kabhi Maah-e-Kinaan,
Noor Yaqoob Ki Aankhon Ka Bujha Daitay Ho
Day Ke Yusuf Ko Kabhi Misr K Bazaaron Mein,
Aakhir Kaar Shah-E-Misr Bana Daitay Ho
Jazb O Masti Ki Jo Manzil Pe Pohonchta Hai Koi,
Baith Ker Dil Mein Analhaq Ki Saza Daitay Ho
Khud He Lagwatay Ho Phir Kufr K Fatway Us
Khud He Mansoor Ko Sooli Peh Charha Daitay Ho
Apni Hasti Bhi Wo Ik Rooz Gawa Baith'ta Hai,
Apne Darshan Ki Lagan Jiss Ko Laga Daitay Ho
Koi Ranjha Jo Kabhi Khooj Mein Nikle Teri,
Tum Usay Jhang K Bele Mein Rula Daitay Ho
Justujo Lay K Tumhari Joh Chalay Qais Koi,
Us Ko Majno Kisi Laila Ka Bana Daitay Ho
Jot Sassi K Agar Mun Mein Tumhari Jagay,
Tum Usay Taptay Hoay Thal Mein Jala Daitay Ho
Sohni Gar Tum Ko Mahiwaal Tassawur Ker Le,
Us Ko Bikhri Howi Lehroon Mein Baha Daitay Ho
Khudh Joh Chaho To Sar-E-Arsh Bula Ker Mehboob,
Aik He Raat Mein Mairaaj Kara Daitay Ho
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Jo Kehta Hoon Mana Tumhein Lagta Hai Bura Sa,
Phir Bhi Hai Mujhay Tum Say Baharhaal Gila Sa
Chup Chaap Rahay Daikhtay Tum Arsh-E-Bareen Per,
Taptay Hoay Karbal Mein Mohammad Ka Nawasa
Kiss Tarah Pilata Tha Laahu Apna Wafa Ko,
Khud Teen Dino Say Wo Agarchay Tha Piyasa
Dushmun To Bahar taur Thay Dumshun Magar Afsoos,
Tum Nai Bhi Faraaham (offer) Na Kia Pani Zara Sa
Her Zulm Ki Taufeeq Hai Zaalim Ki Wirasat,
Mazloom K Hissay Mein Tasalli Na Dilasa
Kal Taaj Saja Daikha Tha Jis Shaqs K Sir Per,
Hai Aaj Usi Shaqs K Haathon Mein Hi kasa
Yeh Kia Hai Agar Pochon To Kehtay Ho Jawaban,
Is Raaz Say Ho Sakta Nahi Koi Shanasa
Tum Ek Gorakh Dhanda Ho

Aah-e-Tehkeek mein har gam pe uljhan dekhoon
Wohi haalat-o-khayalat mein anban dekhoon
Ban ke reh jaata hoon tasweer pareshani ki
Ghaur se jab bhi kabhi duniya ka darpan dekhoon
Ek hi khaak se fitrat ke tazaadat itnay
Kitnay hisson mein bata ek hi aangan dekhoon
Kahin zehmat ki sulagti hui patjhar ka samaan
Kahin rehmat ke baraste huay sawan dekhoon
Kahin phunkaarte darya, kahin khamosh pahaar
Kahin jangal, kahin sehra, kahin gulshan dekhoon
Khun rulata hai yeh takseem ka andaaz mujhe
Koi dhanwaan yehan par koi nirdhan dekhoon
Din ke haathon mein faqat ek sulagta sooraj
Raat ki maang sitaron se muzzayyan dekhoon
Kahin murjhaaye huay phool hain sacchai ke
Aur kahin jhoot ke kaanton pe bhi joban dekhoon
Raat kya shai hai saweera kya hai
Yeh ujala yeh andhera kya hai
Mein bhi nayib hun tumhara akhir
Kyon yeh kehte ho ke tera kya hai
Tum ek gorakhdhanda ho

Books I would like to read again.

I would not out rightly say that I am going to mention about my favorite books because I myself am not sure about the exhaustiveness of the list. I am also very certain that the list will keep changing. Hence, without getting politically incorrect, I am heading this blog entry as 'the books which I would like to read again'.

Genre: Fiction

Love in the Time of Cholera: By Gabriel Garcia Marquez
The book is a semi autobiographical account wherein Marquez picks up the love story of his parents and subtly mixes it with his own imagination. The coalescence of the real happenings with imaginary events creates one of the most Quixotic and romantic Love stories.
Fermina Daza, the fiery and temperamental girl, who was obstinately wooed by whimsical Florenteno Ariza, the telegraph operator, goes much against the will of her father in courting Ariza but leaves him as she turns 21 for she feels that their love was immature and impulsive and marries much well off doctor Urbino with whom she feels more secure and financially stable and lives with him for decades till he dies one day when he falls from a tree while catching a parrot. On the day of Doctor Urbino’s funeral the old Florenteno Ariza, much to the chagrin of Fermina, confesses his inextinguishable love for her. Story switches between the present and past and the love story unfolds.
While Marquez most famed work is ‘100 years of Solitude’ I liked ‘Love in the Time of Cholera’ more because of two reasons; First that it’s a semi true Love story and second its is free from the magical realism that marks ‘100 years of Solitude’ . However both the works are labor of love and an absolute reader’s delight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_in_the_time_of_cholera

Midnight’s Children: By Salman Rushdie
Saleem Sinai, the magical child, is born on midnight of 15th of August 1947 .And his destiny is linked with the destiny of his motherland which comes into existence at the same time as him. The story travels backward in time as he narrates his life to his to be wife Padma. Rushdie is a brilliant raconteur. The way he weaves his words amazes his readers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight%27s_Children

Shame: By Salman Rushdie
Rushdie claims that this can be a story of any country but any observer of world politics can easily identify that this is about Pakistan. Written in the backdrop of General Zia and Zulfikar Bhutto’s relationship, this story revolves around two characters, the peripheral hero Omar Khayyam who is allegory of shamelessness and Sufia Zinobia who symbolize shame. This concoction of fact & fiction is a brilliant read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame_(novel)

Of Human Bondage: W. Somerset Maugham
This is story about Philip Carey and his relationships. Philip is a lame guy madly in love with Mildred. He is heartbroken when she leaves him for another man. But later when her lover does not marry her, she along with her baby returns back to Philip. Philip breaks his relationship with his then girlfriend and happily accepts Mildred. He looks after her and her baby but again one day she leaves him for Griffith who is a friend of Philip. He is devastated. He always knew that Mildred doesn’t love him and is taking advantage of him but he could not stop him from loving her. Like a placid river the story moves slowly and smoothly. the reader feels pity of Philip. Finally the story end in a happy note when Philip finds his love in a farmer’s daughter and becomes indifferent towards Mildred who becomes a prostitute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Human_Bondage

Genre: Non Fiction
My areas of interest is History, Geo Politics and Philosophy and hence most the books in non fiction belong to these categories.

History of God: By Karen Armstrong
Karen Armstrong talks about the provenance of three great monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. She critically analyzes the circumstances in which these religions came into existence. The book is very factual and is free to a large extent of personal biases however at times one might feel that being a Christian nun she knows the follies of Christianity too well than the other two religions which she observe through text books and anecdote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God

Decline & Fall of Roman Empire: By Edward Gibbons
Before it was first published in 1776 , Edward Gibbon took about 20 years to complete this book. and . 236 years after that it still remains the most authoritarian book on this subject. It starts from the height of Roman Empire (Around 60-90 Ad) and covers a period till the fall of Constantinople in 15th century. The gradual decline of Roman Empire took 1500 years during which the empire was divided into two halves the western Roman Empire and the eastern Roman Empire. The western empire ended by 7-8th century but the eastern empire, popularly known as Byzantine Empire, continued till 14th century when it was finally conquered by the Turks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire

The Wonder That was India: By A.L Basham
This book covers the history of India before the arrival of Islam. It studies the political and cultural landscape of India beginning with the Indus valley civilization till 700 AD. Basham devotes separate chapters on Prehistory, The State, Society, Everyday Life, Religion, Arts, and Language & Literature. When it was first published in 1954, it became an instant hit. It is a classic that anybody with an interest in the civilization beginning of India must read. It is work of uncompromisingly scholarship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wonder_That_Was_India

Freedom at Midnight: By Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins
In the preface of this book the authors reveal that they have collected about a ton of research documents for this book and it is very much evident when you read this master piece. This book gives an account of the political and social events of the last two years before the independence. The book is slightly favorable towards Lord Mountbatten but the authors can be condone for the fact that he was only key figure available for interviews when authors were researching as Gandhiji, Nehru, Patel and Jinnah had already become history. After reading this book my respect for Gandhiji increased to an extent which fell little short of deification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_at_midnight

Story of Philosophy: By Will Durant
Those like me who wants to get initiated with philosophical doctrines but are unable to make sense of the contradicting and arcane philosophical text must first put there hands on this book. Durant very lucidly explains the life and teachings of Major Philosophers. Even after 80 years of its first publication it remains the best selling books in Philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Philosophy

Genre: Drama

Hayavadanah: By Girish Karnad
The plot comes from Kathasaritsagar, an ancient collection of stories in Sanskrit .This drama entails a woman’s struggle to satisfy her desire of physical love and her thirst for intellectualism that she finds in two different person. The play opens with Devdatta and Kapila who are close friends. Devdatta is a man of intellect and Kapila is a man of great physique. Their relationship gets complicated when Devdatta’s newly wedded wife Padmini falls for Kapila. While attempting to resolve this conflict, the two men behead themselves. Padmini is contemplating suicide when Goddess Kali intervenes and endows her with the powers to revive Kapila and Devdatta. In reattaching their fallen heads, Padmini transposes the heads onto the wrong bodies. An identity crisis ensues. Hayavadana explores the dilemma of physical versus intellectual appeal, and how it defines us.

Genre: Short Stories

Metamorphosis: By Franz Kafka
Gregor Samasa one morning suddenly turns into an insect and with this changes the attitude of his parents and sister towards him. This once blue eyed boy turns a liability on his family. The emotional bonding and strength of a relationship is need based is the central theme of this book. His father loathes him, his mother fears him and his sister sympathizes with him but gradually she too feels burdened looking after him. Death absolves him of his family and his family of him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis_(novel)

Genre: Noir

In Cold Blood: By Truman Capote
One night the entire Clutter family is found murdered in Holcombe a small town in US. The book has two different narrations running in parallel which converges when the victims meet their killers. Truman Capote who covered this incident for a newspaper digs deep into the minds of killers. How at the impulse of moment some of the most heinous crimes are committed, how the past defines the present actions, are some of the questions which leave the reader pondering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_cold_blood

Makke gaya gal mukdi nai..

मक्‍के गया गल मुक्दि नाहि,
पवें सौ सौ जुम्मे पड़ आयें,
गंगा गया गल मुक्दि नाहि,
पवें सौ सौ गोते ख़ईया,
गया गया गल मुक्दि नाहि
पवें सौ सौ पॅंड पड़ आइए
बुल्ले शाह गल तां या मुक्दि
जदू मैं नू दिलों गवाये

पढ़ पढ़ आलम फ़ाज़ल होया,
कदी अपने आप नू पढ़या नई,
जां जां वर्दां मंदिर मासिता,
कदी मन अपने विच वरया ही नहि,
ए वे रोज़ शैतान नाल लड़या
कदी नॅफ्ज़ अपने नाल लड़या ही नहि
बुल्ले शाह असमानी उड़ दिया फर्दा
जेडा घर बैठा वोनू फड़या ही नई

सिर ते टोपी ते नियत खोटी,
लेना की टोपी सिर धड़के,
तसबी फिरी पर दिल ना फिरया,
लेना की तसबी हथ फड़के,
चिल्ले कित्ते पर रब ना मिलया,
लेना की छिल्या विच वर्के
बुल्या जाग बिन दूध नई जमदा,
पावे लाल होये कदकद के

राती जागे ते शैख़ सदावें
पर रात नू जागन कुत्ते तैं थे उत्ते
राती भौके बस ना कर्दे फिर जेया लरण विच सुत्ते तैं थे उत्ते
यार ता बुहा मूल ना छड्डया पावें मरो सौ सौ जुत्ते तैं थे उत्ते
बुल्ले शाह उठ यार माना लाए नई ते बाज़ी लाई गये कुत्ते तैं थे उत्ते

ना मैं पूजा पाठ जो कीति
ते ना मैं गंगा नाहया
ना मैं पंज नामज़ा पद्रया
ते ना मैं तासबा खडकाया
ना मैं तीहो रोज़ें रखे
ते ना मैं चिल्ला गुमाया
बुल्ले शाह नू मुर्शद मिल्यया
उने ऐ वे जान बखस्या

-

हज़रत बाबा बुल्ले शाह

History of Philosophy: Periodization of Western Philosophy

Periodization of any evolutionary phenomena is always subjective and hence certainly moot. But then there are certain features which are so prominent that they become the logical parameters for demarcation. Time is one such parameter. Ancient, Medieval and Modern these are the most common periodization that can be applied in any temporal phenomenon. So here just for our convenience we divide western Philosophy in three ages: The ancient, the medieval and the modern age.

1) Ancient Age: The period stretches from 600 to 400 BC. In the development of ancient Philosophy, we have two separate periods: A period of Spontaneous creation and one of Skeptical reflection and reproduction. The problem that dominates the period of Spontaneous creation is the problem of the origin of things: The problem of becoming. It consists of two schools, the Ionian and the Italian Philosophers. Ionian propagated materialistic pantheism. The age of critical reflection is inaugurated by the motto of the Sophists that man is the measure of all things. It outlined that human understanding is a coefficient in the production of the phenomenon.

2) Medieval Ages: It stretches from 400 BC to about 15th Century.Although the development of philosophy is less transparent during the middle ages, we notice the two epochs that runs parallel with those of ancient philosophy. One, Platonic, realistic turned towards the past (from St. Augustine to Saint Anslem), the other, peripatetic, nominalistic towards future.

3) Modern Philosophy: It Dates from scientific and literary revival in the fifteenth century. It history represents:
i) A period of expansion and ontological synthesis (Bruno, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz)
ii) A period of critical reflection and analysis (essays concerning human understanding: Locke; Hume; Kant)
iii) A period of metaphysical reconstruction (Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, etc)
iv) A period of varied critical and constructive tendencies.

Go zara see baat pe...

गो ज़रा सी बात पे बरसों के याराने गए,
लेकिन इतना तो हुआ की कुछ लोग पहचाने गए

मैं इसे शोहरत कहूं या अपनी रुसवाई कहूं
मुझसे से पहले उस गली मैं मेरे अफ़साने गए

यूँ तो वो मेरी रग-ऐ-जां से थे नज़दीक तर
आंसुओं के धुंध में लेकिन न पहचाने गए

वहशतें कुछ इस तरह अपना मुक़द्दर हो गई
हम जहाँ पहुचे हमारे साथ वीराने गए

क्या क़यामत है की 'खातिर' कुश्ता-ऐ-शब् भी थे हम
सुबह जब हुई तो मुजरिम हम ही गर्दाने गए

' खातिर गजनवी '

History of Philosophy: What is Philosophy?

When I was a child, every summer, like most of my friends I would visit my grandparents. My paternal grandfather lived in a village about 800 KMs away from Jamshedpur (Where I spent 17 years of my life) and about 200 years back in time.
I found him intelligent even though he had a very minimal formal education. He dropped out of class 3 when was beaten by his master. Still he had all answers to my inquisitive mind.
In every visit of mine at least once he would talk about an earthquake which occurred when he was young. It was difficult for me to imagine him as young. I have always seen him old and sick lying folded on his bed with a towel tied around his back and legs enabling him to rock on his back. Every visit he would tell me that I have grown taller but to my surprise he always looked the same. I never found a change in him. Always lying on his bed and rocking on his back.
I asked him, what causes an earthquake? With an authority like a head master he explained that the Earth is placed on the hump of a giant tortoise that is in Vaikunth (the abode of Lord Vishnu). When the tortoise makes any movement the earth shakes and there is an earthquake. I believed him because he himself believed in this thesis. It was not a simple solution to a curious child’s mind but it was a deeply ingrained belief carried to this date by mythology . The exposition perfectly satisfied my curiosity.
Time passed by. My visit to my grandfather became more and more infrequent. The reason was my studies. But I vividly remembered his stories and his logics. As I studied Geography and Physics, I started doubting my Grandfather’s hypothesis. Gradually the doubt turned into negation and then ridicule. The reason of this was the ‘Plate tectonic’ theory's explanation of Earth quakes. It was very logical and made a lot of sense. I was convinced the same way as I got convinced about a decade back by the 'Tortoise hump' theory.
And then I read more of Geography and more of Science. From a Shallow Surface I dug deep into theories and again my beleif started shaking. From conviction it led to doubt, to utter confusion and then to despair. Many scientists have expressed the limitation of Science in predicting phenomenon. There are phenomena which cannot be expressed with available tools (mathematical formulas, theories, Logic etc) and this is the limitation of Science. It’s inability to express. The biggest challenge in front of scientists today is to express their understanding and this is where Science, like Theology or religion, becomes subjective.
So at this point I am unsure about the cause of an Earthquake. I can not take my grandfather’s theory and Science does not give me a definite and conclusive explanation.

Where I am now with respect to earthquake, early human beings were with respect to their existence. They wanted to know why they exist, what is this universe, who created it , what happens after death? And their quest was neither satisfied by categorical theologians nor the empiricists. There was a vast chasm between theology and Science. And that is when philosophy came into existence as a subject. It occupies the No man’s land between theology and Science. Like Science it is logical. Like theology it was speculative.
The book I am reading now is “The history of Western Philosophy” by Bertrand Russell. In that book Russell write:
"Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and Science. Like Theology, it consists of Speculations on matter as to which definite knowledge has so far, been unascertainable, but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation."

In this Blog series, which I have named same as the book titled by Russell, I intend to collate philosophies of various philosophers from the time of antiquity till Date. The ideas would primarily from the books which I have read and it include 3 books.
1) The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant
2) The History of Philosophy by Weber & Perry
3) The History of Western Philosophy.
If all goes as I intend then I will take up Indian Philosophy and I am very keen on that.

Now coming back to earthquakes, how does Philosophy deals with it?
As of now, it doesn’t. Through ages philosophers have been trying to come up with answer to the primal question of being and becoming. Once that is done then probably philosophy will take up other issues, till that time I have to choose between the ‘Plate tectonics’ or the ‘Tortoise hump’ theory. Or else I will have to come up with my own theory which will convince me.

The Six Orthodox Hindu Philosophical System

The Sanskrit term for Philosophy is Darsana, derived from Dristi meaning View or Sight. During the 5th and the 6th century B.C following the Rise of Buddhism and Jainism , six orthodox (astika) religious philosophical system developed. They all accepted the authority of Veda although their interpretation differs on various points and include theistic, monistic, atheistic and dualistic views. Despite their differences these systems are regarded as complementary aspects of one truth seen from different points of view.
The six systems are usually coupled in pair. The second system of each pair is more a methodology than metaphysical schools. The pairs are

· Samkhya (Based on intellectual knowledge) and Yoga (On control of Senses and inner faculty)
· Vaisesika (The experimental point of view based on sensory experience) and Nyaya (Logical view based on Dialectics)
· Vedanta (Based on metaphysical speculations) and Mimamsa (Deistic and Ritualistic point of View based on sacred text)

The three main unorthodox systems (Nastika) are the Buddhist, Jaina and Charvaka. The first two deny the authority of Veda but believes in future life, while the materialist Charvaka denies both propositions.

Samkhya: The literal meaning of Samkhya is enumeration. It is system of dualistic realism attributed to semi mythical sage Kapila. The oldest extent Samkhya text is the Samkhyakarika of Isvarakrishna (3rd and 4th century AD)
Two ultimate eternal realities are recognized in this system: The spirit (Purusha) and Nature (Prakriti). Prakriti is a single, all pervasive, complex substance which evolves in the world into countless different shapes. Its three main constituents or Gunas are Sattava, Rajas and Tamas. Such guna has distinct characteristics which to some extent are antagonistic to others yet they always coexist and cooperate to produce everything in world. The unfolding of new world commences only when purusha and prakriti associate (Samyoga) whereupon Prakriti begins the long process of differentiation.
Initially the Samkhya system was atheistic, however under the influence of the yoga system with which it coalesced later, it became theistic.

Yoga: It accepts most of the Samkhya epistemology and also the view that individual souls emerge from the universal soul. Svetasvatra Upanishad states: “ Samkhya is knowledge; Yoga is practice”
The eight steps of yogic practice are:
- Yama (Restrain)
- Niyama (Disciplin )
- Asana (The adoption of comfortable position)
- Pranayama (The technique of breath control)
- Dharana (Concentration)
- Dhayana (Uninterrupted meditation)
- Samadhi (Total absorption)
In Yoga philosophy the Supreme Being is eternal, able to bring about association of the eternal divine principles or Prakriti and Purusha which results in unfolding of the cosmic process.

Vaisesika: This School of thought is said to be originated from legendary sage Kanada(Uluka) and is based on Vaisesika sutra.
The early Vaisesika promulgated an atomistic account of the universe. It was based on the concept that everything in the world (except soul, consciousness, time, space & mind) is composed of various combination of atoms which remains after a material object has been reduced to its smallest part.

Nyaya: This is a system of Logical realism founded by the sage Gautama also known as Aksapada. It is based on Nyaya Sutra, probably composed about the 2nd century AD. There are five clauses in Nyaya Philosophy:
- The proposition
- The cause
- The exemplification
- The recapitulation of the cause
- The conclusion
Nyaya teaching states the existence of ideas, beliefs, vision and emotions are all dependent on mind, since without a mind to think then they would not exist.

Vedanta: The term Vedanta means ‘The end of Vedas’ or the culmination of Vedic speculation. The basic text is the “Brahma Sutra” or “Vedanta Sutra” attributed to Badrayana and composed between 200 to 450 AD. The main schools within Vedanta are Advaita (non dualism), Visishtadvaita (qualified non dualism) and Dvaita (dualism).
The first systematisers were Gaudapada and Sankara who established the Advaita Vedanta. It is very similar to Sunyavada philosophy of Mahayana. Sankara based his doctrine or famous passage “Thou art that” (tat tavm asi) of the Chandogya Upanishad.

Mimamsa: Mimamsa means ‘Critical examination’or ‘solution of a problem by reflection’. The early Mimamsa is called the purvamimasa and the later the more complex Vedanta called Uttaramimamsa or Brahmamimsa which concentrates on teaching of Upanishadas..
It is the atheistic system attributed to Jamini and summarized in Mimasa Sutra. Miamsa system regards the Vedas as eternal and unchanging. It was forced to reject the usual cosmological view held almost universally in Hindu tradition that world would periodically come into being and dissolve. The world according to miasma, has always existed and is without beginning or end.

Components of Vedic Literature

The word Veda is derived from the root ‘Vid’, which means knowledge. Vedic Literature is called Sruti as they are considered to be secret knowledge or divine revelation. Though the hymns of Sruti are attributed to several Rishis (Sages), tradition maintains that these hymns were merely revealed to the sages and not composed by them. Hence, the Vedas are called the apurushya (not made by Man) and Nitya (Existing in eternity), while the sages are known as Mantradrashta meaning one who saw or received the mantra by right directly from supreme creator.
Composition: The Vedic literature consists of two parts.
- Samhitas
- Brahmanas: These are further divided in three parts
o Brahamanas pure and simple
o Aranyakas
o Upanishadas

Samhitas : These are collection of hymns sung in the praise of various gods. They are most essential part of Vedic literature. They are four in numbers: Rig Veda Samhita, Sama Veda Samhita, Yajur Veda Samhita & Atharva Veda Samhita.

Rig Veda: This is the Veda of praise. It consists of 1017 hymns (Suktas) supplemented by 11 others called Valakhilyas. It is divided in 10 books or Mandala. The oldest hymns are contained in Mandala II to VII and the latest in Madala I & X. Madala II to VII is composed by family of sages viz Gritsamada, Viswamitra, Vamadeva, Atri, Bharadhwaja & Vashista. Rig Veda’s hymns represent compositions of different periods by priestly poets of various families. It is purely a religious work, and most of the hymns are all invocations of God. In mandala III we find famous Gaytri mantra addressed to solar deity Savitri.

Sama Veda: Sama is derived from 'Saman' which means a song or melody. It consists of 1810 (or 1549 if one emits reputation) stanzaz. Except 75 stanzas, rest are taken from eight and ninth mandalas of Rig Veda and arranged according to the order in which they were chanted by Udgatri priests at soma sacrifice. It is called the book of chants and the origin of Indian music is traced to it.

Yajur Veda:(Vedas of Yajur or Formulae) consists of various mantras (hymns) for the purpose of recitation and rules to be observed at time of sacrifice. It is primarily a guide for the use of the adhvarya priests who performed the manual part of ritual. The two royal ceremonies of Rajasuya and Vajpeya are mentioned for the first time in this Veda. In contrast to Rig and Sama Veda which are in verse entirely this one is in both prose and verse. It is divided into two parts Krishna Yajur Veda and Sukla Yajur veda. The Krishna Yajur Veda is older of the two and contains not only the hymns but also prose commentaries. The Sukla Yajur Veda contains only the hymns. The former consists of four samhitas (the kathaka, kapisthala-katha, Maitrayan and Taittiriya Samhitas) but the latter has only the Vajasaneyi samhitas.

The Atharva Veda: (Veda of Atharvan or the knowledge of magic formulas) contains charms and spells in verse to ward off evils and diseases. Believed to be the work of non Aryans, it is divided into two parts: Paippalada and Saunaka.

Brahmanas: Belonging to the second great class of the Vedas; they are treaties relating to prayer and sacrificial ceremony. Their subject matter is ritual and language is prose. In short they deal with science of sacrifice. The important Brahmanas are:
1) Aitareya: Related to Rig veda
2) Kausitaki: Related to Rig veda
3) Tandyamaha: Related to Sama Veda
4) Jaiminiya: Related to Sama Veda
5) Taittiriya: Related to Yajur Veda
6) Sathapatha: Related to Yajur Veda
7) Gopatha: Related to Atharva Veda
Tandyamaha Brahmana is one of the oldest. It includes details about Vratyastoma, a ceremony through which people of non Aryan stock could be admitted into Aryan fold. Sathpatha Brahaman is most voluminous and most important of all the Brahamanas.

Aryanyakas: These forest books deals with mysticism and symbolism of sacrifice and priestly philosophy. They contain transitional material between the mythology and the ritual of the Samhita and the Brahmanas on the one hand and the philosophy and speculations of the Upanishadas on the other.

Upanishadas: They mark the culmination of Indian thought in the Vedic period. They criticize the rituals and lay stress on the value of right belief and knowledge. They are philosophical texts dealing with topics like the Universal soul, the absolute, individual self etc.
Of the several Upanishads, only 12 are very important. They are
1) Aitareya - Related to Rig veda
2) Kausitaki - Related to Rig veda
3) Chandogya - Related to Sama veda
4) Kena - Related to Sama veda
5) Taittiriya - Related to Yajur veda
6) Katha - Related to Yajur veda
7) Svetasvatra - Related to Yajur veda
8) Brihadaranyka - Related to Yajur veda
9) Isa - Related to Yajur veda
10) Mundaka - Related to Atharva veda
11) Prasna - Related to Atharva veda
12) Mandukya - Related to Atharva veda
Acoording to Upanishads there are two kinds of knowledge: The higher and the lower. The higher knowledge helps us to know the imperishable Brahman, while the lower can be gathered from four Vedas as well as six vedangas. The Mundaka upanishadas is chiefly notable for the clear distinction between higher knowledge of supreme Brahman and lower knowledge of empirical world.

Vedanga and Sutra Literature: In contrast to Vedic literature proper which is considered Sruti or divine revelation, the Vedangas are called Smriti or literature handed down by tradition because they are of human origin. There are 6 vedangas
1) Siksha (phonetics)
2) Kalpa (rituals)
3) Vyakarna (Grammer)
4) Nirukta (Etymology)
5) Chandas (Metrics)
6) Joytisha (Astronomy)
The vedangas are written in form of sutras i.e. condensed in prose style for memorization. Of all the sutras only Kalpa sutra have come down to us and these are divided into three classes
1) Saruta Sutras: Deals with the ritual of great sacrifices of Agni, Soma and animals
2) Grihya Sutras: Deals with domestic ceremonies and sacrifices to be made by house holder
3) Dharma Sutras: Deals with laws, manual and custom of people in general.

Then there was neither Aught nor Nougth

'Outlines of Indian Philosophy' by M. Hiriyanna is the book I am reading now days. On page 42 of this book there is mention of 'Song of Creation' from Rig Veda (Chp X, hymn 129). The book extols this hymn as containing flower of Indian thought. The author puts down the English translation of the song by J. Muir in his book but leaves the original song. Reading the translation I felt a familiarity with it. I am writing down the translation.

' Then there was neither Aught nor Nougth, no air nor sky beyond,

What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound?

Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change of night and day.

That one breathed calmly, self sustained; nought beyond it lay.

Gloom hid in gloom existed first- one sea, eluding view.

That one, a void in chaos wrapt, by inward fervor grew.

Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,

Which nothing with existence links, as sages searching find.

The kindling ray that shot across the dark and dearer abyss-

Was it beneath? or high aloft? What bard can answer this?

There fecundating powers were found, and mighty forces strove-

A self supporting mass beneath, and energy above.

Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation rose?

No gods had then been born-who then can e'er the truth disclose?

Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no-

Its Lord in heaven alone can tell, if even he can show?

Even as a child when I had no idea about monistic thought, I was enchanted by the song played at beginning and end of episodes of the wonderful series of 'Bharat -ek khoj' directed by Shyam Benegal . Not that I was enamored of the lyrics which hardly made sense to me but sere rendition of the prose captivated me. And I know why I was feeling familiar with J. Muirs translation of ‘Song of Creation’.
I googled the lyrics of Bharat ek Khoj and got it from Wikipedia (day by day it is becoming indispensable).

नासदासीन नो सदासीत तदानीं नासीद रजो नो वयोमापरो यत

किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद गहनं गभीरम

सृष्टि से पहले

सत नहीं था

असत भी नहीं

अंतरिक्ष भी नहीं
आकाश भी नहीं था

छिपा था क्या,

कहाँ किसने ढका था

उस पल तो अगम अतल जल भी कहां था

सृष्टि का कौन है कर्ता ?

कर्ता है वह अकर्ता

ऊँचे आकाश में रहता

सदा अध्यक्ष बना रहता

वही सचमुच में जानता या नहीं भी जानता
है किसी को नही पता नही पता नही है पता नही है पता

वो था हिरण्य गर्भ सृष्टि से पहले विद्यमान

वही तो सारे भूत जाति का स्वामी महान

जो है अस्तित्वमान धरती आसमान धारण कर

ऐसे किस देवता की उपासना करें हम हवि देकर
जिस के बल पर तेजोमय है अंबर

पृथ्वी हरी भरी स्थापित स्थिर

स्वर्ग और सूरज भी स्थिर

ऐसे किस देवता की उपासना करें हम हवि देकर

गर्भ में अपने अग्नि धारण कर पैदा कर

व्यापा था जल इधर उधर नीचे ऊपर

जगा चुके व एकमेव प्राण बनकर

ऐसे किस देवता की उपासना करें हम हवि देकर

ऊँ! सृष्टि निर्माता,

स्वर्ग रचयिता

पूर्वज रक्षा कर

सत्य धर्म पालक अतुल जल नियामक रक्षा कर

फैली हैं दिशायें बाहु जैसी उसकी सब में सब पर

ऐसे ही देवता की उपासना करें हम हवि देकर

ऐसे ही देवता की उपासना करें हम हवि देकर

Here the poet-philosopher recognizing, the principle of causality, not only traces the whole universe to a single source (monism) but also tackles the problem of what its nature may be. From time immemorial mankind is trying to fathom the reason of its existence and many expositions have been given. But I like Aziz mian's way:

हर ज्ञानी थक कर हार गया इस जग को पार लगाने में ,

इंसान ने क्या क्या रंग किए इस तेरे अजायबखाने में ,

मैं की जानूं राम तेरा गोरखधंदा

The non chalant Ghalib fed up with his existence says:

‘न था कुछ तो खुदा था, कुछ न होता तो खुदा होता ,

डुबोया मुझ को होने ने, न होता मैं तो क्या होता '

Immanuel Kant - The sage of Konisberg

DICHOTOMY IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY
In seventeen century Europe, philosophical fraternity was divided over the question of how knowledge is gained. Broadly there were two schools of thought. Though this classification was done by the Subject of this article in retrospect and the distinction was not clear at that time. One school was proponent of Logic and Reason. They were called as the Rationalist. Another school apotheosized knowledge gained from experience. They were called the Empiricist.

RATIONALISM

(Rene Descartes)
In the beginning of seventeenth century, philosophy was dominated by Scholasticism propounded by Christian theology whose ideas were derived from Plato, Aristotle and early church writings.
Rene Descartes categorically refuted Scholasticism. But this does not mean that he advocated Atheism. He proposed starting the philosophy from scratch and thus emanated the Modern Rationalism. Descartes is considered as Father of Modern Rationalism. The Rationalists were the believer in the Reason and Logic. They attributed knowledge to “innate ideas” in mind. The source of knowledge is intellectual and deductive and not sensory. Descartes belief in logic, reason and idea was so strong that he attributed his existence to his cogitative capacity (Cogito Ergo Sum: “I think, therefore I am”). He said that he can doubt anything: history, Science, theology but one thing is certain, that he doubts. He says that his doubting proves that he exists. From this he builts his knowledge backward and finds that some of the ideas could not have originated from him alone but from God. Thus he proves the existence of God.

(Leibniz)

The idea propounded by Descartes was extended by Leibniz and established into a system with a proper framework by Spinoza. According to them the universe is a mathematical system and can be described a priori by pure deductions from accepted axioms. In Hobbes rationalism took shades of atheism and materialism. He said nothing exists but atoms and void. Faith reached its nadir and reason was triumphant.

EMPERICISM
This philosophical thought believes that knowledge arises from experience which in turn comes through our senses. Mind at birth is a clean slate a “tabula rasa”. Experience puts writing on it. It discounted the concept of “innate ideas” of the rationalists. Empiricism emphasized that all hypothesis and theories must be tested against observation and experiment rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning and intuition.

The notion of mind as “tabula rasa” dates back to Aristotle. It was developed more clearly in medieval period by Persian philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sinna) in 11th century. It was demonstrated as thought experiment by Andalusian-Arabian philosopher Abubacer (Ibn Tufail). The major Empiricists of 17th century were John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume.

( John Locke)
John Locke in an “An Essay of Human Understanding” proposed that only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori i.e. based upon experience. That there is nothing in mind except what was first in senses. Since only material things can effect our senses, we know nothing but matter and must accept materialist philosophy. If sensations are stuff of thought matter must be material of mind. According to him, there are two sources of idea: Sensation and Reflection and there are two types of idea: Simple and Complex with later being derived from former. The former ideas are unanalysable and are broken down into primary and secondary qualities. Complex ideas are divided into substance, mode and relation.
( George Berkeley)
Anglican bishop, George Berkeley (1685-1753) realized that Locke ideas lead to eventual atheism. In his response to Locke in his “Treatise concerning the principle of Human knowledge” he says that thing in itself is nothing but perception. What we call a rose is nothing but an aggregate perception of shape, color, smell etc. Berkley said that God does the perception for humans when they are unaware. Berkeley approach to empiricism would later be called Subjective Idealism. He destroyed the matter with his doctrine and apotheosized perception.
( David Hume)
David Hume, in his book “Treaties of Human Nature” says that no one has seen mind. What is perceived as mind is nothing but a collection of perception, ideas, memories, feelings etc. The mind is not a substance or organ; it is only an abstract name for series of ideas. Hume had effectively destroyed mind as Berkeley had destroyed matter. After destroying mind Hume moved on to science. In Science one perceives effect and sequence and infers causation and necessity. A necessity then becomes law. Since effect and sequence are gathered through senses which can never ascertain to represent the totality hence a law is then just a mental summary of repetitive sequence. It cannot be said with certainty that sequence will repeat again. A law is not a necessity but a mental summary and shorthand of our experience. In hands of David Hume, Empiricism went to the extremes to the extent that it became Skepticism. He argues that all knowledge derives from Sense-Experience. Hume divides knowledge into two categories:
i) Relation of ideas : e.g. Mathematical and logical proposition
ii) Matter of fact.: Contingent observation (Sun rises in the east) i.e. ideas derived from impression (sensation)
To remember are to make such impression is to have an idea. Ideas are faint copy of sensation. All knowledge perception is then bundle of sensation. It is the history that one remembers. But is there a certainty that future will resemble the past. Can anyone with certainty say that Sun will always rise in the east? Only mathematical formulas are necessity.
He started questioning the scientific method. The problem of inductive logic, Hume argued that it requires inductive reasoning to arrive at premises for the principle of inductive reasoning and therefore justification for inductive reasoning is circular argument.

For a century the philosophical world was divided between doctrines or Rationalism and Empiricism. It had to wait for Kant to bridge the gap with his ground breaking work. No wonder many people consider him the greatest philosopher of modern century. Whether he is greatest or not is a moot point but what is certain that he left an indelible impact on philosophy. Post Kant most philosophical works have influence of his theories.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF KANT

( Immanuel Kant)

Baptized as 'Emmanuel' after the Jew Messiah, Immanuel Kant, was born to Johann George Kant a German Craftsman and Anna Regaina Porter a daughter of Scottish saddle and harness Maker, in 1724 in the city of Konisberg (erstwhile Kalingrad) the capital of erstwhile Prussia. He was raised under strict regimen adhering to puritan way. Throughout his life he enjoyed good health and was absolutly regular in daily habit. Such was his punctuality that his neighbours used to set their watches as per his evening stroll. At the age of 16 he got himself enrolled at the University of Konisberg. There he studied, inter alia, physics, mathematics, philosophy and geography. Demise of Johann George Kant put a break to his studies. He took up private tutorship around towns of Konisberg but continued with his research work. In 1749 he published his first philosophical work, 'Thoughts on the true estimation of living force'. By the age of 46, Kant was an established philosopher and a professor at the University of Konisberg. His most important work is the 'Critique of Pure Reason', a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the 'Critique of Practical Reason', which concentrates on ethics, and the 'Critique of Judgement', which investigates aesthetics and teleology.In 1804 he died a bachelor rich in fame and years.

KANTIAN PHILOSOPHY
As per Kant, his age was age of criticism where the meaning of criticism is a bit different from literal sense. Criticism in Kantian sense is analyzing critically. It is weighing before affirming and inquiring before assuming. His philosophy is critical, as distinguished from extreme theories of Leibniz & Locke, in that it discriminates in the formation of ideas, between the products of spontaneous activities of pure reason. Neither criticism neither aims to be sensationalistic nor intellectualism in the extreme sense, but transcendental, i.e. going beyond the sensationalist and idealist doctrine.
In its examination of “reason” criticism distinguishes between the theoretical order, the practical order and the aesthetical order. In the theoretical sphere, it manifests itself as the faculty of knowing, or the sense of truth, in the practical sphere as the sense of goodness, in the aesthetical sphere, as the sense of beauty and teleological fitness. Let have a look at his three most important works.
Critique of Pure Reason
What is Knowledge?
An idea alone is not knowledge. E.g. An Idea of man, earth, heat does not make knowledge. In order to make knowledge an idea must combine with other ideas. There should be a subject and a predicate. E.g. Man is a responsible being, Earth is a planet, and Heat expands bodies. All knowledge is a proposition. All knowledge is judgment but not all judgment is knowledge. And there are two types of judgment
i) Analytical judgment: It analyzes an idea without adding anything to it i.e. predicate is derived from subject. E.g. Bodies are extended. Predicate “extend” adds nothing to subject. It’s already contained in it. This judgement is not knowledge.
ii) Synthetic judgment: It adds knowledge. E.g. “Earth is a planet”. It took years to establish this fact. Hence synthetic judgment adds knowledge.
But not every synthetic judgment is knowledge. To constitute real knowledge a judgment must be true in all case. It must be a necessity. The union of subject and predicate should not be accidental but necessary.
Illustration: “Weather is Warm” is a synthetic judgment but not knowledge as it can be cold tomorrow. The judgment is contingent. But “heat expands” will be true any day, a necessary proposition.
But does one has the right to assume that this proposition is universally necessary i.e. how can one say that heat always expands. Because it has come from experience over the period of time. But there remains a possibility that heat might contract and this mankind has never experienced but nevertheless it might happen. So based on human experience this phenomenon does not occur and heat always expands. According to Hume since experience always furnishes only a limited number of cases, it cannot yield necessity and universality. Hence, a judgment a posteriori, i.e. based solely on experience cannot constitute knowledge. In order to be necessary a judgment must rest on rational basis rooted in reason as well as observation, it must be judgment a priori. Mathematics is the synthetic judgment a priori.
Thus answer to the question that “What is knowledge?” is that Knowledge is a synthetic judgment a priori.

Now under What condition Knowledge is possible or how can we form synthetic judgment a priori?
This is the fundamental problem which Kantian criticism undertakes to solve. Sense furnishes the material for judgment and reason the cement needed to unite them.
Illustration: Heat expands bodies. This proposition has two elements.
i) Elements furnished by sensation. E.g. heat, expansion, bodies.
ii) Elements not given by sensation but derived purely from intellect. The causal relation which sentence in question establishes between heat expansion and bodies.
Every scientific judgment (Knowledge) then thus consists of sensible elements and pure or rational element. The rationalist or the idealist completely forgot about the sensible elements. A congenitally blind person has no idea about colors because it does not exist for him. And in denying the innate, rational a priori elements the empiricist forgot that most refined senses of a mentally challenged are incapable of suggesting scientific notion of his.

Let us take each of these elements separately.
Critique of Sensibility, or Transcendental Aesthetics.
Knowledge is product of sensibility and understanding.
What are the conditions of sense-perception or as Kant use to say intuition (Anschauurg)?
When sensation perceives something it does not perceive the absolute thing but puts a stamp on it. For e.g. dogs see everything in black and white. So in the world of dogs a banyan tree as perceived by a human does not exists. It is black and white for dogs and green for human. So who is seeing the absolute thing? Bees can see more colors than humans. So probably bee’s banyan tree is different than humans. So what a person sees is not the thing in itself but a perception of it given to him by his perception? Hence Sense receives a mysterious substance from sensations and makes an intuition of it. Hence, there are in every intuition, two elements:
i) a pure or a priori element
ii) a posteriori element, form and matter
These a priori intuitions, which sensationalist denies, are Space, the form of outer sense and Time the form of inner sense. Space and time are original institutions of reason, prior to all experience. This is the fundamental teaching of critical philosophy and an immortal discovery of Kant. The sense of space and time is a priori, comes from reason and not experience. Illustration: A new born child has a sense of space and time. He does not learn it from experience but is innate. Arithmetic is a science of duration. Geometry is science of space. And arithmetic and Geometry possess the character of absolute necessity i.e. they are synthetic judgment a priori. They are not results, but principles conditions a priori and sine quo non of perception.
All perception presupposes the ideas of space and time; and unless we had these ideas a priori sense perception could never take place.
Time and space are not objects of perception, but modes of perceiving objects. Hence sensation does not show thing in itself, but as they appear to it through it spectacles the one glass of it being Space and other Time. Hence sensibility gives us appearance, or phenomenon and that it is incapable of giving the thing in itself; the noumenon and since understanding always gets the material of knowledge from senses it necessarily gets phenomenon and not the noumenon.

Critique of understanding or Transcendental Logic
In the faculty of understanding Kant distinguishes between two elements.
i) The Transcendental Analytics i.e. the faculty of connecting the intuitions with each other according to certain a priori laws (verstand)
ii) The Transcendental Dialectic i.e. The faculty of arranging our judgments under a series of universal ideas (vernuft , reason in the narrower sense of world)

Transcendental Analytics
Understanding (reason) moulds its judgment based on certain forms or general concepts called categories. According to Hume, the highest category, the idea of cause, conceived as necessity relation between two phenomena, is not derived from experience, Kant agrees. Where Hume and Kant disagree is that Hume regards it as the result of our habit of seeing certain facts constantly conjoined together, and consequently considers it as a prejudice useful to science but without any metaphysical value. Kant on other hand infers it as innate.
Thus as per Kant the idea of cause and other categories are a priori and hence are modes of knowledge and not objects of knowledge.
According to Kant, categories are the forms according to which we judge. Hence there are as many categories as there are judgments. Logic enumerates twelve of them
1) the Universal Judgment e.g. All men are mortal
2) the Particular Judgment e.g. Some men are philosopher
3) the Singular Judgment e.g. Peter is mathematician
4) the affirmative judgment e.g. Man is mortal
5) the negative Judgment e.g. the soul is not mortal
6) the limiting judgment e.g. the soul is immortal
7) the categorical judgment e.g. God is just
8) the hypothetical judgment e.g. if god is just, he will punish the wicked.
9) The disjunctive judgment e.g. either the Greeks or the Romans are the leading nation of antiquity
10) The problematic judgment e.g. the planets are perhaps inhabited
11) The assertory judgment e.g. the earth is round
12) The apodictic judgment e.g. the god must be just

The first three express totality, plurality, and unity, i.e. in a word the idea of quantity; the fourth, fifth, and the sixth express reality, negation, and limitation, or, the idea of quality; the seventh, eigth, and ninth express substantiality and inherence, causality and dependence, and reciprocarity, or, in short, idea of relation; finally the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth express possibility and impossibility, being and non being, necessity and contingency, i.e., the idea of modality.
Hence there are four fundamental categories: quantity, quality, relation and modality. Relation governs and embraces all the rest. It is highest category.
From these four cardinal categories four principle follow, which are also a priori:
i) Every phenomenon is quantity i.e. exists in space and in time. This principle excludes the hypothesis of atoms.
ii) Every phenomenon has quality i.e. a certain degree of content, a certain degree of intensity. The principle excludes the hypothesis of void.
iii) All phenomena are related i.e. all phenomena are united by the tie of causality. This excludes the hypothesis of fate.
iv) From the standpoint of modality every phenomenon is possible that confirms to law of space and time, and every phenomena is necessary, and absence of which imply the suspension of these law; which excludes miracles.
The first and second principles constitutes the law of continuity; the third and fourth the law of causality. These categories and the principles which follow from them form the pure, innate, a priori element and is very basis of understanding (verstand)

How can reason act upon the data of sensibility? How can reason lay hold of sensible intuitions and make notion of them?
The operation is effected by means of the ideas of time, the natural intermediary between intuitions and concepts. Owing to its resemblance to the categories, the idea of time serves as an image or symbol to express that a priori notion in terms of sense and becomes a kind of interpreter between the intuitive faculty and the understanding. This operation is called Schematiscism of pure reason.

To paraphrase, the phenomenon is the product of the reason; it does not exist outside of us, but in us; it does not exist beyond the limit of intuitive reason. . It is reason which prescribes its sensible law to the sensible universe; it is the reason which makes the Cosmos.
When Kant says that reason creates the universe, or at least assists in its creation he means the phenomenal universe. The totality of phenomenon and he admits that there may be beyond the phenomenal world, a world of noumenon or realities which cannot be perceived which are inaccessible and consequently superior to reason. Transcendental dialectics demonstrates this hypothesis.

Transendental Dialectics
According to Kant, Ideas are the totality of our judgment under certain general points of view. The concepts of “reason”, or Ideas are: the thing-in-itself; or the absolute, the universe, the soul and the God. Just as the former arrange the impressions of sense, and the latter, the intuitions, so the ideas arranges the infinite mass of judgments and reduce them to a system. Hence from the co-operation of sensibility judgment, and “reason” arises the Knowledge.
Illustration: The outer sense, by means of it’s a priori intuitions of space and time, furnishes us with a series of phenomena; the understanding, with the help of its categories, makes concepts, judgments and scientific propositions of them; finally “reason” embraces these disjoint members under the ideas of cosmos, and makes Knowledge of them. E.g. by viewing the totality of phenomena from the standpoint of absolute or of god, reason creates theology.
The universe, the soul, and God are a priori syntheses of reason and not being existing independently of the thinking subjects. At least it is impossible for reason to demonstrate their objective existence. The Ideas do not receive any content or sensibility; they are supreme norms, regulative point of view, no more, no less.

Critique of Practical Reason
Critique of pure reason portends Skepticism, but its not where Kantianism ends. In his Critique of pure reason, Kant says that, the Will, and the reason, forms the basis of faculties and of things. This is the leading thought of Kantian philosophy. While reason becomes entangle in inevitable antinomies and involves us in doubts, the Will is the ally of faith, the source and therefore, the natural guardian of our moral and religious beliefs. Kant does not deny the absolute, the soul, the God but only the possibility of proving the reality of the idea.
What Kant combats to the utmost and pitilessly destroys is the dogmatism of theoretical reason. By way of retaliation he concedes a meta physical capacity of practical reason, i.e. to Will.
Like the understanding, the will has its own character, its original forms, its particular legislation, a legislation which Kant calls “practical reason”. In this new domain, the problem raised by the Critique of Pure Reason changes in aspect. The moral law differs essentially from physical law, as conceived by theoretical reason. Physical law is irresistible and inexorable; the moral law does not compel, but bind; hence it implies freedom. Theoretical knowledge declares: Freedom, though impossible in the phenomenal world, is possible in the absolute order; it is conceived as a noumenon; it is intelligible and practical knowledge adds: it is certain. Hence there is no contradiction between faculty of knowledge and will. Our acts are determined, in free, in so far as the source whence they spring, outer intelligible character, is independent of these two forms of sensibility. The real god of Kant is freedom in the service of the ideal, or the good Will (der gute Wille).
Theoretical and practical reason, though not directly contradicting each other, are slightly at variance as to the most important question of ethics and religion, the former tending to conceive liberty, God, and the absolute as ideals having no demonstrable objective existence, the latter affirming the reality of the autonomous soul, responsibility, immortality and the supreme being. The authority of practical reason is superior to that of theoretical reason, and in real life the former predominates. Hence we should, in any case, act as if it were proved that we are free, that the soul is immortal, that there is supreme judge and rewarder.

Critique of Judgment
Aesthetics and teleology forms the subject matter of Critique of Judgment. In this book he bridges the chasm that exists between theoretical reason and the conscience.
The aesthetical and the teleological sense is an intermediate faculty between understanding and the will. Truth is the object of the understanding, nature and natural necessity its subject matter. The will strives for the good; it deals with freedom. The aesthetical and the teleological sense (or judgment in the narrow sense of term) is concerned with what lies between the true and the good, between nature and liberty.
1) Aesthetics: The aesthetical sense differs both from the understanding and the Will. It is neither theoretical nor practical in character; it is a phenomenon sui generic. But it has this in common with reason and will, that it rests on essential subjective basis. Just as the reason constitutes the true, and will the good, so the aesthetical sense makes the beautiful. What characterizes the beautiful and distinguishes it from the sublime is the feeling of peace, tranquility, or harmony which it arouses in us, in consequence of the perfect agreement between understanding and imagination.
2) Teleology: There are two kinds of purposivness. The one arouses in us, immediately and without the aid of any concept, a feeling of pleasure, satisfaction, and inner harmony: This is subjective finality, which constitutes the beautiful. The other also arouses pleasure, but mediately, in consequence of an experience or an intermediate process of reasoning: this is objective finality, which constitutes the beautiful. Thus, a flower be both the object of an aesthetical judgment in the artist, and of a teleological judgment in the naturalist, who has tested its value as a remedy. Only, the judgment which stamps it as beautiful is immediate and spontaneous, while that of the naturalist depends on previous experience. Teleology is nothing but a theory concerning phenomena. It is no more expresses the essence of things than mechanism.

Kantian Philosophy started a wave called 'German Idealism'. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism.

main to mar kar bhee meri jaan tumhe chahunga ..

कल रात , पता नहीं, कितनी दफ़ा इस ग़ज़ल को मैंने सुना होगा। ये मेंहदी साहब की जादुई आवाज़ का असर था या क़तील 'शिफाई'  के दिल छु लेनी वाली लफ्जों का , पर इतना जानता हूँ की मैं पूरी तरह से इस के नशे में मदहोश हो चुका हूँ। ग़ज़ल के बोल नीचे लिखा रहा हूँ।

ज़िंदगी में तो सभी प्यार किया करते हैं ,

मैं तो मर कर भी मेरी जान तुझे चाहूँगा ।

तू मिला है तो ये एहसास हुआ है मुझको

ये मेरी उम्र मोहब्बत के लिए थोडी है ,

इक ज़रा सा गम-ए-दौराँ का भी हक़ है जिस पर

मैं ने वो साँस भी तेरे लिए रख छोडी है ,

तुझ पे हो जाउंगा क़ुर्बान तुझे चाहूँगा

मैं तो मर कर भी मेरी जान तुझे चाहूँगा ।

अपने जज़्बात में नगमात रचाने के लिए

मैं ने धड़कन की तरह दिल में बसाया है तुझे ,

मैं तसव्वुर भी जुदाई का भला कैसे करूँ

मैं ने क़िस्मत की लकीरों से चुराया है तुझे ,

प्यार का बन के निगेहबान तुझे चाहूँगा

मैं तो मर कर भी मेरी जान तुझे चाहूँगा ।

तेरी हर चाप से जलते हैं ख़यालों में चिराग

जब भी तू आए जगाता हुआ जादू आए ,

तुझको छू लूँ तो फिर ए जान-ए-तमन्ना

मुझको देर तक अपने बदन से तेरी खुश्बू आए ,

तू बहारों का है उनवान तुझे चाहुउँगा

मैं तो मर कर भी मेरी जान तुझे चाहूँगा ।

[कातिल 'शिफाई'  ]

Ode to Hope..Welcome 2009 :)

कल की रात का गिला क्या?

नये साल में, आओ गुज़रें हुए पलों से आस चुरायें,

गमों को माज़ी में डुबाकर, नये पलों से नई सुबहा बनाये,

हाथों को थाम कर नई राह पे, हमसफर बन जायें

फिर से रूठे और मनायें, आओ थोडा सा रूमानी हो जायें…

'प्रशांत'

[Maqta is inspired from Gulzaar saab's lyrics from the film by same name]