Can Monistic form of Spirituality lead to Reality?

Another concept of spiritualism is produced under the influence of the philosophy of monism. Monism posits the totality of a single reality, with all the diverse phenomena of the natural world seen as different manifestations of the same reality. According to this concept, therefore, there is no real difference between the Creator and the creature. Thus as per the monistic concept, a personalized God does not exist. God is like a vague spirit such as gravity or cosmic rays and all forms of existence are, in actual fact, manifestations of the same source. Man and everything besides man is one and the same thing in essence. Thus, the existing world is a manifestation of the one and the same reality rather than of manniness of reality. A philosopher has explained this concept of oneness of reality in these words:

‘The knower and the known are one. God and I, we are one in knowledge, and there is no distinction between us. (12/787)

Simply put, according to this concept of spiritualism, it is for the part to realize its whole in order that it may join it by discovering it.

This concept of spiritualism has not been proved academically; yet in both the philosophic and religious circles, this concept has remained popular. But no person or school of thought has provided any real argument in favour of this concept.

Calling this quest of spiritualism the quest of the part for the whole is, therefore, not proved till today. This is because what has to be proved first of all in this connection is the fact that man is really in his nature a part of the whole. As long as this first premise is not proved, how can a philosophic interpretation based on this concept be true?

All the points made in favour of oneness of reality are only a set of an exercise in words. All the arguments forwarded in this connection are symbolic in nature. For instance, it is said that, “all the things of this world are varied (in different forms) manifestations of one absolute reality.” This is only a statement and no such set of words can be a substitute for an argument.

Another symbolic argument forwarded as proof of this concept is that if one drop is taken away from the ocean, that drop in its essence will be a tiny ocean. Man is likewise a tiny drop of the vast sea of reality. This too is a simile and a simile never proves a reality. A simile may be employed to explain a reality already established. But offering similes towards proving a reality is entirely unacademic and illogical.

To prove the theory that the “essence of everything is the same,” one of two arguments are essential. Either such a theory is proved by a scientific research or else an argument in the real sense exists in its favour in revealed religions. But this theory is neither established by science, nor is any real argument to be found in its favour in revealed religions.

In such circumstances a school of thought, which explains the spiritual quest in terms of ‘all is the same’ (hama ust) undoubtedly does not stand on a firm basis as no testimony, either of science or revelation, exists to support this theory.