I have written many times about how deceiving people like Zakir Naik can be. He has created an army of students who use similar arguments to make Hindus feel like lost sheep. They have very limited knowledge of the vedic texts and also of the "Hindu" dharma but they know most of the Hindus would not have read the vedic texts. With whatever selective texts that they will have memorized, they successfully distort the meaning and mislead.
In this recent conversation in Pakistan, a "Hindu" asks why would a "Hindu" be put into hell for believing in what he believes.
Zakir Naik starts by talking about the "Shruthi" and "Smriti". He defines "shruthi" as that which has come from "bhagawan", and "smriti" as that which humans have written. This is a popular understanding and partially correct. However, "shruthi" means that which is "heard or perceived", where "hearing" is not with the external ears but the inner ears. shrutis are referred to as "apaurusheya", that which is not created by humans, or that which is beyond human intellect, or that which has "divine origin" or that which is "superhuman". So shruthi is definitely inspired by a higher source. The "rishis" of sanAtana dharma contemplated through years of "tapo shakti" (many years of meditative penance) and realized some "truths" from within. These truths are eternal truths, that which will not change with time. These sages received inspirations from within in the form of sound and they codified it in human language. Many realized souls continue to experience the same truth from within even to-date. There are many avatAra purushAs, avadhUtAs, siddha-purushAs who have realized the same truth in different ways and attained "salvation" through different paths.
From the Islamic perspective, it has to be "revealed" as a book by a God who is sitting somewhere in the heavens and sends revelations through an angel (Gabriel) to a prophet. For a "sanAtani", that God is within one's own self, and any of us is capable of tapping into that source with tapas and guru kripa. So, it is not something that is revealed from outside but from within. This cannot be comprehended by a Muslim or a Christian mindset, and they would therefore label the "Hindu" belief as "ridiculous". This is called "koopamanduka nyAya" - the fallacy of the "frog from the well".
Does sanAtana dharma have many gods?
No. There is no doubt in sanAtana dharma that there is only one "God" or "sat". However, that one "truth" is manifested in many ways, and many forms. The crude analogy is that of electricity, which is one. However, its energy can be experienced or is manifested in various forms. So, people realize the same truth in various ways depending on the spiritual maturity, karma, sadhana and samskaara.
I do not think there is a Hindu who would not know the statement from Rigveda "ekam sat viprAH bahudA vadanti" - there is only one truth and the learned ones describe it in various ways! Below is the Rigvedic mantra that states this popular saying:
इन्द्रं॑ मि॒त्रं वरु॑णम॒ग्निमा॑हु॒रथो॑ दि॒व्यः स सु॑प॒र्णो ग॒रुत्मा॑न् । एकं॒ सद्विप्रा॑ बहु॒धा व॑दन्त्य॒ग्निं य॒मं मा॑त॒रिश्वा॑नमाहुः ॥
इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान् । एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः ॥
our "sanAtana dharma" has established this truth centuries before any of the other religions even attempted to. And, in their attempts to prove themselves as the only truth they have actually diluted and distorted our own sanAtani concepts because they know we have not read our "scriptures". If we read our scriptures, we will quickly realize how fake a scholar this Zakir Naik is.
Now, going into the "evidence"s he provides:
As always, Zakir simply quotes some verses and poses as if he is an expert. Most of the time his quotations are mostly taken out of context, are often distorted, and extrapolated beyond its true meaning. If challenged he will call himself a student of comparative religion. This is part of his standard memorized script, and many of his students simply parrot his style.
In this video also, he blurbs some gibberish as the first evidence, supposedly a statement from Chandogya Upanishat, 6.2.1. He says something like "na kasya kasi cha" (hahaha sorry, I burst out laughing at his fake scholarship). All I could was laugh for the confidence in which he quotes it, as if he wrote it :-) The actual shloka is below, so he is probably wanted to say "ekameva advitIyam":
सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् । तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयं तस्मादसतः सज्जायत ॥ ६.२.१ ॥
sadeva somyedamagra āsīdekamevādvitīyam | taddhaika āhurasadevedamagra āsīdekamevādvitīyaṃ tasmādasataḥ sajjāyata || 6.2.1 ||
Translation: "In the beginning, only "sat" (supreme truth) existed, and it was alone, one without a second. Some say that in the beginning this world did not exist, one without a second; from that non-existence, existence appeared"
Or in other words "this world existed from time immemorial, and it existed as one without a second; some (people of other belief systems probably) say this world, one without a second, was non-existent at start and from that nothingness existence emerged".
If you go to the 3rd shloka in the sequence you will see that the parabrahma or the "sat" (one truth) expanded Himself into various forms:
तदैक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तत्तेजोऽसृजत तत्तेज ऐक्षत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति तदपोऽसृजत । तस्माद्यत्र क्वच शोचति स्वेदते वा पुरुषस्तेजस एव तदध्यापो जायन्ते ॥ ६.२.३ ॥
tadaikṣata bahu syāṃ prajāyeyeti tattejo'sṛjata tatteja aikṣata bahu syāṃ prajāyeyeti tadapo'sṛjata | tasmādyatra kvaca śocati svedate vā puruṣastejasa eva tadadhyāpo jāyante || 6.2.3 ||
That "truth" or "existence" considered / thought / deliberated: ‘Let me become many. Let me generate (be born and expand)". He then created "tejas" (the spiritual energy). The tejas also deliberated: ‘I shall be many. I shall be born.’ Then fire produced "apas" (the life force or water). Therefore, whenever or wherever a person "burns", "apas" is born of him".
This description of how the Lord expanded Himself would go against the Quran so Zakir Naik will selectively leave out such texts. In fact, Zakir Naik should better not touch the fire of Chandhogya upanishat because there is lot more in it that can go against him instead of for him!
He then moves to his next "evidence". He says something that sounds like samskritam from Svetasvatara upanishat (6.9): "na kasya kasic janita na patipa" probably trying to say "cāsya-kaścit-janitā-na-cādhipaḥ". He says it wrong but remembers the location correctly, so, we can give this to him.
natasya kaścit-patirastiloke na-ceśitā-naiva-tasya-liṅgam | sa kāraṇaṁ-karaṇādhipādhipo-na-cāsya-kaścit-janitā-na-cādhipaḥ | 6.9 |
Of that Lord, there is no master, no controller, nor does he have a sign (proof, gender, material evidence, idol). He alone is the cause of all causes, and He is the ruler. He has no parent, no to Lord over Him. This consistent with his understanding.
Then he quotes one of his favorite quotes from svetaswatara upanishad, 4.19 "na tasya pratimA asti". He translates "pratima" as "picture, photo, idol" etc. which are all true but partially so. However, the shloka says
"nainam-Urdhvam na tiryancham na madhye parijagrabhat | na tasya pratimA asti yasya nAma mahad yashaH".
"There is none above Him, or across, nor in the middle. There is no likeness to Him, who's name is great glory".
The upanishat continues to say "His form does not stand within the range of the senses. No one can perceive Him through the eyes. One who realizes Him as seated within the heart, through intuition, become immortal".
So, when it says "na tasya pratima asti", it is referring to His spiritual form. The Lord has no material form even when He takes on the human form. Sri Krishna confirms this in the Gita "janma karma ca mE divyam" that His "birth" and "activities" are divine. He refers to activities, which are His leelas. And, He says "yadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnir bhavati ... aatmAnam sRjAmyaham" that He creates Himself as and when He wants to. It is impossible to comprehend His forms but He reveals Himself to the devotees. For example, He chooses to display the virAta rUpa to arjuna and Bhismha, and the realized ones. So, He can take a form if He wants to. Even when He takes the form, He remains the "parmAtma". He establishes this in the Gita "aham sarvasya prabhavaH mattah sarvam pravartate". That Sri Krishna is above everything and everything manifests from Him alone. He thus establishes Himself as the Supreme Lord. This is beyond Zakir Naik's comprehension.
Bhagawan Sri Krishna even says to Arjuna in Gita "न तु मां शक्यसे द्रष्टुमनेनैव स्वचक्षुषा | दिव्यं ददामि ते चक्षु: पश्य मे योगमैश्वरम्" (11.8) "you cannot see my entirety with these senses, so I will give you divine senses so that you can see my divine forms". Before the divine senses, Arjuna was able to see an aspect of His form but these senses are not enough to perceive His full form. So it is clear that the Lord can have as many forms as He wants but His forms cannot be perceived and are unlimited. This is beyond Zakir Naik's comprehension.
Zakir Naik then asks the innocent bystander "where is it said that it is legal to create images of Krishna" and affirms "if you can create the image of God then he cannot be god". He does not know that the Lord "takes the form", we do not create the form. And, it is clear from Chapter 10 and 11 of Gita, that His "vibhuti" is all around us. We can perceive His energy, His divinity in many ways. We are just not trained and tuned enough to experience it in its entirety.
Zakir Naik then makes his popular claim that Bhagawad Gita is a Smriti, so it is not the authority. I will address this point towards the end of this blog.
He then starts claiming that the vEdAs predict in several places that Mohammad is the final messenger. He now intelligently combines "veda and purANa" together and starts quoting from kalki and bhavishyat purANas. I have a separate post on this in my blog.
He quotes kalki purANa (chapter 2, shlokass 5, 7, 11, 15, 17) that there will be a final avatAr who's father's name is "vishnuyAs", which when translated to Arab will mean "Abdullah", which is the name of Mohammad's father. His mother's name will be "Sumati", which means "Aman", which is "Aamina" which is Mohammad's mother. He will be born among the qureshis, and He will have four companions (he says he can give a 2-hour lecture on this topic and asks if he accepts Mohammad is the final messenger, to which the listener cannot answer). None of these claims are correct. They are all fake. I had written about this many years back (https://gita-god-hinduism.blogspot.com/2013/05/dr-zakir-naik-prophet-mohammed-in-hindu.html). Zakir Naik commits a blunder here that he and his teacher Ahmed Deedat always blame what Christians do with Islam or Chistianity - translating names. They are not supposed to. VishnuyAs cannot be translated as "Abdulla", "sumati" should not be translated as "Aamina". Despite these attempts, the actual texts from Bhavishya purANa and other texts debunk Zakir Naik's claims.
He then asserts: "if you are a true Hindu then you have to accept that there is only one god, and that god has no images, and Mohammad is his final messenger".
I do not think any "Hindu" will disagree on the first two points - we all agree that there is only one "god", and that god is not limited by the images we create of Him. However, what he does not know is that we sanAtanis do not worship images or idols, but we worship deities. We invite the Lord into the deity and worship the spiritual aspect within it and not the image of it. The Lord can take any form He wants and that is established in the Gita (7.21).
A sanAtani does not accept that there will be some one that god "sends" as a messenger. A sanAtani believes that the realization happens through the Lord's inspiration from within one's heart, where He resides. A "Guru" or an "acharya" would guide us in the process; the guru is not a messenger but someone who has gone through that journey and has realized the truth so he can coach us through the process. So, it is silly for a sanAtani to accept that there needs to be a messenger, so the idea of a "final messenger" is a silly for a sanatani.
If Bhagawad Gita is a smriti, why is it accepted as the authority?
Even though Bhagawad Gita is a Smriti, it is still accepted as the authority because it is established so by the AachAryAs - Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhwa, and many others. Their authority is enough for us. They provide evidence and reference from across texts - the "Vedas", the "Upanishats" and beyond - to establish the truth and that is enough for us as sanAtAnIs. The aacharyAs establish prasthAnatrayi - the three sources - brahma sutra, upanishads and Bhagawad Gita. This is why Gita and Mahabharata are called "panchama veda"s - the 5th veda. We go with our aachaaryaas, who were infinite times more knowledgeable and realized than all these Zakir Naiks and co combined. That said, there are innumerous realized souls who have not read the vedas or the upanishats or the Gita or any of the other texts but realized the truth from within. Wisdom need not come from the books sent by some god in the heaven but through inspirations of the Lord from within our hearts. This may be a hard nut to bite for a Muslim but that is their problem and not ours.
Shri Shankara says "gEyam Gita, nAma sahasram, dhyEyam shreepati roopam ajasram". Chant the Gita and Vishnu sahasranamam and meditate upon the Lord's forms, who is unborn. The purusha-sukta has a beautiful statement ajAyamAnaH (the unborn) bahudA vijAyate (manifests in many ways). The Lord demonstrates His 2 handed, 4 handed and infinite handed form to Arjuna. We worship that Lord who has no limits, who is unborn, who is one without a second, who is spiritual in nature, who is beyond janma-mrtyu-jarA-vyAdhi etc. He is smaller than the smallest and larger than the largest. Krishna says "I manifest the way one meditates upon me".
We cannot comprehend this tiny universe and galaxies (na rUpam asya iha tatOpalabhyate - Gita Chapter 15) with these senses, and this universe is not even a dust in front of the Lord's toes. With our limited capabilities, how can we even think of comprehending Him in full sense from who all these have emanated in infinite ways? So, even though He is beyond our senses, He can still be contemplated upon and realized from within. Give Him a form or do not give Him a form, He is witnessing everything that we do from within our hearts. I bow down to that Lord and I can see that in the deity that I have. He is kind enough to show Himself in whatever way and form I request Him to. I worship that Lord.
I will end with something that may shock Zakir Naik and team - that for a learned sanAtani it is not that the Lord has no form, He has no ne equal to Him, but even we as jIvAtmAS are also anAkara (we are spiritual souls without a form), and we also have none equal to us. That is a topic for a different day.
Comments
Post a Comment