I have written many times about how deceiving Zakir Naik is. He has limited knowledge of the vedic texts and also of the "Hindu" dharma. With whatever he has memorized, he successfully distorts the meaning.
In this conversation, 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. Shruthi is "apaurusheya", that which has not created by humans, or that which is beyond a human intellect so it is inspired by a higher source. The "Rishis" of sanAtana dharma contemplated through "tapo shakti" (many years of meditative penance) and realized some "truths" from within. These truths are eternal truth, that which will not change over time. The sages received inspirations from within in the form of sound and they codified it in human language. Many realized souls continued to experience the same truth from within even to-date. From the Islamic perspective, it has to be "revealed" by God as a book but that God 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 self, and any of us is capable of tapping into that source. So, it is not revealed from outside but from within. There are many avatAra purushAs, avadhUtAs, siddhar-purushAs who have realized the same truth in different ways and attained "salvation" through different paths. This cannot be comprehended by a Muslims or a Christian mindset, and would therefore labled 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 True is manifested in many ways, and many forms. It is realized differently by different individuals. "ekam sat viprAH bahudA vadanti" - there is only one truth and the learned ones describe it in various ways, and each is sanctioned by the Lord who resides within all our hearts. This is affirmed in the Gita too!
Zakir Naik uses this thread (that there is only one God) to establish that Islam is the only truth. This is a farse argument because "sanAtana dharma" 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 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 says thinks and poses as if he is an expert. This is his standard memorized script.
He blurbs something as the first evidence, 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:
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-existence at start and from that nothingness existence emerged".
You have to see the 3rd shloka in the sequence:
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 describes how the Lord Himself expanded. This would be against Quran, so Zakir Naik should better not touch the fire of Chandhogya upanishat
He then moves to his next evidence, and says something that sounds like samskritam from Svetasvatara upanishat (6.9): "na kasya kasic janita na patipa". 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. 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".
This is referring to His spiritual form but the Lord has forms that are beyond us. The definition of "parmAtma" is as established 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. He confirms 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 form but He reveals Himself to the devotees. He displayed the virAta rUpa to arjuna and Bhismha, and the realized ones. So, He can take a form if He wants to.
He even says to Arjuna "you cannot see my entirety with these senses, so I will give you divine senses". That means, Arjuna was able to see a part of His form but these senses are not enough to perceive His full form. This does not mean He cannot have a form but that His forms cannot be perceived and limited, so is beyond these senses.
Zakir Naik asked 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 even states that Bhagawad Gita is a Smriti as it is from Mahabharata, which is also a smriti. Smriti cannot go against the shruthi. "veda and upanishat are above the rest". I will address this towards the end of this blog.
He now 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).
He asserts: "if you are a true Hindu then you have to accept that there is only one god, and that god has not 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, we do not worship images but deities. We invite the Lord into the deity. He can take any form He wants and that is established in the Gita (7.21). We cannot accept that there will be anyone god "sends" as a messenger. The realization happens through the Lord's inspiration from within the heart, where He resides. A "Guru" or an "acharya" guides 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. The provide evidence from across texts - the "Vedas", the "Upanishats" and beyond to establish their philosophies 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" - 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 but through inspirations of the Lord from within all 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 ajAyamAnaH (the unborn) bahudA vijAyate (manifests in many ways). He demonstrated His 2 handed, 4 handed and infinite handed form to Arjuna, and I worship that Lord who has no limits. 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 very universe (na rUpam asya iha tatOpalabhyate) with these senses, and this universe is not even a spec 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.
Comments
Post a Comment