Monday, January 15, 2007
Muslim scholarship hell-bent on proving that Hinduism is a Monotheistic religion.
This is a comment on
Ajmal Rashid’s blog ISLAM AND HINDUISM: CONFLICT OR COINCIDE posted on Monday, January 15, 2007 at 3:07:51 PM. It is actually an article by Dr. Zakir Naik, which Ajmal Rashid has not acknowledged. This article was posted before and I’ve commented on it then. I am copying my comments then, with Dr. Naik’s thesis in blue.
I
Dr. Zakir Naik, starts by considering Hinduism as a single religion, whereas Hinduism is actually a confluence of innumerable religious expressions.Also, he calls Hinduism an Aryan religion. The religious and spiritual culture that is denoted by the word Hinduism, being expressions of the universal urge of man to delve within to his divine potential, is not restricted to any so-called race. It’s traditional name, Sanatana Dharma (the Eternal Harmony) is very indicative of the universality of Hinduism.These 33 crores Gods do not cause a Hindu disharmony while even a suggestion of a single other God besides Allah causes the Muslim great anguish. Why? Because the Hindu knows that these 33 crores Gods are only the expressions of the ultimate truth, which truth is not separate from our own potential. The Muslim on the other hand, is forbidden to express God except as he believes Allah has instructed him in the Quran. A God separate from him has to be submitted to, no questions asked. The Hindu is free to be creative and expressive, for he knows that in his fullest potential, he himself is that God. Tat Tvam Asi.
No learned Hindu would say that we SHOULD believe and worship only one God for the simple reason that he does not see the worshiping of many Gods out of sync with man’s pursuit of spirituality, which is the purpose of religion.
II
Dr. Naik’s differentiation between Islam and Hinduism as being just the ‘s’ is legitimate and honest. In Hindu parlance, Islam is a Dwaitic (dualistic) religion whereas Hinduism goes deeper to the Advaitic (non-dualistic) experience. When we say Islam is a Dwaitic religion, it is not to belittle Islam thereby. A vast majority of Hindus also celebrate dualism. And yet, all Hindus know that this is not the ultimate. The ultimate is merging in God. Islam does not go this deep (with the exception of the Sufis). It merely waits for God to judge everyone and dole out eternal punishments or rewards. The Hindus who are Dwaitic of course do not believe in a line up and judgement scenario. Why? Thanks to the sublime influence of Advaita among the masses of even Dwaitic Hindus, what with the teachings of Karma and rebirths.I like Dr. Naik’s saying that if we resolve the apostrophe ‘s’ problem, Hindus and Muslims can unite. However, I wish to tell him that Hindus and Muslims are disunited only because Islam insists that it is the only true religion and not because there is a difference of opinion on this or that. Hinduism celebrates differences of opinion, for they see it all as man’s various expressions. So let the Muslim believe that his religion is a great religion, that his scripture is God’s own words and that Muslims are the most blessed folks in the world. No harm in all that. We have a lot of Hindus who believe the same thing about their religions too. But Muslims must accept that other religions are also legitimate. Then and only then can there be a joint celebration of each others religion and thus real unity.
Hinduism has proved this historically. Take Vaishnavism and Shaivism. In the Islamic milieu, there would have been bloodbaths between the followers of Vishnu and Shiva. But look how they have amalgamated into one religious culture, so much so that outsiders would be surprised to know that they are actually two different religions with two different and distinct Gods, each God with his own set-up! And more surprising would be Shaktism, whose followers believe that God is actually a Goddess! And their followers do not even follow the Vedas. They follow the Tantric scriptures. So much difference and yet so much unity. That’s Hinduism. Unity in diversity.
III
The Holy Qur’an says, "Come to common terms as between us and you", which is the first term? -That we worship none but Allah, so lets come to common terms by analyzing the scripture of the Hindus and the Muslim.
Dr. Zakir Naik quotes the the Holy Qur’an to say “Come to common terms as between us and you”.How great. But the Islamic milieu has transformed it to mean, “Let there be a common ground by all means and let that common ground be Islam.”I. Bhagwad Geeta 7:20. The most popular amongst all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagwad Geeta. Bhagwad Geeta mentions in Chapter 7, Verse 20, "Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires worship demigods" that is "Those who are materialistic, they worship demigods" i.e. besides the true God.
I wish to say that when the Bhagwad Geeta refers to demigods they only mean the reference point of a person who has not fully awoken to the truth of who he is. This is in consonance with the ultimate hallmark of Hinduism – that truth is one but the wise express it variously. A person who has not fully awoken to the spiritual truth is not a lesser person, just as a child is not a lesser person than a grown-up. So a materialist is he who has not fully awoken to his destiny and he will therefore worship God at his level. This is what is called ‘various expressions’. The Gita does not call a child stupid. But when the child does not grow-up, then the Gita says such a person is Baleshu – a childish person.
IV
II. Upanishad are also one of the sacred scriptures of the Hindus. In Chandogya Upanishad, Chapter 6, Section 2, Verse 1 it is mentioned "He is one only without a second". Similar to what is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an in Surah Ikhlas, Chapter 112, Verse 1, "Say he is Allah one and only".
May I ask who is one without a second? Not a God who can be distinguished as being a Creator separate from his creation. In separation, there is a second. Only when everything is God (or when there is nothing, not even God – the shoonya concept of the Buddhists), is there one without a second.I wish to say that when the Quran enjoins to say that he is Allah one and only, it has reached only the penultimate Dwaitic situation of Hindu culture. The ultimate is the Advaitic situation, which the Sufis understand.
The Hindu believes everything is pervaded by God. So the Hindu takes a stone and chisels it to be the centre of divinity in his life and the life of the community. It is just like electricity being everywhere but requiring a bulb to bring the light to our sensory level.
V
III. In Svetasvatara Upanishad, Chapter 6, Verse 9 it is mentioned "Of him there is neither parents nor lord". "Of him there is no master in the world, no ruler, nor is there any mark of him. He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the sense organs; of him there is neither progenitor nor lord". Similar message is given in Holy Qur’an in Surah Ikhlas, Chapter 112, Verse 3, "He begets not, nor is he begotten".
Absolutely. The Vedas here are talking of the undifferentiated state of Brahman, not the state of creator-created separation, where Ishwar or Allah or God and His creation come in.The Quran in similar verses is also talking of Allah in the Brahman state. The moment Allah creates, then he is no longer in the Brahman-state. Then he is in the Ishwar state (in Hindu parlance). This differentiation of Allah into two states, His state before creation and His state after creation is not clear in Arabic because the same word Allah is used in both before-creation state and after-creation state. Sanskrit however has used two different words for the before and after stages and thus the clarity on this in Hindu commentaries. (Brahman is not to be confused with Brahma the creator in mythical parlance.) Brahman is not the creator. Brahman is the substratum on which the drama of creation manifests and subsides in aeons of time.
VI
IV. "His form is not to be seen; no one sees him with the eye. Those who through heart and mind know him as abiding in the heart become immortal". Similar message is given in the Holy Qur’an in Surah Anam, Chapter 6, Verse 103, "No vision can grasp him. But his grasp is over all vision: he is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things".
The Vedic verse quoted above appears reflected picturesquely in the battlefield of Kurukshetra when Krishna displays his Vishva-roop to Arjuna.In both the above verses it will be noted that the speaker is not Brahman of the Vedas or Allah of the Quran. It is a Rishi who has reached the ultimate stage who is describing the state in the Vedas. Is it Mohammad who is saying the words quoted in the Quran? Or is it Allah telling Mohammad to proclaim thus? Please clarify.
V. In Svetasvatara Upanishad, Chapter 4, Verse 19 it is mentioned "There is no likeness of him whose name is great glory". Similar message is given in the Holy Qur’an in Surah Ikhlas, Chapter 112, Verse 4, "And there is none like unto him". Surah Shura, Chapter 42, Verse 11 and also in Surah Shura, Chapter 42, Verse 11, "There is nothing whatever like unto him".
The curious thing about the two verses that were received in two different milieus is that in the case of the Veda the “He” still remains unknown and mysterious whereas in the Quran the “He” has a name – Allah. Proving once again that the Vedas are talking of the undifferentiated Brahman whereas the Quran is talking of the differentiated God, where the totality is differentiated between the creator and his creation.
We must bow humbly to all the scriptural verses quoted. How potent in force the verses are, both of the Vedas and the Quran. They are indeed mystical poetry. Very Hindu in fact. Hindu mystics talk like this.
VII
VI. It is mentioned in Yajurved, Chapter 32, Verse "There is no image of Him." It further says as "He is unborn, He deserves our worship" "There is no image of him whose glory verily is great. He sustains within himself all luminous objects like the sun etc. may he not harm me, this is my prayer. As he is unborn, he deserves our worship".
This again is at the Brahman stage, a purely undifferentiated stage, called for only of the highest mystics. For us ordinary folks, the Vedas prescribe idol-worship. Just as Allah has prescribed for Muslims the form of the Kaa’ba. The Muslims know that they are really not offering their worship to Ka’aba but it is only an aid to help them to focus on the prayer to Allah. Likewise the Hindus too know that the idols are an aid to worship Ishwar and then go beyond idols and Ishwar and reach the stage of Brahman – knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.
VIII
VII. It is mentioned in Yajurved, Chapter 40, Verse 9 "They enter darkness, those who worship natural things" For e.g. air, water, fire etc. It further continues and says, "They sink deeper in darkness those who worship Sambhuti i.e. created things", For example table, chair, idol etc. "Deep into shade of blinding gloom fall asambhuti’s worshippers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on sambhuti are intent"The above quotations taken by Dr. Naik are exhortations by the Vedas that we should not restrict our advancement in spirituality to level of objects. It has got nothing to do with BELIEF in One God. What is behind a tree, for instance? It is the bij mantra for that tree (akin to the physical seed). It is said that we may be born in a temple but we should not die in a temple. This only means that we have to go beyond everything, including even the Vedas, till we merge in the Brahman. (And Hinduism gives us as many lifetimes as we need for that.) This is the ultimate. What’s beyond the ultimate? (Well, this question may sound meaningless. But it is worthwhile to remember that there are Rishis in India even of late, like Aurobindo Maharshi, who thought at levels that are beyond the ultimate. Islam, as understood by the best of Muslims, stops at Allah, the sound vibration. It is yet to take its teachings to the level of silence. (But how is this possible, Mohammad has come and gone. No further editions of knowledge are possible.) The Vedas however do not have such restrictive teachings. That is what the above verses mean. The full implication of the above verses can only be explained by a Guru.I feel Dr. Naik is stopping at the brink of studying the Vedas. (But he can’t do it by himself, he needs a Guru. You can’t study the Vedas merely by making annotations as your read along!)
IX
Dear
Ajmal Rashid, you will notice in all of Dr. Naik's quotation of the Vedas, nowhere does the God of the Vedas proclaim that He is the only true God and He has appointed so and so as his final authentic messenger. Actually, the “speaker” of the Vedas is not God himself separate from his audience but the resonance of the eternal truths as received by the self-realized Rishi of yore. This is a marked difference between the passages you have quoted from the Quran. The God of the Quran enjoins loyalty and obeisance. Submission of his creatures to him (as if he failed programming that quality in men when he created them). In the Vedas, it is the expression of the Rishi in his higher consciousness of spirituality.
In the light of the above verses, what needs to be pondered over is why the Vedas did not spawn a culture of exclusivity whereas Islam did? What is the reason for this difference in consequence? I humbly suggest that this is because Islam separated the Creator and the created whereas Hinduism says that the Creator and his creation are one.
9:19:46 PM
Posted By
Venu Gopal Comments (1) UncategorizedComments
Bhupender Monday, January 15, 2007 9:10:48 PM
why is every alternate blog on religion. Religion has been the major cause of all conflicts in History and yet we keep trying to prove that one religion is better than the other.
