ANSWER TO LORETTA RAJKUMAR’S VIEWS WHO SAYS MOHAMMAD ALVI MAY HAVE READ THE GITA AND VEDAS BUT CAN HE COMMENT ON THE BIBLE [Part - I]

Dear Ms. Loretta Rajkumar

 

Response to your comment had been pending since some time now. I have finally found time to respond.

 

You start your comment by saying that “God was against idol worship and He spoke to Moses; Moses was the only prophet who came face to face with the Holy God.” I agree with you that idol worship is not the desired mode of worship. Even many Hindus are against idol worship as they find no sanction for idol worship in the scriptures. But when you say God “spoke to Moses; Moses was the only prophet who came face to face with the Holy God,” you are partially correct and partially wrong. God did speak to Moses, that’s true. Old Testament as well as the Quran confirms this. But was Moses face to face with the Holy God? If you say so, that means God came to present Himself on that mountain top. Quran says it was God’s ‘tajalli’ or God’s light which was made visible to Moses. Saying Moses was face to face with God is akin to giving a form and shape to God, whereas He has none (even as per Christian view). His powers are visible in several manifest forms and the light visible to Moses was proof of God’s presence. Moses was unable to withstand even this light and fell unconscious.

 

Your claim that Moses was the only prophet who came face to face with the Holy God may be your view based on information available in the Old Testament. Quran explicitly talks of Prophet Mohammad being taken by angels to the abode of God and even talks of a distance of ‘two spears or even lesser’ between the Creator and His creation. You are requested to tell your view regarding whether Jesus got the opportunity to come face to face with the Holy God or not. I say this because you have given Jesus the status of ‘Son of God’ while you yourself are saying that none but Moses came face to face with the Holy God. Kindly tell whether the ‘Son of God’ ever had the opportunity to come face-to-face with his ‘Father’? Can you supplement your view (whatever it is) from the scriptures? If Jesus indeed came face to face with his ‘Father God’ then when did this happen? If he didn’t then you will have to agree that Moses was superior to Jesus in some attributes, which is not true and I too didn’t believe in this.

 

After this, madam, you are mentioning an altogether different subject. In nutshell, you are talking about God making extinct the great civilizations of the past including those of Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Egypt, etc. and ‘he didn’t ask sinful mankind like you n me to do His dirty work of killing His creations, He is God Almighty; he can’t fail, he has hosts of angels to take up His battle, not u and I nor I or Mohammad…” I agree with you fully. Man has no right to kill another human being without a reason. You are saying so because my name is Mohammad Alvi – a seemingly Muslim name – and all that you are hearing lately about Muslims through the media is their beastliness and cruelty. What I wish to tell you is that despite you hearing so much about the cruelty of Muslims who are fighting for Al-Qaida, ISIS and similar organizations, such people are still in minority. I consider all such people who are killing others in the name of Islam as having no link to Islam. Quran says clearly: “One who kills one innocent person is akin to killing the entire humanity.” This means anyone who has willingly killed one innocent person, his sin is as if he has killed the entire humanity. There is no place for savagery or brutality in true Islam. I say true Islam, because a pseudo-Islam has been propagated that endorses all such killings in the name of religion. But I must say that whatever logics these insane people give in the name of Islam for killing others, neither Prophet Mohammad’s life or teachings nor Quran endorse such treatment. Quran says: “To you your religion, to me mine.” It talks of righteousness and piety as the desired characteristics in a man. It even says that if a person sees injustice/oppression being done and remains mute witness without speaking in favour of the oppressed, his conduct is equivalent to as if he himself has committed the injustice/oppression. Is there any room for savage and brutal killing of innocents in the light of many such teachings? No! There is none. Not once during his entire life did the Prophet attacked anybody. All wars were fought in self-defence when armies marched on him. And whatever the propagandists may say against him, he did not kill one person in his life. Quran describes him as a Prophet of Benevolence, Peace and Good Conduct. And that he indeed was.

 

After saying all this, I agree that not only in this age but during all ages since the demise of Prophet Mohammad, there have been people who used Islam to their advantage. Islamic teachings were sabotaged by self-interest seekers very soon after Prophet’s death. The books that Muslims possess today give a mix of real teachings and those propagated by self-interest seekers. A vivid example of the extent to which Prophet Mohammad’s teachings were sabotaged can be seen by the brutal and savage assault by the Muslim rulers of the time, barely 50 years after Prophet’s demise, on Prophet’s family itself. All but one of the male members of the family of Prophet’s grandson and all his friends and well-wishers were brutally killed, so much so that neither the aged nor the 6-month old children were spared. The savagery of al-Qaida and ISIS fades in front of the savagery committed by the killers of Prophet Mohammad’s grandson. Truth is that when the teachings of Islam were usurped and sabotaged, the greatest price was paid by none but the Prophet’s own family which had continued to remain the torchbearer of true Islamic teachings. Consequently, Prophet’s family and descendants remained in house-arrests or imprisonment and many of them were killed either by sword or poison, by the hands of those who had usurped Islamic teachings and yet were trying to show themselves as rulers of Muslims. Therefore, when you see ISIS and al-Qaida in their present conduct, don’t blame their conduct on Islam and Prophet Mohammad but you should know that the Prophet’s family has paid the greatest price for remaining on the path taught by Prophet Mohammad and standing opposed to those who were flaunting Prophet’s teachings and showing them as true Islam.  

 

There is one clarification that I wish to give. You in your writing say that ‘after Jesus’s death, 700 years later Mohammad comes and changes the whole world of thinking that he is the only messenger of god.’ This is not true. Both Mohammad and Quran endorses all the Biblical prophets from Adam till Jesus but says that Mohammad was the Prophet that even Jesus had prophesied when he advised to his trusted followers not to go with his teachings beyond the lost tribes of Israel and they would not have done so that the Promised Son of Man would arrive. As you rightly said, Mohammad was born in 570 A.D., the time that would have taken to Jesus’s followers to go with his teachings to the lost tribes of Israel. Muslims are of view that the term ‘Paraclete’ in Bible is reference to Mohammad and I have proved on several occasions that the Spirit of Truth that Jesus was repeatedly talking about was the Rooh or Holy Spirit that resulted in the birth of Divinities – the Ahlulbayt – one of whom was Mohammad. And when the Light (Noor) of Ahlulbayt came one after another in human form, it was the Spirit of Truth that had actually descended on earth because the light or spirit of 14 together comprise the Holy Spirit. Moreover, you might not be aware, Mohammad was known as the most truthful person in the whole of Arabia even before the time when he proclaimed that he had been appointed the Messenger of God. There are stories of innumerable Christians who acknowledged from their own scriptures including the teachings of Jesus that Mohammad was the last Prophet who had been prophesied not just by Jesus but by other Prophets prior to Jesus. Since Christians and Jews who acknowledged from their scriptures that Mohammad was the prophesied Prophet had embraced Islam, those who were left were those who either couldn’t recognize him or didn’t want to recognize. If you are a Christian, it shouldn’t be difficult for you to understand this because you know how the Jews denied Jesus’s divine role, despite all the miracles that he showed and all the good things that he did and preached. Those from among the Jews who identified Jesus’s link with Divinity embraced his teachings while those who didn’t continued to remain Jews and oppose Jesus’s teachings. Just as there were those who didn’t connect Jesus with Divinity, 600 years later there were still more who were not ready to connect Mohammad with Divinity.

 

Next you say that because of Islam and Mohammad’s teachings the world is in chaos… God gave the 10 commandments, because of the idol worshippers… God didn’t go and say that go and kill all unbelievers… but teach them and show love and compassion…” I have already said that Islam and Mohammad’s teachings have nothing to do with the conduct of the present day Muslims who have since long deviated from the teachings of Mohammad and the path that he was preaching. I value the 10 commandments and it has been made obligatory in Quran to respect and revere the 10 commandments given to Moses. Quran even wants Muslims to give the same weightage and value to the Ten Commandments as is given to the Quran.

 

The conduct of present day Muslims and a lot many others who preceded them is very much like the followers of Moses, who started worshipping the idol of a calf, within 40 days of Moses’ departure. When Moses returned with his 10 commandments, ‘because of the idol worshippers’, as you say, most of his followers were already worshipping the idol that they had themselves made. Would you blame Moses, his religion or his God for this deviation? Just as you will not blame Moses, his religion or his God, you are not justified if you blame Mohammad or the path that he showed or Allah – the God – for the conduct of present day ISIS, Jaish and al-Qaida members. Or in other words, just as when you see the Christian Spaniards wiping out the Aztecs from South America, you see the European Christians wiping out Indians from North America, or migrant Christians killing millions of local aborigines in Australia, the Christian US destroying two cities in Japan in a single day or the Christian Nazis driving out the Jews from mainland Europe and you don’t put the blame on Christianity or Jesus or His God, you will be unjustified if you put the blame for the conduct of ISIS, Jaish and al-Qaida on Mohammad, the path shown by him or the One God of the cosmos that the Muslims believe in.

 

Jesus indeed was a champion of righteousness and peace. He didn’t retaliate even with his persecutors. Mohammad’s conduct was no different. Bani Umayya tribe of Quraish had waged several wars on Mohammad. Several neo-Muslims were killed by them and no effort was spared by them to cut the cord of Islam in its infancy. While Mohammad was in Makkah, all kinds of torture, cruelty and humiliation were inflicted on him and his followers. Yet, we see, about 12 years after he was forced to leave Makkah, when Mohammad returned to Makkah with thousands of believers in Islam, not even a drop of blood was spilled despite the fact that he was all powerful and the Bani Umayya had no chance to even flee. General amnesty was declared. There was no forceful conversion as well. Nobody was imprisoned or tortured. There were several people who had tortured Mohammad in the past, who had inflicted humiliation on him, and had in the past tried to inflict as many damages possible on Islam and its followers, yet none was killed, imprisoned or tortured.

 

Countless other examples can be given of Mohammad’s hatred of violence and war and his total love for peace and justice to prevail. The study of lives and conduct of the true followers of Islam – the Ahlulbayt – too reveal the extent they would go to maintain peace and avert war or bloodshed. Ali would never fight with a person who was disarmed, who was with his back to him or who didn’t come to wage an attack on him. Ali even spared an enemy who had come to kill him but when he was about to be killed, spat on Ali’s face. Ali immediately let go his opponent because he didn’t want to fight him in a fit of rage. History has recorded that while Muawiya – Ali’s chief opponent who belonged to Bani Umayya tribe – used deceit as his chief weapon, Ali never resorted to the same tactics and was seen as the most upright and peace loving person even when he was fighting a war.

 

Now we come to a very crucial subject that you have raised. You say: “Can you tell me which 12 tribes does Islam belongs? As from the time God chose the 12 tribes of Israel, he accurately told Abraham to go and possess the land given to him and his descendants… and the Bible clearly states that it was Isaac the promised seed of Abraham will be the sacrifice and not Ismael.  Now that Abraham who was a Hebrew/Jewish… Sara who was a mobite woman and Hagar was an Egyptian maid, how does that link to Islam that came about 4000 years later… then why change all Jewish names to Islam, eg. Abraham Abrahim, Jacob to Yacob, Isaac to Isaak, Moses to Musa, etc…. the bible clearly says that no words must be taken from this bible or add on, those who do this will face eternal damnation, respect our holy bible as most contents was taken from the old testament by Mohammad.. Jesus didn’t come and rewrite the Bible, He came to save mankind through his death which was prophecised accurately by the prophets of Old Testament.”

 

Again, Madam, there are some points that I agree to and some that I don’t. Let us see your point of view. You say Abraham was a Hebrew/Jewish. Is it true? If Abraham was Jewish, then you will have to agree that all Christians are on the wrong. Because Jesus never said he was bringing a new religion. He always kept saying that he was merely reiterating what had been said earlier. If Abraham was Jewish, then Christians should call them as Jewish because there is no religion that Jesus brought. The answer to what you said lies in your statement alone. Truth is that Abraham was not Jewish. Abraham was propagating the path of the One Lord of the Universe; the same path that was propagated by other Prophets before and after him. It is we humans who gave the names likes Jews and Christians.

 

You are trying to belittle the position of Hajira (Hager) when you say while Sara was a noble woman, Hajira (Hager) was an Egyptian maid. Neither the teachings of Jesus nor that of Mohammad value a man on the basis of his wealth and status. The sole criteria for measuring a person is righteousness and good deeds. When you belittle Hajira because she was a maid, you are speaking against the teachings of Jesus. Moreover, all Jews who were freed by Moses were at one point in time slaves in that very Egypt from where Hajira belonged. So, from your point of view, how can the Jews make claim of supremacy over others? Even Joseph was taken as slave and sold as slave during one phase of his life. Does this give a reason to belittle his position? Hajira’s elevated position in the eyes of the God can be seen in Genesis itself when God couldn’t see Hajira running to fetch water for his dying son and made water sprout from close to Ismael’s feet.

 

You put the blame on Muslims for changing the Jewish names to Islam, eg. Abraham to Ibrahim, Jacob to Yaqoob, Isaac to Isaak, Moses to Musa, etc. I think you have said this because of your lack of knowledge in this area. It is not Muslims who have changed names but it is the European Christians who are in the habit of changing names. When Muslims reached the shores of Spain, their fleet was being commanded by Tariq, who landed near a mountain on the Spanish coast. Muslims called that mountain ‘Jabr-ut-tariq’ or ‘mountain of Tariq’. Europeans call it Gibraltor today. Born in 721 A.D., Jabir ibn Hayyan gave so much contribution to the field of Chemistry that he is known as Father of Chemistry. Europeans call him Geber. Abu Ali Husain nicknamed Ibn-e-Sina is regarded as one of the most significant thinkers and writers of the Islamic Golden Age. Europeans call him Avicenna. Abu al-Qasim Khalaf ibn al-Abbas Al-Zahrawi is described by many as father of modern surgery. His books, originally written in Arabic, were translated in European languages and were taught to the students of medicine as recently till the last century. West call him Albucasis. These are just few examples out of the many that I can give to show that it is not the Muslims but the Western world which has changed names so that they appear less Muslim and people do not realize the contribution of Muslims to science and technology.

 

The same happened to the case of the names of Prophets of yesteryears. You are perhaps reading the English translations of your scriptures. Do you know the names that you are reading in English have not been similarly pronounced in the original Hebrew texts? Even the name of Jesus is not mentioned in Hebrew text but the pronunciation is similar to the Quranic Isa. The same is the case with Musa (and not Moses). Conclusion: if you really feel like asking questions in this regard, then you should ask the Western world why they have altered the pronunciations of the names of their own prophets.

 

The great tortures and hardships that the Christians had to face for several hundred years after Jesus, from the hands of Roman rulers, slowly led to an amalgamation of Roman beliefs and Christian teachings. Jesus was nowhere the ‘Son of God’ in early Christian teachings but he became the ‘Son of God’ with progress in time. Likewise, lot many changes were brought about in the translations of Old Testament and Bible by the later day priests to suit their advantage.

 

For instance, I can give examples from Old Testament itself which will shed light on how the Christian world replaced the name of Ismael with Isaac wherever the description of the son’s sacrifice given by Ibrahim (Abraham) is talked about in the Old Testament. I know this will come hard on your existing belief but I request you to give this a patient reading.

 

Let’s read what description Old Testament (Genesis, 22.1 onwards) says when it talks of the sacrifice given by Abraham. You will agree that Genesis talks about Isaac and not Ismael in its description. Genesis says:

 

22:1 Some time after these things God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am!” Abraham replied. 22:2 God said, “Take your son – your only son, whom you love, Isaac – and go to the land of Moriah! Offer him up there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains which I will indicate to you.”

22:3 Early in the morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took two of his young servants with him, along with his son Isaac. When he had cut the wood for the burnt offering, he started out for the place God had spoken to him about.

22:4 On the third day Abraham caught sight of the place in the distance. 22:5 So he said to his servants, “You two stay here with the donkey while the boy and I go up there. We will worship and then return to you.”

22:6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son Isaac. Then he took the fire and the knife in his hand, and the two of them walked on together. 22:7 Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father?” “What is it, my son?” he replied. “Here is the fire and the wood,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” 22:8 “God will provide for himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son,” Abraham replied. The two of them continued on together.

22:9 When they came to the place God had told him about, Abraham built the altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he tied up his son Isaac and placed him on the altar on top of the wood. 22:10 Then Abraham reached out his hand, took the knife, and prepared to slaughter his son. 22:11 But the Lord’s angel called to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!” “Here I am!” he answered. 22:12 “Do not harm the boy!” the angel said. “Do not do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God because you did not withhold your son, your only son, from me.”

22:13 Abraham looked up and saw behind him a ram caught in the bushes by its horns. So he went over and got the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place “The Lord provides.” It is said to this day, “In the mountain of the Lord provision will be made.”

22:15 The Lord’s angel called to Abraham a second time from heaven 22:16 and said, “‘I solemnly swear by my own name,’ decrees the Lord, ‘that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 22:17 I will indeed bless you, and I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be as countless as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the strongholds of their enemies. 22:18 Because you have obeyed me, all the nations of the earth will pronounce blessings on one another using the name of your descendants.’”

22:19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set out together for Beer Sheba where Abraham stayed.

 

Quran says Abraham took his elder son Ismael for sacrifice but Genesis says that he took Isaac. The prayer made by Abraham regarding his progeny’s expansion from Ismael; remaining of leadership (Imamat) even in his descendants; and about the 12 princes in the progeny is mentioned in the Quran but Old Testament is showing Abraham praying for his son Isaac and his progeny. How will you decide now, at a time when we are face to face with two contradicting versions, the real truth? How will you know who is right and who is wrong? And who altered the description by changing the names of the persons mentioned. Was it Isaac’s name that was replaced with the name of Ismael or was it Ismael’s name that was replaced with the name of Isaac? This is important because while Mohammad and the 12 princes (the 12 Imams) were born in the progeny of Ismael, the progeny of Isaac saw illustrious prophets like Jacob, David, Lot, Moses, Jesus and many more. While the prophets in the progeny of Isaac are respectful figures for all – Jews, Christians and Muslims – Mohammad who was born in the progeny of Ismael is revered only by the Muslims.

 

The issue can be solved by no other means but by the use of intellect. I request you to understand the issue through use of your faculties of reason and intellect. I will give three proofs from Old Testament itself which will give an indication that it were the Christians (or Jews) who replaced the name of Ismael with that of Isaac wherever the mention of the sacrifice had been made so that people face difficulty in reaching the truth.

 

I request you to read the aforementioned description from Genesis regarding the sacrifice. Again and again, Isaac is being called the ‘only son’ whereas it may be proved from Genesis itself that Ismael was the elder brother who was taken along with his mother Hajira (Hager) and left at a far off place in a barren land. If Isaac indeed was the one who had been taken for sacrifice, why the repeated mention of ‘only son’.

 

Come, let’s use our intellect! Abraham was 86 years old when Ismael was born to Abraham and Hajira. This can be proved from Genesis itself which says:

 

 

16:15 So Hagar gave birth to Abram’s son, whom Abram named Ishmael. 16:16 (Now Abram was 86 years old when Hagar gave birth to Ishmael.)

 

Genesis 17:24 tells that Abraham was 99 years old when the Divine Order for circumcision came and Abraham not only ordered circumcision of his 13 year old son Ismael but rest of the people. The same year, the angels arrived and gave glad tidings to Sara (Abraham’s other wife) regarding the birth of a son. This proves that when Isaac was born, Ismael must have been 14 years old. Quran says that when the kid Ismael grew big enough to move around with his father, the order for sacrifice came. Naturally, it is apparent from Quran that Ismael was not a grown up youth when the sacrifice was given but had just started helping his father in his work. Isaac was born when Ismael was 14 years old, as per Genesis. The repeated stress on the term ‘only son’ in Genesis shows that originally there was the mention of Ismael, who was the only son of Abraham till he was 14, but his name was later replaced with that of Isaac.

 

Now see the second proof. The barren desert of Beer Sheba was the place where Abraham had left his wife Hajira and infant son Ismael. If you read the history of Beer Sheba, it was considered as the border outpost of the then inhabited region, beyond which there was nothing but barren desert. Clearly, Abraham had gone beyond Beer Sheba to the barren desert and left his wife and child there. Quran is of view that Hajira and Ismael were left at the place which is now called Makkah. Quran also narrates the incident of spring flowing from near the feet of Ismael and that place is still considered sacred by the Muslims. See 21.14 onwards from Genesis:

 

21:14 Early in the morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He put them on her shoulders, gave her the child, and sent her away. So she went wandering aimlessly through the wilderness of Beer Sheba. 21:15 When the water in the skin was gone, she shoved the child under one of the shrubs. 21:16 Then she went and sat down by herself across from him at quite a distance, about a bowshot away; for she thought, “I refuse to watch the child die.” So she sat across from him and wept uncontrollably.

 

The description tells that Hajira and not Sara “went wandering aimlessly through the wilderness of Beer Sheba.” The description in Genesis also talks about water coming out miraculously from close to the feet of Ismael. Thus, the description in Genesis is same as the description in Quran when it comes to water sprouting from the ground for Ismael, with the only difference that while Quran indicates the place as modern day Makkah, Genesis describes it as the ‘wilderness of Beer Sheba’.

 

I invite you to read the aforementioned description of Genesis (22.1 onwards) where the sacrifice is mentioned. The description talks about Abraham taking two of his servants and traveling for three days to reach the foot of the mountain where he was to give the sacrifice. It talks about his attempt to give sacrifice of his ‘only son’ (Isaac, as mentioned in Genesis) but ends with:

 

22:19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set out together for Beer Sheba where Abraham stayed.

 

This descriptions shows that Abraham was staying at Beer Sheba while 21.14 tells that Hajira with her son Ismael wandered around in the wilderness of Beer Sheeba. This too proofs that the sacrifice was given of Ismael and not of Isaac who lived somewhere near Jerusalem.

 

Now the third proof, which is more logical in nature. That this incident of sacrifice occurred with Ismael and not Isaac can be inferred from the fact that its remembrance remained in the progeny of Ismael while the progeny of Isaac retained not even a single remembrance in terms of rituals. All through history, since the time of Ismael, his progeny and followers, continued with the rituals of running between two hills (Safa and Marwah) in remembrance of Hajira’s run in search of water to and fro seven times. The ritual was retained as part of the Hajj ritual by Prophet Mohammad, perhaps because it is a living proof that the sacrifice was meant for Ismael and not for Isaac. Are these not enough reasons to prove my point of view?

 

To be continued…

 

KNOW THE REAL IDENTITY OF DEVI LAKSHMI THIS DIWALI

In Chapter XIII of Matsya Purana, the Devi Sati’s various names are mentioned by which she was known at different places.

 

Visalaksi in Kasi; Lingadharini in Naimisaranya; Lalita in Prayaga; Kamaksi in Gandhamadana hills; Kumuda at the Manasa lake; Visvakaya in Ambara; Gomati in Gomanta; Kamacharini at the Mandar Hills; Madoktata in the Chaitraratha forest; Jayanti in Hastinapura; Gauri in Kanyakubja; Rambha on the Mount Malaya; Kirtiwati in Ekambhaka; Visva in Visvesvara; Puruhuta in Puskara; Margadayini in Kedar; Nanda in the Himalayas; Bhadrakarnika in Gokarna; Bhavani in Sthanesvara; Bilvapatrika in Bilval; Madhavi in Srisaila; Bhadra in Bhadresvara; Jaya in Varahaksetra; Kamala in Kamalalaya; Rudrani in Rudrakoti; Kali in Kalanjar hills; Kapila in Mahalinga; Mukutesvari in Markota; Mahadevi on the banks of the Salagrami river; Jalapriya in Sivalinga; Kumari in Mayapuri; Lalita in Santana; Utpalaksi in Sahasraksa; Mahotpala in Kamalaksa; Mangala in Gangatirtha; Vimala in Purushottam; Amoghaksi on the banks of the Vipasa river; Patala in Pundvardhana; Narayani in Suparsva; Bhadrasundari in Vikuta; Vipula in Vipula; Kalyani in Malayachala; Kotavi in Kotitirtha; Sugandha in Madhavavana; Trisandhya in Godasrama; Ratipriya in Gangotri; Sivananda in Sivakunda; Nandini on the banks of the Devika river; Rukmini in Dwarika; Radha in Vrindavana; Devaki in Mathura; Paramesvari in Patala; Sita in Chitrakuta; Vinduvasini in Vindhyachala; Ekavira in Sahyadiri; Chandrika in Harischandra; Ramana in Ramatirtha; Mrigavati on the banks of the river Yamuna; MAHALAKSHMI in Karavira; Umadevi in Vinayaka; Aroga in Vaidyanathan; Mahesvari in Mahakala; Abhaya in Usnatirtha; Amrita in the caves of Vindhyachala; Mandavi in Mandvaya; Svaha in Mahesvara; Prachanda in Chagalanda; Chandika in Amarakantaka; Vararoha in Somesvara; Pushkaravati in Prabhasa; Devamata on the banks Paravara of the Sarasvati river; Mahabhaga in Mahalaya; Pingalesvari in Payosni; Sinhika in Krita Saucha; Yasaskari in Kartikeya; Lola in Utpalavarta; Subhadra at the confluence of the Ganges and the Sone; Mata in Siddhapura; Laksmirangana in Bharatasrama; Visvmukhi in Jalandhara; Tara in Kiskindha; Pusti in Devadaruvna; Medha in Kashmir; Bhima in Himalaya; Pusti in Visvesvar; Sudhi in Kapalamochana; Mata in Kayavarahana; Dhvani in Sankhodhar; Dhriti in Pindaraka; Kala on the banks of the river Chandrabhag; Sivakarini on the Achodaka tank; Amrita in Vena; Urvasi in Badarinarayana; Ausadhi in Uttarakuru; Kusodka in Kusadvipa; Manmatha in Hemkuta; Satyavadini in Mukuta; Vandaniya in Asvatha; Nidhi in the town of Kuvera; Gayatri in the Vedas; Parvati in Kailasa; Indrani in Devaloka; Saraswati in the mouth of Brahma; Prabha in the disc of the Sun; Vaisnavi in the Matrikshetra; Arundhati among the Pativratas; Tillottama among women; and Brahmakala in the mind; and Sakti in all bodies. 

The Chandi-mahatmya, which celebrates the victories of this goddess over the Asuras, speaks of her under the following names: 

1.     Durga, when she received the messengers of the Asuras. 2. Dasa-bhuja. ‘Ten-armed,’ when she destroyed part of their army. 3. Sinha-vahini. ‘Riding on a lion’, when she fought with the Asura general Rakta-vija. 4. Mahisha-mardini. ‘Destroyer of Mahisha,’ an Asura in the form of a buffalo. 5. jagad-dhatri. ‘Fosterer of the world,’ when she again defeated the Asura army. 6. Kali. ‘The black.’ She killed Rakta-vija. 7. Mukta-kesi. ‘With disheveled hair.’ Again defeats the Asuras. 8. Tara. ‘Star.’ She killed Sumbha. 9. Chhinna-mastaka. ‘Decapitated,’ the headless form in which she killed Nisumbha. 10. Jagadgauri. ‘World’s fair one,’ as lauded by the gods for her triumphs. The names which Devi obtains from her husband are: - Babhravi (Babhru), Bhagavati, Isani, Iswari, Kalanjari, Kapalini, Kausiki, Kirati, Maheswari, Mrida, Mridani, Rudrani, Sarvani, Siva, Tryambaki. From her origin she is called Adri-ja and Giri-ja, ‘mountain-born’ [remember Himavat or Daksha is her father; Him signifying mountain); Ku-ja, ‘earth-born;’ Daksha-ja, ‘sprung from Daksha.’ She is Kanya, ‘the virgin;’ Kanya-kumari, ‘the youthful virgin;’ and Ambika, ‘the mother;’ Avara, ‘the youngest;’ Ananta and Nitya, ‘the everlasting;’ Arya, ‘the revered;’ Vijaya, ‘victorious;’ Riddhi, ‘the rich;’ Sati, ‘virtuous;’ Dakshina, ‘right-handed;’ Pinga, ‘tawny, dark;’ Karburi, ‘spotted;’ Bhramari, ‘the bee;’ Kotari, ‘the naked;’ Karna-moti, ‘pearl-eared;’ Padma-lanchhana, ‘distinguished by a lotus;’ Sarva-mangala, ‘always auspicious;’ Sakam-bhari, ‘nourisher of herbs;’ Siva-duti, ‘Siva’s messenger;’ Sinha-rathi, ‘riding on a lion.’ As addicted to austerities she is Aparna and Katyayani. As Bhuta-nayaki she is chief or leader of the goblins, and as Gana-nayaki, the leader of the Ganas. She is Kamakshi, ‘wanton-eyed;’ and Kamakhya, ‘called by the name of Kama, desire.’ Other names, most of them applicable to her terrible forms, are Bhadrakali, Bhima-devi, Chamunda, Maha-kali, Mahamari, Mahasuri, Matangi, Rajasi, ‘the fierce;’ and Rakta-danti, ‘red or bloody toothed.’ 

We have been showing time and again that the One Absolute Formless God created a Manifest Power (Manifest Self or Paramatma), which when desired that there be more worshippers of the Absolute created a Light or Noor, that got divided into 14 Devatas or Manus (progenitors of mankind), one of whom is a Devi. This can be proved time and again through the Vedas, the Upanishads and also the Puranas.  

It is this one Devi of the scriptures, which was introduced everywhere. Based on her attributes, we gave different names to her in different parts of the world. With time several myths and legends got associated around her in each part of the country, so much so that the legend spoken in one part was different from the legend known in another. Some of the names by which the Devi was known in some parts got faded in oblivion. But some other names got so much prominence that we started considering them as a different devis. So there became a goddess of learning separate from goddess of wealth and prosperity and many others. This is unfortunate because by doing so, Hindus couldn’t fathom even a bit of the Divine Creation Plan that was being told in the Divine Scriptures. When Saraswati was being talked about, they thought her to be a Devi different from when Parvati or Rudrani or Daksha-ja was being talked about. They forgot that there was just one Devi in the Divine Creation Plan along with 13 Devas (overall 14 Devatas). 

Tibetan Buddhism has talked extensively about Devi, known as Tara. When you read the list of the various names of Devi, given above, you will find that Tara is mentioned there as well. It is unfortunate that we do not relate between the two. The same Devi was talked about there as well but we have got accustomed to seeing these things through the prisms of our respective religions so much that we see the same truths described in other religions as different or farce whereas the truth is that there is just one Divine Path that was being told in different times by different avatars or Prophets and every time we digressed from the path, we created a religion or sect of our own.  

Just imagine, so many names have been given to Devi in India alone. We are of the opinion that these Devatas were introduced around the same time in all the major civilizations of the world. What would be the number of names, if we were to find them on international basis?  

The fact that she is the same female Devi among the fourteen can be known from the very nature of names above. That one of her names is Devi itself proves it. Then she is called Mahadevi, which shows her relationship with Mahadeva, which is another name for Siva or Rudra or Vayu. She is also Rudrani, which confirms her relationship with Rudra or Siva – also a Deva. She is also Devayani, also shows her relationship with Deva. She is Daksha-Ja (sprung from Daksha) and Indrayani (daughter of IndraDeva), which confirms that Indra and Daksha are same. 

The Devi is said to be the mother of eleven Devas having been married to the first of the Adityas, hence she is called Lingadharini in Naimisaranya. She is one of the fourteen who were responsible for creation of this world; hence she is known as Visvakaya in Ambara. All fame is to her; hence she is called Kirtiwati in Ekambhaka. Her father is known as Visvadeva and she is called Visva in Visvesvara. She is the wife of Rudra and hence is called Rudrani in Rudrakoti. No Devi matches her stature so she is known as Mahadevi on the banks of the Salagrami river. It is through her that it is possible to reach God; hence she is referred to as Narayani in Suparsva. She is one Devi along with the 13 Devas, and hence is called Devaki in Mathura. She was the chief of the creations created by God, hence is called Paramesvari in Patala. And that is why she is called Mahesvari in Mahakala. She gave so many sacrifices in life and hence is called Svaha in Mahesvara. She was the mother of eleven Devas hence is called Devamata on the banks of Paravara of the Saraswati river and Mata in Siddha pura and Kayavardhana. The Sakti that is related to her is evident in all things in the world and hence she is called Visvamukhi in Jalandhara. She is one of the five who constitute Life in our body and hence is called Dhvani in Sankhidhar. It is she who is referred to as Gayatri in the Vedas. Owing to being the daughter of Indra, she is called Indrani in Devaloka and Sakti in all bodies. All other names given to her too confirm one or other of her virtues. The Devi is also from Noor or Light that was created out of division from the One Noor created by God. The Noor or Light of Devi kept descending in pure human bodies on earth, at various times and in various places. This is exactly similar to the Noor or Light of 13 Devas descending in pure human bodies on earth in various places and times. Purpose was to show the One and Only Divine Path to reach God; to know and understand what God wants from us; and, to show us the way and lead us by creating an example.  

It is inability to understand the relationship between Devi and Devas that we get confused when Devi is described as mother of Manu at one place and daughter of Manu at others. Because 14 Devatas are actually the 14 Manus, which too we have been unable to understand so far. It is they who have been described as Life, because all life is due to them. Due to this reason, she is also called Jagan-mata (the mother of the world). She is also the wife of Siva at some place and wife of Rudra at other (Siva and Rudra are one and the same).  

Vedas have described Devatas as the rulers of our organs of action and senses. Brhad-aranyaka and Paingala Upanishads confirm that they are 14 in numbers. The 14 Light or Noor of 14 Devatas kept descending in pure human bodies at different places and time. Finally, when the Kaliyug had progressed to an extent and Evil (Darkness) had begun to surmount Goodness (Light), all 14 came in succession and were called Ahlulbayt – People of the House (of Manifest Self of God) by people known as Muslims. Muslims revere the same 14 differently, Buddhists revere the 14 differently, Hindus revere the 14 differently, but the ultimate truth is that the same Devatas were responsible for showing the path and it is they who are being described at all places. We understood the path differently and labelled it as different religions.  

Prophet Mohammad too appears to be confirming this when he says that it was his noor that was in Adam, Ibrahim, Ismael and others and then came back to him. He not only took the names of various Prophets but also of some people in the progeny of Ismael. Quran confirms that Jesus too was from the same source when it talks of a spirit that entered Isa at the time of his birth. Unfortunately, Christians believed in the Holy Spirit but disjointed it with Paramatma (Supreme Spirit) of Hindus) and Rooh (Spirit) of Quran. Prophet Mohammad also said that my noor was created prior to all creations and that Ali and I are from the same Noor or Light. Moreover, verse 33 of Chapter al-Ahzab in Quran when read with verses 77 to 79 of Chapter al-Waqi-ah reveal that the creator Lord created a group of His chosen representatives, thoroughly purified them, gave them His wisdom, and then commissioned them to guide mankind, in every age and every clime, till eternity. One after another the prophets of God came with divine guidance at every stage of development in the human society; and in the end all 14 constituents of the Noor came in succession and were known as Ahlulbayt.  

A passage in Vishnu Purana further substantiates this view:  

Devi Yoganidra, “the great illusory energy of Vishnu, by whom, as utter ignorance, the whole world is beguilded,” was ordered by Vishnu to incarnate her in the eighth conception of Devaki. Then said Vishnu to her: “Kansa shall take you and hold you up to dash you against a stone; but you shall escape from his grasp into the sky, where the hundred eyed Indra shall meet you and do homage to you, through reverence forms, and shall bow before you, and acknowledge you as his sister. Having slain Sumbha, Nisumbha, and numerous other demons, you shall sanctify the earth in many places. Thou art wealth, progeny, fame, patience, heaven and earth, fortitude, modesty, nutrition, dawn, and every other female (form or property). They who address you morning and afternoon with reverence and praise, and all they Arya, Durga, Vedagarbha, Ambika, Bhadra, Bhadrakali, Kshemi or Kshemankari, shall receive from bounty whatever they desire.” 

If you notice, some of these names are the same as those described in the names of Sati in the Matsya Purana. This means that the same Devi, who was in noor or light state (hence referred to as ‘the great illusory energy of Vishnu (the Manifest Self), continued to move inside several of the illustrious women at various times and finally took birth in the house of Mohammad and was known as Fatima, thus becoming one of the 14 Ahlulbayt. 

So next time when you remember Lakshmi on Diwali, remember her not for the wealth and bounty that she may give to you. If you do so, you will only be expecting certain material benefits from a Devi who is responsible for everything, including our lives. Do not expect her to come and purify the various parts of your house. Instead, pray that she purifies the various parts inside your body. Strive to remain aloof from sins and do good deeds so that the Devi (one from light) removes all darkness from inside your body and unites your atma (self) with the Paramatma (Manifest Self). If you are able to build this relationship and the relationship so built lasts till soul departs from your body, you have attained Moksha or Salvation and will dwell forever in bliss.  

 

HAPPY DIWALI from MOHAMMAD ALVI

NOTES ON BUDDHA AND HIS DHAMMA [PART – 11]

B.R. Ambedkar is of the view that while all prophets promised salvation, Buddha didn’t make any such promise. True, but we must understand the reason. Buddha was one who had come to show the way to salvation and hence called himself marga data. Moksha-data or one who gives salvation was someone else, higher than Buddha. That is why he did not call himself Moksha-data. If you are reading my posts, you must be knowing who the Moksha-data are. Fact is that all the messengers including Rama and Krishna were marga-datas or those who showed the way to salvation. None claimed to be Moksha-data. All they did was to talk about the merits of salvation, but so did Buddha.

* * * * *

One of the chief teachings of Buddha is that Dhamma means reaching perfection in life. The perfections are perfection in body, speech and mind. Krishna taught the same but only in a different manner. His Purushottam or the Perfect man is one who has attained all these. There is again no difference. Neither is there any difference with the teachings of Ahlulbayt.

* * * * *

There is one more point that proves that Buddha’s teachings were based on Divine assistance. Hope you agree!

For instance, it is possible for an extra brilliant mind to sit and ponder and come to conclusion about the cause of human sufferings, their cure, etc. But how can that mind foretell the conclusions that none other than the creator knows, at that point of time. For instance, it is only now that we know that whereas oxygen gives energy to our body for all the minor and major acts that it performs, at the same time it burns up the body and it is because of oxygen that youthfulness degenerates into old age.

And Buddha said:

“All things, O Bhikkus, are on fire. And what, O Priests, are all these things which are on fire?

“The Eye, O Bhikkus, is on fire; forms are on fire; eye-consciousness is on fire; impressions received by the eye are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent, originates in dependence on impression received by the type, that also is on fire.”

“And with what are these on fire?” “With the fire of passion say I, with the fire of hatred, with the fire of infatuation, with birth, old age, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair are they on fire.”

“The ear is on fire; sounds are on fire; the nose is on fire; odours are on fire. The body is on fire; ideas are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent originates in dependence on impression received by the mind, that also is on fire.

“And with what are these on fire.

“With the fire of passion, say I; with the fire of hatred; with the fire of infatuation; with birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair are they on fire.”

“Perceiving this, O Bhikkus, the learned and noble conceive an aversion. And in conceiving this aversion, he becomes divested of passion, and by the absence of passion he become free and when he is free he becomes aware that he is free.”

* * * * *

In great detail, Buddha explains his theory of the impermanence of all things as per which all things are in a continuous phase of becoming that would lead it to Sunnya Vad (Zero State). The moral of this doctrine, as per Buddha, is to cultivate detachment. Also, we see that nearly every chapter of Gita talks of detachment, though excludes the talk on Sunnya Vad, and includes the talk on self-realization. Eventually, the two are endeavouring to come to same conclusion.

* * * * *

There is no doubt that Buddha was against ritual sacrifices. He minced no words in condemning it. But what sacrifices was he condemning? Fire sacrifices, animal sacrifices, etc. These sacrifices formed the chief part of Hindu religion at that time. Even today, there are a few who continue this practice. These sacrifices were performed to the burning of fire and to the chanting of hymns from the Vedas.

From where did these sacrifices originated is not known. We have seen in our study of the Vedas that they talk about serious subjects, of the sacrifices of life and happiness, peace, etc. given by a few for the benefit of humanity. In our study of the Vedas, we have seen that not a single verse of Vedas endorses the traditional sacrifices and the practice originated perhaps due to misunderstanding of the Vedic hymns. Alternately, these sacrifices could have been used as a ploy by the revered sages of the period, so as to safeguard the true verses of Vedas from getting lost. Making the common people remember the verses by heart was important, as writing had not developed by then. Had it not been for these rituals, it would have become impossible for the Vedic hymns to reach to us unaltered.

With time these sacrifices deviated to such an extent that people were performing grand sacrifices, at times consisting of thousands of animals to be sacrificed, and paying no heed to the moral and ethical values that are prerequisite for entering in the fold of any religion. If Buddha, the enlightened, was against such sacrifices, it is quite understandable. They had never been part of true Hindu religion and were result of deviation.

You will be interested to know that the Buddha is actually endorsing the true sacrifices that Vedas talk about, which we have highlighted in our commentary. People who embraced Buddha’s teachings, and were performing those ritual sacrifices at the time, felt that Buddha was against the sacrifices of the Vedas but didn’t realize that those sacrifices had no sanction even in true Hinduism. We have shown in our commentary of Gita that Krishna too condemned performing of ritual sacrifices.

Buddha’s answer to Brahmin Udayin confirms that the sacrifices given while treading the true path, as were given by the devas when they would come on earth, were the true sacrifices. The following translation shows that the same subject is being talked about in spite of the fact that this has been translated by a misguided translator, who himself never understood the true meaning of sacrifice nor knew anything about the identity of the devas. See what Buddha has said, as per existing translations:

“Fit sacrifice performed in season due

And free from cruelty, to such draw near

Those well-trained in the God-life, even those

who have the veil rolled back while (yet on earth),

who have transcended time and going. Such do

the enlightened praise, those skilled in merit.

“Whether in sacrifice or act of faith,

Oblation fitly made with heart devout

To that good field of Merit, - those who live

The Good – life, sacrificed, conferred, - so given

Lavish the offering; devas there with are pleased.

Thus offering, the thoughtful, thereby becoming wise,

Wins the blissful world from suffering fire.”

Read again. The ‘veil rolled back’ refers to the devas, who were in veil as they were not visible during Buddha’s period, who were ‘well-trained in the God-life’ and ‘who have transcended time’. These devas gave oblations, either through sacrifice of life or happiness (some devas were even kept in prison for a long time) or even sacrifices in acts of faith like giving away of the only bread in possession to a beggar while getting ready to break their fast, that too for three days in succession. If you read the lives of Ahlulbayt, you will realize how they gave all sort of sacrifices through their lvies. If anybody comes and say that all this is wishful thinking on part of us, then we wish to point out that the same translation also refers to the devas, thereby confirming that Buddha was talking of devas and none else. It is pity that the followers of Buddha did not try to explore who these devas were, even when there existed clear texts talking of devas being pleased of our offerings ‘in sacrifice or act of faith’ or of ‘oblation fitly made with heart devout’. Is it not the fact that this sentence includes all, not even excluding the Buddha? And is it not a prove that Buddha too is talking of devas (who, we have proved, when came in human body were called Ahlulbayt).

Winning of the blissful world from suffering fire is a clear reference to heaven and hell. We fail to understand why the immediate followers of Buddha were hell-bent on proving that there was no heaven and hell in Buddha’s teachings. Moreover, we have shown earlier in these notes that Buddha has referred to Brahma’s heaven, which further proves that the devas, even as per the Buddha, are those to whom all our acts go. They are the ones who would bestow heaven or hell, they are the ones who are masters of our organs of senses and actions, as has been said in the Upanishads.

Does all this not endorse our understanding of the Vedas and Upanishads? Also, does it not endorse the fact that Buddha was preaching the same path and in fact continuing the teachings of Krishna earlier, and Rama even before Krishna?

Fact is that the existing beliefs about self, Manifest Self, about God and about sacrifices were so deviated that Buddha had to criticize them vehemently. People unaware of the true teachings of the Vedas and Krishna saw the existing practices as Hindu practices and when Buddha criticized them, it was interpreted as though he was criticizing the teachings of Vedas and Krishna. This too confirms our conclusion that Buddha and Krishna belonged to the same chain of Messengers [Avatars]. When people deviated from the path shown by Krishna, there was a need to send another Avatar, just as the need to send Krishna arose when people had deviated from the Vedas and the teachings of earlier Messengers, including Rama. A very significant example of this is given in a Purana, which lists the descendants of Rama by name and concludes the discussion by naming a person who fought against Krishna in the battle of Mahabharata and got killed. Is it not a clear example of deviations occurring? The direct descendent of Rama fighting against the epitome of goodness and virtue – Krishna – and getting killed by none other than Krishna.

If you read Buddha’s words again, you will even find reference to ‘God’, something which is refuted by at least one school of Buddhists. And we have shown how Buddha has referred to the devas and also Brahma on several occasions.

* * * * *

Another example to prove our point is that when questions like ‘How was the Universe created; Is it everlasting, etc.?’ were asked, Buddha refused to entertain these questions and said that they could only be asked and entertained by wrong-headed people. ‘To answer these questions required omniscience which nobody had’, he said.

We have seen in the Vedas and the Upanishads that there exist long passages that talk about the creation of the Universe, the role of the devas and their relationship with the Absolute God on one hand and we, the humans, on the other hand. Yet, the adherents of the Vedas were unable to understand that and were either doubting those very theories or misinterpreting them when Buddha arrived. Buddha knew that the people in general were not sufficiently elevated to understand these complex issues. If they were still asking such questions, and not giving time to the more important task of elevating their self and their moral and ethical values, then they were wrong-headed people.

Fact remains that the wrong beliefs of the people as regard to the God, to the devas, to the purpose of creation, to their own soul, had become so deviated that Buddha did not find befitting to reply to their questions and stressed solely on the need to perform righteous deeds in life. When he did criticize God or soul, which was to give them a jolt out of their slumber from applying their mind regarding the corruption that they had allowed to penetrate in their beliefs.

* * * * *

B.R. Ambedkar has written a long list of questions that people used to ask about the Self and the origin of the universe. Innumerable questions that are mentioned is enough to suggest that people of the time were more involved in spending time and energy in discussing these subjects while the more important area of doing good to others and leading a life of virtuousness and piety was ignored. It was but natural that Buddha condemned such thinking. The same is the condition today, of all, be they Hindus, Buddhists or Muslims?

Take for instance the origin of the Universe. The questions that were asked were about its creation, existence and future. They were like: the world is everlasting, - the world is not everlasting, – the world is finite, - the world is infinite, - the body is the life (jiva), - the body is one thing and life another, - truth-finder exists after death, - he both exists and does not exist after death, - he neither exists nor does not exist after death.”

Some said the universe was created by Brahma, others said it was created by Prajapati sacrificing himself. There were innumerable similar questions that were hotly debated.

There is no doubt that there must have been an answer to these questions. For instance, there must be some beginning to the universe, even if the beginning was not what the people of the time believed it to be. The very fact that Buddha said that such questions could be asked by wrong-headed persons proves that he was not against the origin of universe, after all there must be some origin, but against spending time in seeking answers to these questions which are least important in comparison to the overall important need to do good deeds and work to make this world a better place to live, something for which man has been created.

The same logic can be extended to other areas like the concept of God, existence of soul etc. Experts of Buddhism are wrong when they try to prove that Buddha was against these when Buddha was actually trying to focus on other more important areas concerning mankind. Moreover, if we acknowledge Buddha as belonging to the same chain of Messengers, there was no need to spend time imparting the same teachings that had already been given by the Vedas and the Upanishads earlier.

Buddha himself said that knowledge is never final. There is always something more to be known. On the basis of this we are sure that learned scholars would add new dimensions to knowledge and give more examples to endorse our view, based on our inferences presented here.

B.R. Ambedkar unnecessarily tries to put forward the argument that these theories were merely speculative. Our view is that they may have been true or false, but the amount of interest people had in such subjects angered Buddha as they were supposed to spend time in improving themselves.

Then B.R. Ambedkar writes: “The Buddha did not believe that the world was created. He believed that the world had evolved.” Is evolution from nothingness not creation?

The Brahmins emphasized on knowledge but their characters never showed humanity. They too had got deviated repeatedly. Reading the Mahabharata tell how deviated their lives were from the teachings of Gita, given by Krishna. Likewise, reading the lives of saints and priests during Buddha’s time show how deviated they were from the teachings of Gita. When Buddha reinforced the true teachings yet again, they were viewed as new teachings.

B.R. Ambedkar has referred to slaves being pushed and beaten up if they were slow in bringing condiments for sacrifice. Such sacrifices or for that matter such knowledge was useless. That is why Buddha was particular that he who has knowledge must have Sila (virtue) and that knowledge without Sila was most dangerous. We again come to the earlier point. When Buddha criticized such knowledge, B.R. Ambedkar and others did not conclude that Buddha was against knowledge. But when he criticized the prevailing concepts of God, soul and sacrifices, they concluded that Buddha was against all these.

* * * * *

There is another point regarding the Vedas. B.R. Ambedkar has construed that Buddha “denied that the Vedas were sacred. He denied that whatever the Vedas said was final. He denied that the Vedas were infallible.”

This too is based on misunderstanding. The entire Vedas talk of the devas and nothing else. Brahma, Prajapati, Indradeva, Agnideva, Varunadeva, Vasudeva, Devi Saraswati, etc. are the subjects of discussion. During our little study so far, we have already encountered several instances where devas, Brahma, etc. are being mentioned by Buddha himself. In fact it is Brahma who told Buddha to start preaching to others when Buddha was in doubt.

Yes, it is true that in Tvijja Sutta the Buddha has declared the Vedas as a waterless desert, pathless jungle, in fact perdition (as per present translation). In that regard, Buddha and Krishna are on the same path as Krishna himself has said that to a true knower, Vedas are like a pond which has been flooded by an ocean. Fact is that both Krishna and Buddha criticized the Vedas because people of the time had understood them wrongly and clung to the devas mentioned therein, while forgetting the Absolute God who ought to be the purpose of all worship. Various false myths had been generated regarding the devas and the hymns too were translated as per their own understanding. These falsely understood hymns were chanted in sacrifices and people expected to gain salvation out of it. Our previous posts show how Vedas were wrongly understood. Buddha – the enlightened - knew the true content of the Vedas by the virtue of being enlightened and hence wanted people to disbelieve what had been told, what had been handed down, what was commonly reported, what was the agreeable belief or view, but test them on the basis of their intellect and understanding.

If you have read our posts, you will realize that all that has been understood as the true Vedas is just a pack of false understanding and Buddha actually wanted us to go for the search of truth, just as Krishna too tried to make us do but in vain.

See Buddha’s words: “Come, O you Kalamas, do not go merely by what you hear; do not go merely by what has been handed down from one to another; do not go by what is commonly reported; do not go merely by what is found in the scriptures; do not go by the subtleties of reasoning, do not go by subtleties of logic; do not merely by considerations based upon mere appearances; do not go merely by what looks to be genuine; do not go merely by word of some ascetic or superior.”

“What then should we do? What test should we apply?” asked the Kalamas.

“The tests are these,” replied the Blessed One; “ask yourselves, do we know whether: ‘these things are insalutary; these things are blameworthy; these things are reprehended by the wise; these things being done or attempted lead to ill-being and to suffering.’

“Kalamas, you should go further and ask whether the doctrine taught promotes craving, hatred, delusion, and violence.

“This is not enough, Kalamas, you should go further and see whether the doctrine is not likely to make a man captive of his passions, and is not likely to lead him to kill living creature; take what has not been given to him; go after another’s wife; utter falsehood, and cause others to practice like deeds?

“And finally you should ask: ‘whether all this does not tend to his ill-being and suffering.’”

Truly, the understanding of Vedas based on wrong translations led to all these evils. Those hell-bent on proving a religion called Buddhism out of Buddha’s teachings surely got enough points to put forth their claim.

* * * * *

Similarly, BR Ambedkar has derived on wrong conclusion when he writes: “all religions preach that to reach this kingdom of heaven should be the aim of man and how to reach it is the end of all.”

True, many people are of this opinion. But that does not mean that this thought has sanction from religion. Krishna ridiculed those, in Gita, who performed actions in love of heaven. And Ali said: “I do not perform virtuous deeds in love of heaven or in fear of hell. I do them because I am in the habit of doing these.” Islam too talks of nijaat or salvation as the higher virtue, higher than merely living in heaven.

* * * * *

In his conversation with one Potthapeda, Buddha says clearly that he has expressed no opinion on subjects related to the creation and existence of world, soul and its relation to body, life after death. He gives the reason for not expressing any opinion by saying: “Because this question is not calculated to profit, it is not concerned with the Dhamma, it does not redound even to the elements of right conduct, nor to detachment, nor to purification from lusts, nor to quietude, nor to tranquillisation of heart, nor to real knowledge, nor to the insight (of the higher stages of the Path), nor to Nirvana. Therefore is it that I express no opinion upon it.”

See what B.R. Ambedkar writes: “Now on another occasion the Rajah went to visit the Exalted One, and on coming to him saluted him and set down at one side. So seated he said to the Exalted One:

“Pray, Lord, does the Tathagata exist after death?”

“Not revealed by me, maharajah, is this matter.”

“Then Lord, the Tathagata does not exist after death.”

“That also, maharajah, is not revealed by me.”

Is it not in confirmation of what we have said earlier?