Fwd: Zakir Naik Vs Jayadvaita Maharaja

769 views
Skip to first unread message

Shandilya Rishi das ( Bangalore-IN)

unread,
Jun 15, 2012, 9:26:45 PM6/15/12
to Shandilya das




Dear all,

Here is one of Zakir Naik's (rather casual) public remarks on ISKCON:


and here is a text sent to this conference in 2008 by Caitanya-caran prabhu
describing in more detail Naik's charges against ISKCON:

HH Jaya Advaita maharaj's reply appears below

Dear VAST devotees,
An aggressive Muslim scholar, Dr Zakir Naik, who defeated well-known Hindu
leader, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, in a highly-publicized debate at Bangalore
and caused many Hindus to convert to Islam, has leveled the following
charges against ISKCON in his ongoing critique of Hinduism:
1. ISKCON Imposes its own philosophy on the Vedic scriptures by a
systematic process of knowledge filtration, wherein references that
support its philosophy are promoted and even dressed up and contradictory
references are neglected or discredited. They claim to follow the Vedas,
but, knowing that hardly any aspects of its philosophy are stated in the
Vedas, they conveniently claim that the Puranas – and specifically the
Bhagavata Purana that supports their philosophy – contains the highest
revelation, thus contradicting most Hindu teachers.
2. Further, they claim that their God, Krishna, is the source of all
incarnations, not Vishnu as is believed by most Hindus. And their main
support for this claim is based on a peripheral scripture, the Brahma-
Samhita, the relevant chapters of which were conveniently “discovered” by
their leader Chaitanya. Classic con-case: “find” a “scripture” that
supports a claim that is not supported in the actual scriptures.
3. They claim that scriptures are the unchanging word of God, but
when asked why crucial, often-touted verses that support their philosophy
are not found in the relevant scriptures, they conveniently say those
scriptures were changed by some unknown people. For example, they claim
the spiritual knowledge can be had only in one of the four Vaishnava
sampradayas, but the verse establishing the need for taking initiation in
a sampradaya (sampradaya vihina ye mantras te nisphala matah) is not found
in or the verses establishing the supposed divinity of Chaitanya
4. Their founder Swami Prabhupada has the almighty gall of claiming
that his Gita is the “Bhagavad Gita as it is”, the only right version of
the Gita, when his translations bear obvious evidence of not being right
at all, of being tampered to promote his philosophy.
5. They have a distastefully egocentric view of all religions
including Hinduism in which everything and everyone is supposed to be
preparing for the advent of their claimed avatar Chaitanya:
a. Based on worse-than-flimsy references from Bhavishya Purana, they
claim that Jesus and Mohammed are representatives of their God, Krishna
b. Based on a verse from Bhagavatam that is riddled with factual
errors, they claim that Buddha is also an incarnation of their God, but
who circumstantially teaches the opposite of what their God teaches.
c. Based on “revelations” of their own teachers like Bhaktivinoda
Thakura, they claim that all other teachers like Shankaracharya,
Madhavacarya, Ramanujacharya (who are all much more respected than their
Chaitanya) are all subordinate to Chaitanya both in stature and teachings.
d. Their founder Prabhupada arrogantly lampoons practically all other
Hindu leaders, many of whom are much more respectable among Hindus than he
himself.
In summary, ISKCON propagates its own philosophy as the “highest”
revelation of Vedic philosophy mainly by exploiting:

1. The ignorance that most Hindus have about their own scriptures and
2. The innocent faith that Hindus have in sadhus, especially sadhus
who are well-educated and have “white-bodied” followers.
How do we respond to these arguments? Any help either in the form of
replies, or references to articles or books will be appreciated, but best
would be a brief responses to his specific accusations.
Seeking your help and thanking you in advance,
Chaitanya Charan das


and Jayadvaita Maharaja's response to some of the charges:


1. ISKCON Imposes its own philosophy on the Vedic scriptures by a
systematic process of knowledge filtration, wherein references that
support its philosophy are promoted and even dressed up and
contradictory references are neglected or discredited. They claim to
follow the Vedas, but, knowing that hardly any aspects of its
philosophy are stated in the Vedas, they conveniently claim that the
Puranas – and specifically the Bhagavata Purana that supports their
philosophy – contains the highest revelation,

This seems a rather backwards characterization. By this account,
ISKCON has a philosophy, which it scurries about seeking to support,
rather than being the recipient of a philosophy handed down through
tradition. We'll stand by our tradition, thank you.

By the way, where do we find any religion or philosophy--for that
matter, any view of the world--that doesn't emphasize some evidence
and assign to other evidence a position of lesser or no importance?

Every tradition--be it religious, philosophical, cultural,
mathematical, or scientific--faces the task of resolving apparent
contradictions. Each seeks to do this in a manner that respects its
own internal hermeneutics. And such attempts are best understood and
evaluated by qualified experts within the tradition itself.

Equally, all such attempts are disparaged by outsiders seeking to
claim for their own world view an exclusive monopoly on truth.

So Dr. Naik's approach is nothing new, and nothing especially
impressive.

[ISKCON's claims have it] thus contradicting most
Hindu teachers.

This argument, of course, is irrelevant.

For one thing, of course, Dr. Naik regards virtually all Hindu
teachers as exponents of terrible error. So if we disagree with most
of those supposed exponents of error, why should that be a complaint
against us?

For another thing: Does Dr. Naik want to claim that truth consists of
whatever point of view a majority of teachers expound? Unless he
wishes to make that extreme and unreasonable claim, his objection has
no meaning.

2. Further, they claim that their God, Krishna, is the source of
all incarnations, not Vishnu as is believed by most Hindus.

Again, a fallacious argumentum ad numerum (an argument or appeal to
numbers). Is the authority--let alone the truth--of a religious or
philosophical doctrine determined by what a majority of people
believe?

If "most scientists" believe something, does their belief determine
what must be scientifically valid or true?

We are more concerned with the statements of scripture, as understood
through a sampradayic tradition, than with what is "believed by most
Hindus."

And their
main support for this claim is based on a peripheral scripture, the
Brahma- Samhita, . . .

Oh, and the Bhagavatam. . . and the Bhagavad-gita.

3. They claim that scriptures are the unchanging word of God, but
when asked why crucial, often-touted verses that support their
philosophy are not found in the relevant scriptures, they
conveniently say those scriptures were changed by some unknown
people. For example, they claim the spiritual knowledge can be had
only in one of the four Vaishnava sampradayas, but the verse
establishing the need for taking initiation in a sampradaya
(sampradaya vihina ye mantras te nisphala matah) is not found in or
the verses establishing the supposed divinity of Chaitanya

Regarding "the verses establishing the supposed divinity of
Chaitanya," I have a problem understanding what is being said. If it's
that verses supporting the supposed divinity of Chaitanya are
unavailable, that claim is surely wrong. Yajnair sankirtanair prayair,
etc.

As far as I know, internal disputes concerning textual issues are
common to all traditions. (For the Koran, see sections 7-9 here:

(Also here, under "Hadiths (Traditions) About Compiling the Koran":

(As for the supplementary Islamic literature, the Hadith: "All these
different versions of [a specific passage from the] Hadith have
problems in their chain of narrators. This had been acknowledged by
Ibn Abi Shayba, the authority on Hadith, but he saw that the several
defective chains of narration might support one another and so the
Hadith could be accepted."

But what of it? Each tradition has its own system of hermeneutics,
a system which, again, those who aggressively champion their own truth
claims will disparage

The strategy is fairly well established: Do your best to raise doubts
among believers by disparaging their sources of authority, while
keeping mum about whatever might be controversial or iffy about your
own.

4. Their
founder Swami Prabhupada has the almighty gall of claiming that his
Gita is the “Bhagavad Gita as it is”, the only right version of the
Gita, when his translations bear obvious evidence of not being right
at all, of being tampered to promote his philosophy.

Are we to presume that any claim that one's translation is
legitimate--even exclusively legitimate (a claim we don't make)--must
for that very reason be illegitimate?

Further: Does Dr. Naik offer himself as the final authority on what is
a "right" translation of Bhagavad-gita? Or does he appeal instead to
the authority of other Hindu teachers whom we know he holds in utter
contempt?

5. They have a distastefully egocentric view of all religions
including Hinduism in which everything and everyone is supposed to be
preparing for the advent of their claimed avatar Chaitanya:

"Preparing for the advent"? That doesn't sound like our philosophy.

Apart from that:

Does Dr. Naik view as "egocentric" all religious truth claims that
argue for their own exclusive superiority?

If so, does Islam no longer make such exclusive claims?

And is Dr. Naik, with his admirable respect for religious traditions
other than his own, stand at the pinnacle of freedom from
egocentricity?

a. Based on worse-than-flimsy references from Bhavishya Purana,
they claim that Jesus and Mohammed are representatives of their God,
Krishna

1. We barely ever refer to the Bhavishya Purana. (We don't need to.)

2. Oops! We got it wrong: Jesus and Mohammed were representatives of
Allah. (But, of course, if God is one, if there's therefore no
question of "my" God and "your" God, and if "Allah" and "Krishna" are
both understood to be names for the Supreme Being. . . . )

b. Based on a verse from Bhagavatam that is riddled with
factual errors, they claim that Buddha is also an incarnation of
their God, but who circumstantially teaches the opposite of what
their God teaches.

Apart from the "factual errors" part, he has it right. Fine. God can
do such things, no?

c. Based on “revelations” of their own teachers
like Bhaktivinoda Thakura, they claim that all other teachers like
Shankaracharya, Madhavacarya, Ramanujacharya (who are all much more
respected than their Chaitanya) are all subordinate to Chaitanya both
in stature and teachings.

"All much more respected"--certainly not by Zakir Naik. For him, all
Hindus are in abject darkness. So what does it matter how much they
respect anyone?

For Dr. Naik, surely even Shankara, Madhva, and Ramanuja, what to
speak of Chaitanya, were infidels. So why should he care about what
degrees of respect might be accorded them by the ignorant, credulous,
and superstitious mass of Hindu kafirs?

Again, Dr. Zakir tries to put over a fallacious "appeal to
popularity," and a cynical one at that, because the populace to whose
authority he's appealing is one he holds in contempt.

d. Their founder Prabhupada arrogantly
lampoons practically all other Hindu leaders, . . .

The same leaders Dr. Naik treats with polite deference and respect?

many of whom are much
more respectable among Hindus than he himself.

Again, the fallacious appeal to numbers. Decoded, the statement says,
"The other leaders are respected by a larger number of people" (or a
larger number of whatever sort of people Dr. Naik may choose).

But so what? Is truth decided by popular opinion?

And, again: For Dr. Naik, those Hindus who supposedly decide which
other Hindus are the most respectable are all poor misled souls
afflicted by the darkest of ignorance. So he is making a veiled appeal
to their popular authority while at the same time looking down upon
them with the utmost disdain.

In summary, ISKCON propagates its own philosophy as the “highest”
revelation of Vedic philosophy mainly by exploiting:

1. The ignorance that most Hindus have about their own scriptures

And this is an ignorance that Dr. Naik, on the contrary, never seeks
to exploit.

That aside, whether most Hindus are ignorant or well versed has
nothing to do with whether our truth claims are true or
false,reasonable or unreasonable, or well or badly supported by Vedic
authority.

Going back to earlier times in history, the scholars in our line like
Kaviraja Goswami, Baladeva, Visvanatha, Jiva, Sarasvati Thakura and
others certainly didn't buy into Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy because
of "ignorance of their own scriptures."

and 2. The innocent faith that Hindus have in sadhus, especially
sadhus who are well-educated and have “white-bodied” followers.

Nor, it seems, did those scholars buy into Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy
because of "innocent faith in sadhus," what to speak of faith in
well-educated white guys.

Hare Krsna.

I hope this helps.



aditya vikram sampath

unread,
Jun 16, 2012, 5:43:15 AM6/16/12
to bhakti-...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
 
While I agree with the mail, there one more lie in the below mentioned mail which needs to be debunked.

 
"
An aggressive Muslim scholar, Dr Zakir Naik, who defeated well-known Hindu
leader, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, in a highly-publicized debate at Bangalore
and caused many Hindus to convert to Islam,"
 
This is baseless statement,
 
A) Although I don't agree with Sri Sri, Zakir Naik did not defeat him in any debate but merely shouted him down in front of his Kangroo Court of followers many of them on his payroll, objectivity he could not even debate with an Advaity- forget coming near Vaishnavas
 
B) Regardign many Hindus converting because of his suppossed victory, that is nothing more than a joke and false claim like the rest of his claims.
 
One hopes that Zakir Naik gives up Asuric ways which as per the laws of karma is leading him to Yamarajas plannets mentioned in Canto 5 Srimad Bhagvatam (as he seems to committed almost all the sins mentioned there) before his time is up and find the true meaning of life.
 
Unitl then when going down, it seems he wants to take as many down with him as possible.
 
With Humble respects
 
Aditya
 
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 02:26:45 +0100
From: shandil...@yahoo.co.uk
Subject: {Bhakti Vriksha} Fwd: Zakir Naik Vs Jayadvaita Maharaja
To: shandilya.ri...@gmail.com
--
Please Chant:
"Jaya Sri Krishna Chaitanya Prabhu Nityananda,
Sri Advaita Gadadhara Srivasadi Gaura Bhakta Vrinda" - 3 times
and
 
"Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare,
Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare". - 108 times
 
and be happy!!
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Bhakti Vriksha" group.
To post to this group, send email to bhakti-...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bhakti-vriksh...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.co.in/group/bhakti-vriksha?hl=en?hl=en

Shandilya Rishi das ( Bangalore-IN)

unread,
Jun 16, 2012, 9:40:43 AM6/16/12
to bhakti-...@googlegroups.com
Dear prabhu,

Your comments are right prabhu. When I received this mail  I had question whether Ravishanker was defeated in a public view and also whether many converted from hindus to muslims. But since I received this mail from very senior devotee  I did not bother to research on this. Anyway, it is my mistake. Please apologize.

Incidentally, I also saw the video of Zakir on ISKCON-it is ridiculous even any beginner in Krishna Consciousness will not say such things as answer to his questions as he claims in the video. It is a blatant lie. Fools tred where angels fear to walk.

But some senior devotees should refute all his baseless claims and comments about ISKCON in recorded video and upload in the net.
 
Dasanudasa,

Shandilya Rishi dasa
Bangalore
Mobile-7829208108, 7204868450
             

 
 

From: aditya vikram sampath <adi...@hotmail.com>
To: bhakti-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 16 June 2012 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: {Bhakti Vriksha} Fwd: Zakir Naik Vs Jayadvaita Maharaja
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages