Dr. Zakir Naik - Belongingness?

[Guest guest]

Namaste all;

 

As i came across all this, i logged in IRF, which was Dr. Zakir Naik's

site, and upon reading a bit of his section on comparative religion, i

could make out what i take to be the fundamental and most common

mis-interpretation perceived to be directed to advaita.

 

I am no scholar, but the general mood i got from his renderings is

that same and old question by the purvapaksha's: "so, you think you

are god?", only in a rather re-frased manner.

 

In my understanding, belongingness is also a concept of advaita, once

taken in a clear, unbiased perspective (which is obviously almost

impossible...).

 

 

My point is, quoting from the b.g. chapter VII:

 

"Ye chaiva saattvikaa bhaavaa raajasaastaamasaashcha ye;

Matta eveti taanviddhi na twaham teshu te mayi.

 

12. Whatever being (and objects) that are pure, active and inert, know

that they proceed from Me. They are in Me, yet I am not in them."

 

Within this confines, the statement that hindus believe everything is

god should be unfounded. The statement would be true only upon the

dawn of knowledge, yet once this took place no statement about god

would ever be valid.

 

The solution for this dilemma i take to be a modified way of

understanding belongingness. Not all of this belongs to god, or is

god, but all of this is "in" god. Sustained, supported. Yet the

unchanging could never relate to the changing, so until the perceiver

himself transcends from the changing and realises his true nature

within the changeless, and as the changeless, all that could be said

is merely intellectual. In other words, to reach god consciousness it

is necessary to reach beyond the realm of changes, where all that

"belongs" to god would loose meaning, and the single reality, that was

being called god would remain, nameless as "it is".

 

To stop the mental process, hence stopping the world, therefore

merging in god, would prove that all is god, but within the world it

is not possible to prove this or that, so such a statement that

"hindus believe all is god" is invalid. From vyavaharika viewpoint, it

is even easier to understand that hindus as well believe that all this

"belongs to god", since in an unsurmountable number of occasions,

"that" which is the supporter, creator and destroyer is said to be the

only "reason" for the world to be. The substratum.

 

My warmest regards...