Unity In Diversity


Here are a few extracts from the Civil Writ Petition titled Cpl. Rohtash S. Sehrawat (Retd.) vs. Ministry of Human Resource Development & Others, filed in the High Court of Delhi; the Holy Scriptures cited therein clearly show the Oneness of God:-

“3. That the Petitioner is also aggrieved by the unfair trade-practice of selling disinformation to the Petitioner and the public at large— surprisingly the said disinformation is being sold to the gullible public in the name of ‘faith’ by certain private Publishers and Trusts. Hence, the public & the petitioner are not only being deceived but are also being exploited and misled. To cite just two instances:-

A) Whereas Bhagvad Gita says:

a) Chapter IV, Verses 6-9 and Chapter VII, Verses 23 & 24:

I, the Lord of all beings (though birthless, deathless & formless by my unsurpassable and undecaying Supreme nature) bring my these very attributes {properties} under my control through my Divine potency {‘yogmaya’} and, thus, I manifest myself into a bodily form {the form of homo sapiens or other creatures like ‘mats’ or ‘narsinh’} whenever on this earth the righteousness is on the decline and evil is on the ascendant. He who knows this, achieves ‘Moksha’ {by the path of ‘gyana’}.

I am the Supreme Spirit which is incomprehensible to a human mind & to his five senses, and I am the embodiment of all Truth, Bliss & Consciousness {sublime knowledge which can discern between the Eternal Truth and the ‘momentary’ Truth—a truth bound by a time-dimension, in other words the ‘maya’}. But by my being “born”—as aforesaid, the ignorant believes that I have assumed a finite ‘human form’. And he/she worships the said form as a demi-god but the fruit he/she derives from such worship is short-lived because the “worshippers of the gods attain the gods, whereas my devotees shall eventually come to Me, and Me alone, howsoever they may worship Me”.]

Yet the Respondent No.10, amongst others, unfortunately preaches otherwise through the books printed, published & sold by it, viz.

i) Vide the first picture-plate in its book titled “Shrimadbhagvadgita” [(ISBN No.81-293-0104-0) 89th Edition] a demi-god in a finite human form, namely Lord Krishna, is described as “Bhagwan” (the Supreme Spirit)—an act which the Gita itself describes as an act of worshipping a finite human form, i.e. “an act of ignorance”.

This blemish has probably crept in because of that portion in the ‘Upanishad’, not the Gita proper, wherein Sanjay describes Lord Krishna as “Bhagwan”—vide Chapter XVIII, Verse 74.

The ignorant may ask, “How can I worship without having a form or image of God in my mind?” To this, Chapter-II, Verse 4 of hadith titled ‘Sahih Muslim’ [ISBN No.81-7151-042-6 (Vol-I) authored by Imam Muslim, Revised Edition 2004, published by Kitab Bhawan, New Delhi] beautifully replies, in effect:

…you worship Allah as if you are seeing Him; and in case you fail to see Him, then perform your prayer with this belief in mind that at least He can see you.

ii) Through ignorant mis-transliterations of the Holy Gita by some self-styled ‘pandits’, several wrong signals have unfortunately been already sent about us to the world at large over the past few centuries. As a result, eminent thinkers abroad (like Max Weber) have looked down upon us as passive appendages to the dame luck or ‘karmfal’, i.e. people who are lethargic because they by their religion are taught to resign to luck instead of being full of action.

Whereas the fact is that Gita exhorts us to action, excellence and ‘karmyoi’, i.e. to achieve excellence in the discharge of our worldly duties and perform the acts so enjoined regardless of their effect upon us as individuals—vide Chapter VIII, verses 48,56,66 Gita enjoins:-

By offering the fruit of all your worldly duties to me you are, thus, taking refuge in me and, therefore, in your performance of such duties I shall absolve you of all such fruit as you [out of your ignorance of the meaning of ‘karmyoga’] regard as a sin. And the karmyogi who, thus, depends upon me, attains by My Grace the eternal & imperishable state of ‘Moksha’ even while performing all actions. Arjuna, therefore, one should not abandon one’s worldly (innate) duty—even though it may seem to be tainted with blemish, because just as the {all-purifying} fire is itself enveloped in smoke, almost all the worldly undertakings are also clouded with demerit {e.g. the Surgeon cuts in order to heal— even as the desired result of such a painful cut may fail to materialise}.

Man attains the highest perfection by performing his ownnatural duties as if the same were a worship in itself to Him—from whom the spring of creation has streamed forth and by whom all this Universe is pervaded.

The secret of ‘nishkam karma’ is revealed in Chapter XI, Verses 32 & 33:

… Even without you all those warriors arrayed in the enemy’s camp must die…These warriors stand already slain by me; be you only an instrument, Arjuna.

Gita further clarifies and cautions in Chapter XVIII, Verse 47:

It is better to perform one’s own duty—{though seemingly devoid of applause}, than to do the duty of another-- howsoever well performed, because it is only by performing the duty ordained by one’s own nature that man does not incur any sin.

iii) The mis-transliterations by which the humble petitioner is aggrieved, have been caused by the commercially minded respondent’s violation of the sacred rider enshrined in Chapter XVIII, Verse 67, viz.

The ‘gyana’ encapsulated in Gita, this secret Gospel, should never be imparted to a man who undermines penance (chastisement), nor to him who is wanting in devotion, nor even to him who does not lend a willing ear—and in no case to him who finds fault with Me.

iv) Further that Respondent No.12, and the adherents of its line of thought, attribute a form (‘akaar’) to the Supreme Being when they say that God is like a “bindu” (point) while surprisingly in the same breath relying upon the Holy Gita—whereas Gita itself says that God is “formless”. It is pertinent to mention that even a point has a form, and a line is defined as the loci of such points.

It is respectfully submitted that the belief in Quran and the Guru Granth sahib is no different than what Gita, in essence, says, viz.:

I) Holy Quran says in Chapter 112: Purity of Faith (Al-Ikhlas):

1. Say: He is Allah, the one;

2. Allah—the Eternal & Absolute;

3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;

4. There is none like Him—{since he neither sires nor is sired}.

II) Holy (& Guru) Granth sahib says in ‘Japuji sahib’:

Ek Omkar’: God is one;

‘Nirakar’: He is formless;

‘Nirwair’: He is free of ill-will, i.e. he does not even consciously punish—{‘karmfal’ being the result of the ‘Circle of Karma’}.

III) Holy Gita says in Chapter VIII, Verse 9:

I am subtler than the subtle, i.e. I am formless and indefinable [in terms of the vocabulary at the command of man].

B) That with great respect to all gods, it is submitted that the said respondents are, thus, not only misleading the masses but are also trading in faith (i.e. selling for a price their own personal beliefs under the guise of the “teachings of Gita” or of religion). So much so that respondent No.11 is selling faith itself under the guise of donations for building a particular shrine solely on the assurance that Lord Rama was born at the place specified by it—while, on the other hand, issuing a disclaimer to the effect that it is the mere faith of the said respondent that a particular spot in Ayodhaya was the actual birth-place of Lord Rama (a god in finite human form).

It is pertinent to mention here that because of such conflicting statements, the unfortunate incidents-- like the one at Godhra, have taken place which certainly call for the intervention of the State to find the pure truth and inform the general public about it, especially every such issue as is the root-cause of communal disharmony.

It is pertinent to mention here that HolyQuran teaches confluence (although not convergence) and accommodation when it says:-

Chapter 109: Those who reject faith (Al-Kafirun):

1. Say: O ye that reject Faith [as taught by Prophet Mohammed]!

2. I worship not that which ye worship.

3. Nor may ye worship that which I worship.

4. And I shall not worship that which ye have been wont to worship.

5. Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

6. To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Chapter CXCIV, Verse 1057 of the same hadith (supra) says:

The Messenger of Allah said: The earth is a mosque for you, so wherever you are at the time of prayer, pray there. [Though the Hindus, too, believe that God is omnipresent, yet in the Muslim religion-- unlike the practice amongst the Hindus & Jains, there is no ‘pratishthapan’ of God in a particular place of worship.]

Chapter CXCV, Verse 1968 of this hadith further says:

The Holy Prophet sent for the chiefs of banu al-Najjar and said to them: O Banu al-Najjar, sellthese lands of yours to me. [Hence, the lands for a mosque cannot be acquired by force, although many a temples have been built on grabbed public lands.]

In the aforementioned circumstances, the balance of convenience—though not the right beyond doubt, is in favour of the construction of a Hindu temple at that spot.

However, the following is apparently true:

“Es pak zamin pe

Hindu ne kiya hai

Ya Musalman ne kiya hai;

Jisne bhi kiya hai,

Sajjda hi kiya hai.

Is sar-zamin ko

‘Gar Khuda ne niwaja hai,

Ye zamin bant nahin sakti--

Waqt ka takaza hai.”

(All heads—be it a Hindu’s or a Musalman’s, have bowed at this place.

The soil which God has Himself hallowed, cannot divide communities—it’s merely a

matter of time.)

It is respectfully submitted that one of the original ‘ahadith’ forbids the construction of a mosque at a place at which another one has been pulled down—vide …”

Author: Prof. Gulshan Bajwa

Advocate-on-Record (Supreme Court of India)

e-mail: Themissociijuris@yahoo.com