MokshaMargPrakashak …12

 

Yog Mimamsa

Here the Moksha marg is described in two ways  by means of Gyan Yog and Bhakti Yog-

Gyan Yog Mimamsa

Now ( as described in other faiths) with Gyan Yog, the form of Moksha Marg is narrated-

Firstly know the adwait all pervasive ParBramh who is called as Gyan, but his false nature has already been told . Considering self as absolutely pure Bramh form and believing desire-anger etc. and body etc. as delusion, is called as gyan but this is delusion only.

“ If self is Shuddha” then  why do you need to make efforts for Moksha? ‘ When self is Shuddha Bramh’ then what is the duty which remains to be done?

Further self are seen to be desirous-angry etc. and the conjunction of body etc.  is seen; hence when they would be absent then it would be ; but how its existence in present can be accepted to be delusion?

Then they say- The efforts for Moksha are also delusion only. Just as rope is rope only, knowing it as snake was delusion; with elimination of delusion it is rope only. In the same way, self is Bramh only, and was believing  self to be impure, that was delusion; with elimination of delusion, he is himself Bramh.

-          Such statement is Mithya. If you are Shuddha and are believing self to be ashuddha then it is delusion  but self is being ashuddha with desire-anger etc. and if he is known to be ashuddha then how is it delusion? Knowing him to be Shuddha would be delusion; hence with false delusion, what is the gain in believing self to be Shuddha Bramh?

There you would say – these desire-anger etc. are dharma of mind, Bramh is different.

The we ask you- Mind is your nature or not? If yes then desire-anger etc. are also yours and if it is not then are you gyan natured or corporeal? If you are gyan natured then you are seen to have knowledge by means of mind and senses. Without them, let someone show  gyan as having a different form, but that is not seen. And mind is gyan natured. There to whom does the gyan belong? Tell,  but no other one is apparent. If you are corporeal then without gyan how do you contemplate of your nature? This is not valid.

Then you say- Bramh is different.

Then  we ask you – that different Bramh is yourself or someone else? If it is yourself then ‘I am Bramh’ – the  gyan believing so is mind form only ; it is not different from mind and belief of oneness is in self only; then the one who is known to be different, in that the oneness is not accepted; hence if Bramh is different from mind then why does the mind form gyan believes oneness in Bramh? If the Bramh is different only  then why do you believe oneness with Bramh? Hence discarding delusion, know that just as touch etc. senses are nature of body, they are corporeal; the knowledge attained with them  is nature of soul; in the same way the mind is also mass of sookshma paramanus , which is part of body; the knowledge attained with them and the bhavas of desire-anger etc are all nature of soul only.

Further more- knowing is own nature; desire-anger etc. are affliction  bhavas, due to them the soul is impure. Upon attainment of kaal, the desire-anger shall be relinquished and in knowing the dependence of mind-senses would be abandoned, then Keval Gyan form soul would be purified.

In the same way the buddhi- ego etc. should also be known since mind and buddhi etc. are same and ego etc. are bhavas of affliction like desire-anger etc. Knowing  them as different from self is delusion. Knowing them as own, efforts should be made to eliminate the bhavas of affliction. Those who cannot eliminate them,  and desiring own greatness, those jivas manifest with promiscuity declaring them to be different ( not own) . Enhancing the bhavas of desire-anger etc. they engage in sensual subjects and deeds of violence etc.

The renunciation of ego is also believed differently by them. All are Param Bramh and there is no ownership anywhere, this is believed to be ‘renunciation of ego’ but this is Mithya since he himself  is somebody or not ? If yes. Then why should oneness not be believed in self? If he is not  then, who accepts all as Bramh? Hence one should not have oneness with body etc. others, not being karta of them is renunciation of ego. Having oneness with self is not a fault.

Believing all to be equal without differentiation is said to be renunciation of raga-dwesha, this too is Mithya since all things are not equal . Some are Chetan and some are achetan; some is one way, some are other way, how can they be treated as equal? Hence not accepting  other substances as favourable-unfavourable is renunciation of raga-dwesha. There is no fault in knowing the substances differently.

In the same way they indulge in false imagination of other bhavas of Moksha Marga form. With such beliefs they indulge in immorality, eat uneatables, do not differentiate the family etc., conduct in lowly activities, thus manifest in converse form.

If someone asks, then they say- this is dharma of body or everything happens in accordance with fate or as per desire of Ishwara, we should not indulge in vikalpa.

Look at the falsehood! Himself engages knowingly, which he calls as dharma of body; himself engages in acts with effort, which he calls as fate and with own desire enjoys , which he calls as desire of Ishwara. Engages in vikalpa and he says – ‘ we should not engage in vikalpa’; he wishes to enjoy sensory subjects and passions under pretext of dharma; hence such false logics are created.

If he does not manifest himself accordingly then we would accept his non-participation. For example- he himself is sitting in dhyan and someone covered him with a cloth , there he has not gained happiness in the least; hence it would be accepted as his non-participation truly. But if he accepts that cloth and starts wearing it and becomes happy by eliminating misery of cold etc. then how can we deny his participation in the matter? – The engagement of immorality, eating of uneatables, etc. activities are not carried out without wilfulness; how can his participation be denied?

Therefore if the desire-anger etc. have been eliminated then the engagement in any activity is not possible and if the desire-anger etc. are seen then one should engage in such a way as to reduce such bhavas and not enhance them with promiscuity.

And  several jivas by practicing control of breath etc., consider self to be gyani. There from Ida, Pingala, Sushmuna form nasal gates the breath is released, there with differences of varna, wind is the earth – such tattvas are imagined; with their Vigyan, with some practices the nimitta gets to be known; hence world is declared to be favourable-unfavourable and self is called as great, but these are worldly activities; these are not Moksha Marga. By  informing favourable-unfavourable to Jivas, what is the achievement by enhancing their raga-dwesha and generating own pride-greed etc.? 

And practices Pranayam etc., withholding the breath, “entered into Samadhi” – he says but just as an acrobat carries out acts by means of hands etc; in the same way here the activity was carried out with breath. Hands and breath – these are parts of body only; by controlling these how soul would be benefited?

Then you would say- By this the vikalpa of mind is eliminated, happiness is generated, he is not under influence of Yama, but all this Mithya. Just as in sleep the activity of Chetana is prevented; in the same way by withholding breath the activities of Chetana are prevented. There the mind has been blocked, the desires have not been eliminated; hence the vikalpa of mind has not been eliminated and without Chetana who experiences the pleasure? Hence it cannot be described as ‘pleasure was generated’. Such practitioners have been seen in these times and kshetra but none is seen to have  become immortal. With application of fire, they also are seen to die; hence it is a false imagination that ‘they are not under influence of Yama’.

 During the practice if some Chetana is there and if he hears some words, he calls it ‘anahad naad’ – but just as by listening to sound of Veena he considers it a pleasure; in the same way by listening to them, the belief of pleasure is unreal- this is merely satisfaction of senses; in reality there is nothing.

Further by withholding and releasing of breath ‘ So-aham’ this word is imagined and it is described as ‘un chanted chant’  but just as in the sound made by  ‘Teetar’ (pheasant) the word ‘you only’ is imagined  but the teetar knowingly does not create this sound ; in the same way the imagination of ‘so aham’ word is there; the breath does not make this word knowingly and merely by chanting-listening  the word there is no benefit; only by absorbing the meaning, the benefit can be attained.

There the meaning of ‘so-aham’ word is that- ‘that is me’. Here firstly this question should be raised that ‘who is he?’ Then it should be decided since by deciding about the substance and by having spirit of oneness with it the ‘so-aham’ word is generated.

There also when self is experienced as self then there is no possibility of saying ‘so-aham’; only for telling others to be of the form of self the ‘so-aham’ word is possible. For example a person, knows self as self then why would he say ‘ that is me’ ? Some other jiva who does not recognise self but knows some  characteristics of self , then   he is told – ‘the one who is such, that is me’ ; in the same way , know here also.

Further, by means of looking at forehead, eye-brows and front of nose, the dhyan of centre of forehead was attained which is considered as real. There with movement of cornea in the eye the corporeal substance was seen, what is the achievement in that? And by such means some knowledge of past-future is attained and  capability of movement on earth-sky etc. is achieved and body becomes healthy etc., then all these are worldly activities; Devas etc. have such shakti by nature only but this does not benefit us; the benefit is by elimination of desires of senses and Kashaya. But these are means for nourishing the sensory desires and Kashaya; hence all these means are absolutely not beneficial ; these cause lot of misery till death etc. and no benefit is attained; hence gyani do not take such trouble unnecessarily; only passionate jivas engage in such activities.

And someone is said to have attained Moksha with lot of difficulty  by means of lots of tapa etc. , and someone else is said to attain Moksha with lot of ease. Uddhava etc. are called param bhakta and were given sermon of tapa while prostitute was said to have attained salvation by speaking name etc. without efforts; there is no logic.

Bhakti Yog Mimamsa

Now the Moksha Marga described using Bhakti Yog  by other faiths is narrated. Its form is said to be having bhakti of two kinds, namely Nirguna- Saguna. –

Nirguna Bhakti – There the bhakti of Adwait ParBramh is Nirguna bhakti; which is carried out this way- ‘ you are shapeless, pure, not describable by mind-speech, limitless, all pervasive, one, nourisher of all, saviour of the lowly, creator-destroyer of all’- with several adjectives their qualities are recited; in them several adjectives are of shapeless etc form which are non-existence form; by accepting them absolutely , absence only is known since without shape etc. how can the  thing be? And several all pervasive adjectives are impossible, which have been shown to be impossible earlier.

Then they say- From aspect of Jiva ‘ I am your servant’ , from aspect of shastra ‘I am your part’, and from aspect of tattva ‘ You only is me’ – all the three are delusions only.

[we ask them]- This doer of bhakti is Chetan or corporeal? If he is Chetan then that Chetana belongs to Bramh or himself ? If it belongs to Bramh then ‘I am your servant’ – such acceptance is only in Chetana; hence Chetana is proved to be nature of Bramh and the nature and its owner have oneness relationship ; the servant and swamy relationship is not acceptable .  Servant and swamy relationship is possible when substances are different. And if this Chetana belongs to him only, then this swamy of chetana is different substance ; then ‘ I am part’ and ‘you only is me’ – all this is proved to be untrue.

And if the one engaged in Bhakti is insentient then it is impossible to have buddhi in insentient – how such buddhi was attained? hence ‘I am servant’ is feasible only when the substances are separate and ‘I am your part’ – this cannot told  at all since ‘you’ and ‘I’ are possible only when they are different but how the part and its owner be different ? Part is not a different substance; the gathering of parts,  that only is owner and ‘ you are me’ – such statement is contradictory ; in one substance  oneness is also believed and differentness is also believed then how is it possible? Hence avoiding delusion, one should decide.

So many just recite the names. The name which is recited, without knowing his nature, how can just recital of name be beneficial ? If you say – the greatness is in the name only then if the name of Ishwara is given to some Papi person, there the invocation of names of both would give same result, how is that agreeable? Hence after deciding the nature, the one who is worthy of bhakti, his bhakti should be carried out – thus the form of Nirguna bhakti was described.

Saguna Bhakti – Where the stuti is carried out by  describing the deeds carried out with desire-anger etc., itis called as Saguna Bhakti.

There in ‘Saguna Bhakti’  the worldly beautification description is carried out of Thakur-Thakurani like that of actor-actress. Own -other’s wives related all vyavahara is narrated pertaining to conjunction-separation.  The stealing of clothes of women taking bath, stealing curds, touching women’s feet, dancing in front of  women, etc. activities which make worldly people ashamed  in doing, those activities are carried out by them; hence these acts can be done with extreme lust only.

They are said to engage in war etc. but those are ‘acts of anger’. For demonstrating their glory such means were adopted but all those are ‘acts of pride’. ‘Several deceptions were done’ but those are ‘acts of deceit’ . Efforts were made for attainment of substances and sensory materials but those are ‘acts of greed’. ‘Intrigues etc. were carried out’ but these are acts of laughter etc. – all these deeds are carried out under influence of anger etc.  only.

In this way after revelation of acts of desire-anger etc. it is said that ‘ we engage in stuti’  but if the acts of desire-anger etc. itself are worthy of stuti then which acts would be deplorable? In the world and in the shastras, the acts which are extremely deplored, describing such acts and engaging in stuti is like  condemning self.

We ask you- If someone does not name anyone and describing such acts if he says that ‘ someone has done these deeds’ , then whether you will call them good or bad? If they are good then Papi are good ; who is bad? If they are bad then anyone doing such deeds is bad only; impartially do justice.

If taking sides you say  - Such description of Thakur is also stuti then why did Thakur engage in  such deeds? – what was established by doing such deplorable deeds?

If you say- For initiating the practice these were done. Then what benefit was accrued to self and others by engaging in other’s wife enjoyment etc. deplorable deeds ? Hence such deeds are not possible to have been done by Thakur. If Thakur has not done these deeds , you only say , then the one who was not guilty was called guilty; hence such description is also criticism ; not stuti.

While doing stuti, the qualities which are described, the manifestations are also in accordance with them and they are considered desirable; hence while describing desire-anger etc. deeds, himself also manifests in desire-anger etc. forms or the desire-anger etc. appear attractive, but such bhavas are not desirable .

If you say- such bhavas are not carried out by bhakta, then without such manifestation, how they were described? Without attraction towards them, how bhakti was done? If these bhavas only are good then why Bramhacharya and forgiveness etc. are called good? These are mutually contradictory.

For Saguna bhakti the idols of Rama-Krishna etc. are decorated/adorned with curves and wife etc. such that upon seeing them desire-anger etc. bhavas would be generated.

The shape of Ling of Mahadeva is created. Look at the fallacy! The thing which is avoided to even name, the world keeps it hidden , that shape is worshipped. Did he not have other parts? But great fallacy is revealed by such acts only.

And for Saguna Bhakti , different types of sensory materials are collected. There it is credited to Thakur but themselves they enjoy it. [self] cook food etc. and ‘Thukur was fed’ – it is  told, then imagining offerings, themselves eat it.

Hence we ask- Firstly does Thakur  suffer from hunger-thirst? If not then how such imagination is feasible? If he was suffering with thirst etc. then Ishwar himself was miserable; how can he eliminate other’s sufferings? And food etc. materials you only  offered to him but blessed food should be given by   Thakur and not made by self ; it cannot be something done by yourselves. Just as someone makes presentation to king and the king gives him prize then it is alright to accept it. But if he gives presentation to king and king does not say anything and himself he says - ’king gave me prize’  - saying so he accepts it then it would be a game. In the same way these acts are not bhakti but some form of comedy.

Then Thakur and yourself are two or one? If two then  you met Thakur  and later Thakur gives gift then only accept it; why do you accept it yourself? If you say that ‘Thakur is idol form only’; hence I only imagine that I did the act of Thakur, then ‘You only are Thakur’ and if they are one only then giving offering and receiving Prasad is untrue. On being one this Vyavahara is not possible ; hence people desirous of food etc.  only imagine such things.

And arranging dance-music etc. for Thakurji; in winter-summer-spring etc. seasons collecting sensory materials for worldly people – these acts are carried out. There the credit is given to Thakur and the nourishment of senses for self is carried;  such arrangements  are carried out by jivas obsessed  in sensory subjects. There the birth-marriage etc. and sleeping-awaking etc. are imagined, such intrigues are carried out like those done of girls in games of dolls etc. All these are shows only; there in no real substance in them. Further, boys enact the form of Thakur and show activities, by which they nourish  their own sensory subjects and say – ‘ this is also bhakti’ , what more can be said ? -All such fallacies are seen in saguna bhakti.

-          Thus the two types of Bhakti told in Moksha Marga are shown to be Mithya. 

In this way the Moksha Marga is narrated conversely.   

Mimamsa of Moksha imagined by other faith

The form of Moksha is also propounded conversely; there Moksha is also described in different ways-

One form of Moksha is thus- In Baikunth Dham Thakur along with Thakurani are enjoying different enjoyments, reaching there and engaging in their service is Moksha- but this is converse.

Firstly the Thakur himself is obsessed with senses like worldly people, thus the Thakur also is like kings etc. And if services of others is required then Thakur is also dependent. And after attainment of Moksha , if he does service only like that of king , then this too is service only; how can there be happiness by being dependent? Hence this is not acceptable.

Another form of Moksha is this- Himself becomes like Ishwara- this too is Mithya. If he is like him and all are different then there are several Ishwara, then who shall be creator-destroyer of the Lok? If all are possible then with different desires, there would be mutual opposition. And if it is one only then all are not equal. If he is lower then being lesser, there would be restlessness for being higher, then how can he be happy? Just as ‘ small king- big king’, happens in world; in the same way the ‘small-big Ishwara’ would be there in salvation, but this is not acceptable.

One Moksha is described thus- In Baikunth there is flame like that of lamp, there the flame merges with flame, but this is also Mithya. The flame of lamp is corporeal insentient – how can such flame be feasible there? And by merging of flame with flame, this flame remains or gets destroyed? If it remains then the flame keeps enhancing , then flame would be less and more and if it gets destroyed then how can the destruction of own sovereignty be accepted as venerable ? Hence this too is not acceptable.

One Moksha is described thus- Atma is Bramh only. Upon removal of obscuration of Maya , he is salvation form only, but this too is Mithya. When he was associated with obscuration of Maya,  then he was one with Bramh or different? If he was one then Bramh only is Maya form and if he was different then with removal of Maya he merges with Bramh, then his sovereignty remains or not? If it remains then the omniscient would feel his existence separately, then they should be described as merged in conjunction , but not in reality. And if existence does not remain then who would like to accept  own non existence? Hence this too is not acceptable.

Several describe Moksha in this form also- With destruction of Buddhi etc. Moksha is attained, then  it means that the gyan dependent upon the mind and senses of the body did not remain; such thing can be said with destruction of desire-anger etc. but if the absence of Chetana also is accepted then how can the insentient state like stone be accepted? By  doing good own knowledge enhances , then by doing very good how can absence of knowledge be accepted? And in Lok the Gyan is important , the insentient state does not have any greatness; hence this too is not acceptable.  

In this way with different imagination Moksha is described,  there nothing is known really, in worldly state imagining salvation they babble  as desired.

In this way in Vedant etc. faiths the narration is otherwise.

Consideration of Muslim Faith

In the same way in faith of Musalmans different narration is there- just as Vedant believe the Bramh to be creator-destroyer of all beings, all pervasive, one, pure; in the same way they believe ‘Khuda’  to be so.

Just as they believe in ‘incarnation’ ; in the same way they believe in ‘Paigamber’.

Just as – they believe in accounting of Pap-punya and suitable punishment etc. ; in the same way they believe ‘Khuda’ does.

Just as – they call cow etc. to be venerable ; in the same way they call pig etc. to be; all are tiryanch etc.

Just as- they call salvation  by means of ‘bhakti of Ishwara’ ; in the same way they tell with ‘bhakti of Khuda’.

Just as – they nourish compassion somewhere and nourish himsa somewhere ; in the same way they nourish ‘meher (compassion)’  and ‘katla ( killing)’ in some places.

Just as – they nourish ‘tapa’ somewhere and  sensory subjects somewhere else; in the same way they also do.

Just as – they prohibit the meat-liquor- hunting etc. ; somewhere great people are indulging in them also; in the same way they also declare  its prohibition and acceptance.

-          In this way the similarity is seen in different ways.

Although names are different but the similarity of intended meaning is seen. Ishwara, Khuda etc. have similarity in primary belief, but in secondary belief there are lots of differences ; there  they narrate conversely, are promoter of sensory subjects-kashaya, himsa etc. form pap which are opposite to direct Praman etc. ; hence the faith of Musalmaan should be known to be highly contrary form.

-          In this way in this kshetra-kaal , the faiths which are highly practiced; their Mithya form was narrated.

There someone may say- if these faiths are Mithya, then why eminent kings etc. and highly scholar people have practiced these faiths? 

Its answer- The Jivas are having Mithya passions since beginningless times. In these faiths Mithyatva only is promoted  and Jivas are desirous of sensory subjects-kashaya form activities; hence in these sensory subjects -kashaya form activities only are promoted. There the kings and scholar’s objective of sensory subjects and Kashaya is served by such dharma. The jivas, in spite of knowing these acts as pap, are desirous of engaging  in them crossing the limits of worldly criticism, and when these acts are described as dharma , then who would  not be engaged in such dharma? Hence the support for these dharmas is specifically there.

Probably you may say- in these dharmas the detachments, compassion also are told?

[Its answer]- Just as false coin does not get accepted without fake similarity; in the same way without mixing some truth the lies cannot be promoted. But all have promoted sensory subjects - kashaya only for  their own benefit. Just as in Geeta by giving sermon the objective was to engage in war ; in Vedant with description of Shuddha , the objective of promiscuity is promoted- know the same elsewhere.

And this Kaal is worst; hence in this the engagement in worst dharma is even more.

Look! In this Kaal Musalmaan have become more, Hindus have reduced; in Hindus also, the others have increased, the Jains have reduced; therefore this is fault of kaal.

-          Thus in this kshetra, in this kaal , ‘the tendency of Mithya Dharma’ is high.

Continued….