Then they say- Bramha creates the Universe, Vishnu protects it, Mahesh destroys it- but telling thus is also not possible since while doing these deeds if someone wants to do something and other wishes to do something else, then there would be mutual contradiction.
If you say- The Parameshwara has only one form; why should there be contradiction?
Then he is told- He only creates and he only destroys- what is the benefit in such a deed? If the universe is not favourable to self then why was it created and if it is favourable then why was it destroyed? And if earlier it appeared favourable hence it was created; later it was felt unfavourable, then it was destroyed- if it is so then either the nature of Parameshwara was different or the nature of universe was different. If the first side is accepted then the Parameshwara did not have same nature, what is the reason for not having same nature, that you tell? Without reason how can the nature change? And if second side is accepted then the universe was under control of Parameshwara, why was it permitted to be such that it appeared unfavourable to self.
Here we ask- Bramha creates the universe; how does he do so?
One way is this – just as in constructing a temple, lime-stones etc. materials are gathered and the construction is done; in the same way Bramha, collects materials and creates the universe. Then tell the place from where he brought the materials and collected? And one Bramha only created it, so he would have taken time or his body would have several hands, how was it? Tell. Whatever you tell, upon consideration, the contradiction would be seen.
One way is as follows- Just as king orders and the deed is carried out accordingly; in the same way with the order of Bramha, universe gets produced; then whom did he order? And those who were ordered, where from they brought the materials for construction? Tell this.
Another way is this- Just as the Riddhi holder desires and accordingly the deed is carried out on its own; in the same way when Bramha desires, the universe gets produced; then Bramha is the karta of desire only; the Lok was generated on its own and the desire was that of Param Bramh only, what was the role of Bramha that Bramha was called as creator of the universe?
Then you would say- Param Bramh also desired and Bramha also desired, then Lok was produced. So it appears that the desire of Param Bramh alone is not sufficient; hence there is lack of capability there.
Further we ask- If lok is created by construction, then the creator makes it for happiness; hence he would create it as favourable only. In the Lok the favourable things are very few; unfavourable are seen to be several.
In worldly jivas the Devas were made, they were made favourable for enjoyment and for doing bhakti. But why worms, insects, dogs, pigs, lions etc. were made, for what purpose? They are not beautiful to look at, they don’t do bhakti; in every way they are unfavourable only. And by observing poor, miserable narakis, all get unhappy and it generates aversion- why should such undesirable be made?
He says- Jiva due to his pap only suffers the paryayas of worm, insect, poor, naraki etc.
Hence we ask- if these paryaya are due to fruition of pap, then why in the creation of Lok, they were made for which purpose? And if Jiva manifested later in pap form, so how did he manifest? If they manifested on their own, then it appears that Bramha produced then first, but later they were not in his control, for this reason, Bramha would have been miserable only.
If you say- With Bramha causing manifestation only, they manifest accordingly.
Then we say- why were they manifested in pap form? The jivas were created by himself only, why did he make them bad? Hence this too is not acceptable.
And in Ajivas the gold, perfume etc. substances were made for enjoyment; why the bad smell , bad colours, misery causing substances were made? With their darshan Bramha surely does not get any pleasure.
There you would say- They were made for punishing the Papi jivas.
Then we say- Why did he do so for jivas created by him only? That he had to make pain giving materials firstly? And dust-mountain etc. some substances are such which are not enjoyable nor painful; why were they made? On its own they may be made whichever way, but the creator makes it with some objective.
- For this reason why Bramha is called as Karta of Universe?
And Vishnu is called as protector of the Lok. The protector should be doing two things only- one is that he should not allow the causes for generation of misery to occur and secondly he should not allow the reasons for destruction to occur.
There in the Lok, the cause for generation of misery are seen here and there everywhere and with them the jivas are seen to be miserable only. Hunger-thirst are seen, heat-cold gives misery, jivas cause misery to each other, weapons are cause of misery.
And several causes for destruction are being seen. Diseases etc. and fire, poison – weapons etc. are seen which are cause for destruction of paryaya of Manushya etc. and Ajivas are also seen to have mutual causes for destruction.
- From both these types if no protection was provided then what did Vishnu do being protector?
He says – Vishnu is protector only; look! For hunger-thirst etc. the wheat-water etc. have been made; the insect gets crumbs and elephant gets required quantity; in the calamity he provides assistance; with presence of circumstances leading to death, he saves one like it was done to Titahari (sand piper) In these ways Vishnu protects.
He is told- If it is so, then where Jivas are miserable due to hunger-thirst etc., there they are not provided with wheat-water etc., in calamity there is no assistance provided; with smallest reason death occurs. There his capability was reduced or did he not have knowledge?
In the Lok there are several such miserable jivas who end in death ; why did Vishnu not protect them?
Then he says- This is result of the activities of the Jivas.
He is told- Just as powerless-greedy liar doctor tells when someone is cured – ‘I have done it’ and where undesired occurs and death results, then he says- ‘ it was his fate’; in the same way you say- ‘where good happened , then it was due to Vishnu and if bad happened then it was result of his activities’. – why do you indulge in such false imagination? Good or bad, both should be called as due to Vishnu or they should be called as ‘result of activities’. If it is due to Vishnu then several jivas are seen to be miserable and dying early. How can the one who engages in such activities be called as protector? And if it result of activities then ‘ as you sow, so you reap’, what protection Vishnu has provided?
Then he says- Those who are disciples of Vishnu, they are protected.
He is told- Insect, birds etc. are not disciples, in providing them food and being assistant in calamity and not allowing death to occur etc., why do you believe it as deeds of Vishnu and therefore protector of all? Accept him as protector of disciples only. There even the disciples are also not seen to be protected since non disciples also are seen causing miseries to disciples.
Then he says – In several places, Prahlad etc. have been helped.
He is told- Where they have been helped, there you believe thus only, but we directly observe the disciples being troubled by non disciples like Mleccha, Musselman etc. and damaging the temples etc. hence we ask ‘ here he does not help, then whether capability is not there or the knowledge is not there’. If the capability is not there, then he is holder of capability even less than them or if knowledge is not there, then he is having agyan.
Now, if you say- the capability is there and knowledge is also there, but the desire was not there ( to help), then why do you call him protector of disciples ?
- Thus Vishnu cannot be accepted as protector of Lok.
Now they say- Mahesh destroys.
There we ask- firstly Mahesh destroys always or only when the great holocaust is there, then only he does it. If he always does it then just as Vishnu was venerated for protecting ; in the same way he should be denounced for the destruction, since protection and destruction are opponents.
And how does he carry out destruction?- Just as a person kills someone with hands etc. or by getting it done with someone; in the same way Mahesh destroys with own parts or by ordering someone ? There every moment lots of Jivas are being destroyed in all Lok , how does he carry out destruction with which parts and ordering whom at the same time? If Mahesh just desires and with his desire the destruction occurs on its own, then he has always deplorable attitude of killing and how does the desire for killing several jivas at the same time manifest? If he destroys upon great holocaust , then does he do so with desire of Param Bramh or does he do so without his approval? If he does so with his desire , then how did Param Bramh get such anger that he desired to destroy all , since without reason the desire to destroy does not occur and the desire to destroy only is called as ‘anger’, please tell its reason ?
If you say- Param Bramh had created a game which has now been demolished; there is no reason.
Then he is told- Even the person creating a game makes it when it appears enjoyable; when it is unenjoyable then it is kept away. He finds this Lok as enjoyable-unenjoyable then it is nothing but raga-dwesha with the Lok; why do you call the nature of Bramh as observer? Observer is one who keeps watching-knowing whatever is happening. If he produces it believing it to be enjoyable-unenjoyable and then destroys it then how can he be called observer? Since being observer and being creator-destroyer- both are mutually opposite; both are not possible to one person.
Param Bramh had the desire that ’I am one , now I shall be many’ , hence he became many. Now he had such a desire that ‘ I am many , now I shall be one’. Just as an innocent person does some work and then wishes to undo that work; in the same way Param Bramh being many desired to be one; hence it appears that ‘ the act of being many was carried out innocently’; if it was carried out with knowledge of future, then why the desire to undo it would have been felt ?
And if without desire of Param Bramh, Mahesh destroys then he is opponent of Param Bramh and Bramha.
The we ask further- How does Mahesh destroy the Lok? If he does it using own body parts then how does he do destruction of all together? And if with his desire the destruction occurs by itself then the desire was already done by Param Bramh; what did Mahesh destroy?
Further we ask- Upon destruction where did the Jiva-Ajiva of the all Lok go?
Then he says- The bhakt jivas merged with Bramh while others merged with Maya.
Now we ask- Maya is separate from Bramh or does it become one later? If it remains separate then like Bramh, Maya also is permanent, hence Bramh did not remain adwait and if Maya becomes one with Bramh then those Jiva which had merged with Maya, they also along with Maya merged with Bramh. Hence upon great holocaust, all merged within Param Bramh only, then why should one do efforts for Moksha?
There those jivas who merged with Maya; upon creation of Lok again, the same jivas would return to Lok or since they have merged with Bramh; hence new would be generated? If the same would come then it appears that they remain separate, hence why they are called as merged? If new would be generated , then the sovereignty of Jiva remains for short period only, hence why should they make effort for salvation?
He says- The earth etc. have been told which merge with Maya; that Maya is non-corporeal sentient or corporeal insentient? If it is non-corporeal sentient then how can corporeal insentient merge with non-corporeal? If it is corporeal insentient then does it merge with Bramh or not? If it merges then due to its merger the Bramh is also mixed with corporeal insentient and if it does not merge then his Adwait nature is lost.
If you say- they all become non-corporeal sentient.
Then we say- This results in oneness of soul and body etc. and this worldly jiva accepts oneness anyway, then why do you call him agyani?
Further it is asked- With holocaust of Lok, the Mahesh is destroyed or not? If it does then does it happen together or happens earlier or later? If it happens together then how can the one getting destroyed, destroy the Lok? If it happens earlier-later then Mahesh after destroying Lok did not remain himself , he also became part of universe only?
- Such Mahesh is believed to be destroyer of universe, which is impossible.
In this way and in other ways, Bramha-Vishnu-Mahesh cannot be accepted to be creator-protector-destroyer of universe; hence Lok should be believed to be eternal.
Establishment of the beginningless-endless nature of Lok
In this Lok the Jiva etc. substances are there, they are individually beginningless-endless and their state only keeps getting changed, from this aspect, they are called as generated-destroyed and the swarg-narak-dweep etc. would always remain the same since beginningless time for ever.
You may ask – Without creating, how did these shapes form? If they exist then they have been created.
Then we say- They are such since beginningless time, then what argument can be there? Just as you believe the Param Bramh to be beginningless-endless; in the same way Jivas etc. and swarg etc. are believed to be beginningless-endless.
You will say- How did the Jivas and swarg etc. be there?
We will say- How did Param Bramh be there?
You will say- Param Bramh is self established .
We will say- jivas and swarg etc. are self established.
You will say- how can there be equality between them and Param Bramh?
Then (we say) – what is the flaw in this possibility? In creating new Lok, in its destruction, we have shown several flaws. What is the flaw in believing Lok to be beginningless-endless ?- that you tell.
And you accept Param Bramh but that is not different from Lok ; in this world jivas are there, they only with real knowledge- with means of Moksha Marg, attain Omniscience-veetrag state.
Here (their ) question- You call different jivas to be beginningless-endless; after salvation they are shapeless; how can they be different then?
Its answer- After salvation whether omniscient can see them or not? If they are seen then some shape must be seen , without seeing shape what was seen? And if they are not seen then either the thing does not exist or omniscient does not exist.
Although liberated Jivas do not have shape which can be seen with senses, from that aspect they are shapeless but they are knowable to omniscient; hence they are having shape. When they have shapes, then if they are separate, what is the flaw there? And if from aspect of family you call them same, then we also accept. Just as wheat has different types but family is same; from this aspect if accepted as one, then there is no flaw.
In this way with real shraddhan, all substances in Lok should be accepted to be beginningless-endless uncreated different. If unnecessarily with delusion you do not take decision of right or wrong then you are responsible; you only would reap the result of your belief.
Negation of spread of progeny from Bramha
They call it spread of progeny from Bramha with production of sons-grandsons etc. and in those kulas the Rakshas-Manushya-Deva-Tiryanch were mutually produced- thus it is told. There Manushya from Deva, Deva from Manushya, Manushya from Triyanch, etc. with some mother-some father, some son-daughter is said to be produced , how is it possible? And with mind only, or with wind etc. or by smelling veerya etc. the conception is said to occur , this appears visibly wrong.
- By these happenings, how did the rule of son-grandson remain? And great Mahant are said to be born to other mother-father , but how can those Mahant people be born to immoral mother-father? – this is abuse in the Lok , then how can they be called as Mahant? There Ganesh etc. are said to be produced with soil etc. and parts of some are mated with parts of another, thus visibly wrong conceptions are described.
Avatar Mimamsa ( Analysis of Incarnation )
They say that 24 incarnations occurred; out of them several incarnations are said to be complete incarnation, some are called as partial incarnation. When it is said to be complete incarnation, then Bramh remained pervasive elsewhere or not? If he was pervasive then why these incarnations are called as complete incarnation? If he was not pervasive then whether Bramh remained in this form alone? And if partial incarnation occurred then the part of Bramh is said to be everywhere, what is new in that ? There the job was insignificant, for which Bramh had to carry out incarnation ; hence it appears that without carrying out incarnation , Bramh did not have sufficient capability of completing the task, since the task which can be completed with less effort, why should one make more effort for the same?
In the incarnations there are those of Crocodiles etc. which were of the form of lowly Tiryanch paryaya for accomplishing small task, how can that be possible? And for Prahlad the incarnation of NarSingh occurred, there why Harinyankush was pemitted to be thus and why for long period he made own disciple suffer? And why did he adopt such a form?
Nabhi Raja is told to be bestowed with Vrishabh incarnation , there for giving pleasure of son to Nabhi Raja, the incarnation was carried out, then why did he indulge in intense tapa? He did not have any objective at all.
If he says- for demonstrating to the world. Then in some incarnation the Tapas etc. are shown and in some incarnations the enjoyments are shown, how will world know which is better?
Then he says- There was a king by name Arahant. He accepted the faith of Vrishabh incarnation and revealed Jain faith, but in Jains there was no singular Arahant; the one attaining omniscience becomes venerable, he only is called as ‘Arhat’.
And Ram-Krishna – these two incarnations are called as primary, there what did Ram incarnation do? Crying for Sita, fighting with Ravan, ruled after killing him and in Krishna incarnation firstly being cow-herd, engaged in several improper activities with other women-Gopikas, then killing Jarasindhu etc. ruled kingdom; what was established by such activities?
There Ram-Krishna are said to be one form but where did they stay in the intermediate period? If they remained in Bramh then they stayed separately or as one? If they stayed separately then it appears that they are different from Bramh and if they remained as one, then Ram only is Krishna, Sita only is Rukmani; how they are told differently?
And in Ram incarnation Sita is primary and in Krishna incarnation Sita is said to become Rukmani , but she is not called as primary ; Radhika Kumari (Radha) is called as primary.
When asked then they say- Radhika was disciple; how can the servant be treated as primary discarding own wife? And Krishna was engaged in enjoyments with other women including Radhika but what kind of bhakti is this? Such deeds are highly deplorable and abandoning Rukami, Radha was made as primary- was this was done knowing enjoyment with other woman as proper? Further he was not obsessed with Radha alone , he was also obsessed with Other Gopikas and Kubja etc. other women- in this way this incarnation was engaged in such deeds.
Then they say- Lakshmi is his wife and money etc. are called as Lakshmi but those are like stones, dust etc, from the earth ; in the same way the jewels gold etc. are seen as wealth. Who is the Lakshmi other than that whose spouse is Narayan. Sita etc. are called as forms of Maya; hence when he was obsessed with her, then it implies that he was obsessed with Maya?
How much we can say?- Whatever they describe, it contradicts but jivas like to hear the stories of enjoyments; hence narration of these is pleasing.
Such incarnations are described, these are called as Bramh form and others are also called as Bramh form.
Some believe Mahadeva as Bramh form and call him as ‘Yogi’, why did he adopt Yog? And he is adorned with deer skin and ashes, for what purpose these are being worn? Garland of bones is being worn but even touching of bones is deplorable, why it is being worn in the neck? He is adorned with snake etc. but what is great in that? He eats Datura so what is good about it? He keeps a trident , why is he fearful of ? Parvati is accompanied but being Yogi keeps a woman- why such contradiction? If he was sexually desirous then he should have stayed at home. He has carried out different types of contradictions, their objective is not understood , it appears like deeds of mad person but he is called Bramh form.
Sometime Krishna is called his servant and sometimes he is called as servant of Krishna. Sometimes both are called as one; there is no clarity.
And sun etc. are called as forms of Bramh and they say that Vishnu has told- in metals gold, in trees Kalpa Vriksha, lies in gamble etc. is ‘myself’. There no consideration of right or wrong is carried out. With some part, several people believe it to be Mahant, that itself is called as form of Bramh but Bramh is all pervasive, then why such specific has been carried out? And in sun etc. and gold etc. Bramh is present then just as – sun illuminates , gold is wealth , with such qualities they are treated as Bramh but lamp etc. also illuminate like sun , silver-iron etc. are also wealth like gold, such qualities are there in other substances also , hence they should also be accepted as Bramh; them you treat them as small-big, but the family is one only- for establishing such false Mahant-hood , different types of arguments are forwarded.
In the same way JwalaMalini etc. several Devis are called as forms of Maya, generating Pap of himsa etc. , they are worshipped but Maya is deplorable, how can she be worshipped and how Himsa etc. are treated as proper? And cow, snake etc. animals who eat uneatable etc., are called as venerable; fire-air-water are treated as Deva and called venerable; tree etc. are called venerable by creating some arguments.
What more can be said ? – Those having names of masculine gender, they are imagined to be ‘Bramh’ and those having names of female gender, are imagined to be Maya and several substances are worshipped. But what is the use of worshipping all these? That is not considered. With false worldly objectives the world is deceived.
There they say- The creator makes the body and Yama kills him; while dying the agents of Yama come to collect him ; after death a lot of time is consumed on the way ; there the accounting of pap-punya is carried out and punishments are given.
- This is imaginary false logic; infinite jivas keep having birth and death at every samaya, there how can these activities be carried out simultaneously? – Further no purpose is seen for having such belief.
Further upon death with Shraaddha etc. they all said to be benefited. There during life time with the punya-pap of someone else, somebody else has not been seen to become happy-unhappy, then why should it so happen after death ? – such logic is created to delude the people and serve their own greedy objectives.
The insect, moths, lion etc. also keep having birth and death, they are said to be jivas of holocaust. But just as manushya etc. are seen to be having birth-death; in the same way it happens for them also; what purpose is served with false imagination?
And in their shastras the stories are narrated, upon consideration they are contradictory.
Conducting Yagya etc. is said to be dharma- there the large animals are sacrificed ; great himsa is carried out with fire etc. and several jivas are killed. Look, in their own shastras and in the Lok, the himsa is denounced, but they are so cruel that these are not accounted and they say – for the yagya only these animals have been created; killing them is not wrong.
There the generation of clouds etc., destruction of enemies etc. are said to be the benefits and for their own greedy objectives the kings are misled; just as someone tells being alive in spite of consuming poison which is visibly contradictory. In the same way with himsa, the attainment of dharma and such objectives are visibly contradictory. The ones who are killed, they do not have any shakti, no one suffers their misery. If some powerful and favourable was sacrificed then probably it would have been understood. And there is no fear of pap; hence papi people are killing the weak ones for their own selfish purposes and thus
are harming self and others.
Continued….
