MokshaMargPrakashak …11

 

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….

MokshaMargPrakashak …10

 

Fifth Chapter

  Description of other faiths

Thus this jiva, as described above, since eternal times is manifesting in Mithya Darshan-Gyan-Charitra form; due to which undergoing the miseries of the world, sometimes in Manushya etc. paryayas gets capability of special shraddhan etc. . Now if with those special shraddhan etc. means, he nourishes the Mithya Shraddhan etc. only, then the salvation of that jiva from miseries is extremely rare.

For example- some person is sick, if with some care he partakes wrong medicines then the treatment of the disease is difficult only; in the same way this jiva is having Mithyatva; by attainment of some gyan etc. capability, if he partakes different shraddhan etc. means of opposite nature, then the salvation of this jiva becomes difficult.

Therefore just as a doctor, informing the flaws of wrong diets,  prohibits their consumption; in the same way here the flaws of specific Mithya Shraddhan etc. are described and they are prohibited –

Here the Mithyatva etc. bhavas which are present since beginningless times, they should be known as Agraheet Mithyatva ( Instinctive Mithyatva) since they have not been accepted fresh  and by nourishing them specially, further Mithyatva etc. bhavas are produced , which should be known  as Graheet Mithyatva ( Inculcated Mithyatva).

The description of Agraheet Mithyatva etc. has been carried out earlier , know it from there and now the Graheet Mithyatva etc. are narrated, know them.

The Shraddhan of KuDeva-KuGuru-KuDharma and imaginary Tattvas is called as Graheet Mithya Darshan and where by means of converse description the ragas etc. have been nourished – the practice of such Kushastras  faithfully is Graheet Mithya Gyan and the conduct where the passions are generated, accepting it as dharma form is Graheet Mithya Charitra.

Now these are elaborated-

Indra, Lokpal etc. and Adwait Bramha, Ram, Krishna, MahaDeva,  Buddha, Khuda, Peer, Paigamber etc., and Hanuman, Bhairon, Kshetrapal, Devi, Dahadi, Sati etc. and Sheetala, Chauth, Sanjhi, Gangaur, Holi etc. and sun, moon, planets, Aut, Pitra, Vyantar etc. and cow, snake, etc., and fire, water, tree etc. and weapons, ink, vessels etc are several; with their converse shraddhan they are worshipped with a  desire to get their desires fulfilled but they (all these) are not means for fulfilment of desire; hence such shraddhan is called as Graheet Mithyatva.

How   that converse Shraddhan is practiced, is now described-

All pervasive Adwait Bramha Mimamsa

Adwait Bramha is believed to be all pervasive doer of all , but he does not exist.

Firstly he is believed to be all pervasive but all substances are visibly different and their natures are also seen to be different, how can they be accepted as ‘one’?

Acceptance of ‘One’ can be carried out in following way –

One way is this- all are different, by imagining their gathering,  they are given some name. For example – Horse, Elephants are different, their gathering is named as ‘Army’; the ‘Army’ is not different substance; in the same way if all substances are called as ‘Bramha’ then that ‘Bramha’ is not established to be a different substance, it is just imaginary only.

One way is this – All substances explicitly are different but they are called ‘One’ from aspect of Jati ( family). For example – hundred horses are there, they are explicitly different hundred in numbers, by viewing their similarity of shape etc, they are called one Jati (family). But that Jati is not different from them. In the same way if all are called as one ‘Bramha’ from aspect of specific Jati , then that ‘Bramha’ is not established to be a different entity.

One way is this- All substances are different, with their conjunction a skandh is produced which is called as ‘one’. For example the paramanu of water are separate, with their conjunction it is called ‘ocean’ etc. and similarly the conjunction of paramanus of earth is called as ‘pot’ etc. but those ocean etc. and pot etc. are not different entity from those paramanus ; hence in this way all substances are different and in some sense they together become ‘one ‘, then that is ‘Bramha’- if this is believed then that ‘Bramha’ is not established to be different form them. 

One way is this- the parts are different  and to whom they belong, that owner is ‘one’. For example the eyes, hands, feet etc. are different and to whom they belong that Manushya is ‘one’; hence in this way all the substances are parts and to whom they belong, that owner is ‘Bramha’. This entire Lok, is part of gigantic form Bramha – this is believed. But if there is gap between the hand-feet etc. parts of Manushya then oneness is not maintained; only in being combined they are called ‘sharir’(body). In the Lok the gap between substances is visibly seen , then how can oneness be accepted in them ? If, in spite of gap, oneness is believed then where separate-ness will be accepted?

Here someone says- (between all substances) the parts of Bramha in sookshma  form are there, by means of which they are all joined.

He is told- that part which is joined with another part, does it remain joined with that part only or does it break and keeps joining with other parts also?

If you accept the first side then with the movement of sun etc., the sookshma parts with which it is joined, they shall also move and with their movement, the other coarse parts with which those sookshma parts are joined, would also move. In this way the entire lok would be unstable. Just as by pulling one part of body, all the parts get pulled; in the same way with  movement of one substance, all substances would move, but that is not seen.

If you accept the second side then with breakage of parts they would become different only, then how oneness would continue? Therefore how can the belief of oneness of ‘Bramha’ of entire Lok be feasible?

One way is this – Firstly it was one then it became many, then again it becomes one; hence it is ‘one’. For example – the water was one, in different pots it was separated and when joined together then it becomes one. Or, for example- there was a lump of gold  which became bangle, earing form and later again it joins to become lump of gold; in the same way the ‘Bramha’ was one and later it became many form and again it would become one; hence it is ‘one’ only.

If the oneness is believed in this manner then  when it became many form, then  was it joined or separated? If it is called joined then  the earlier described flaw would be applicable. If it is called separated then in that period the oneness did not maintain.

There, water-gold etc. in spite of being different are called as one from aspect of Jati. But here all the substances do not appear to have one Jati. Some are Chetan and some are Achetan, thus several forms are there. How can they be called as one Jati?

And if it is believed that it was one and became many then like stone after breaking becomes many pieces ; in the same way the Bramha had pieces, now if they are believed to have combined then their forms remain different or become as one? If they are different then they are different with their own forms and if they become as one then corporeal would become Chetan and Chetan soul would become corporeal.

There with several substances a single substance is generated, then in some period it would be called as many substances and in some period it would be called as one substance; ‘ beginningless-endless one Bramha is there’ – this cannot be said.

If you say- With or without creation of Lok , ‘Bramha’ remains as it is ; hence Bramha is beginningless-endless.

Then we ask – In the Lok earth-water etc. are seen, they are produced separately new or the Bramha only has taken their forms? If they are produced new separately then they are different from Bramha, the adwait Bramha did not remain all pervasive. And if Bramha only became their form then sometimes it was Lok and sometimes it was Bramha , then how did it remain as it is?

Then he says – all the Bramha does not become Lok form, some part only becomes that.

He is told- for example – a drop of ocean became poison form, from aspect of coarse view point it is not felt but if considered from aspect of sookshma view point then from aspect of drop, the ocean is different. In the same way one part of ‘Bramha’ being different became Lok form, there from aspect of coarse view point it is not felt, but if considered from sookshma view point then with respect of that part the ‘Bramha’ was different; that differentness has not happened to someone else.

In this way believing Bramha to be all pervasive is delusion only.

Another form is this way- just as sky is all pervasive; in the same way Bramha is all pervasive one. If he believes thus, then he should believe ‘Bramha’ to be huge like sky and where pots and pans are there, in the same place Bramha is also there like sky in Lok; but how can pots and pans and sky be called as one? In the same way how can Lok and Bramha be called as one ? And the characteristics of sky are explicit everywhere; hence it is believed to be all pervasive but the characteristics of Bramha are not explicit everywhere; hence how can he be present everywhere? – in this way also the Bramha is not omnipresent everywhere.

In this way upon consideration one Bramha form is not feasible in any way. All substances are felt differently.

Here the opponent says – All are one but you are deluded; hence you do not see them as one. And you gave logic, but the form of Bramha is not knowable with logic. It is beyond words; it is one also and many also; it is separate also and merged also. Its glory is such.

He is told- The thing which  is seen by you and me visibly directly,  that you call as delusion; if we derive inference by logic then you say that the real form is not knowable with logic.

And you say – the real form is beyond words then without words how can it be decided?

There he says- It is one also, many also; separate also and merged also but he does not tell the aspects ; like mad person he says it is this way also and that way also – saying thus he tells its glory. Where the logic is present, there the liars speak like this only, so be it ; but the justice would be in accordance with the truth.

Negation of creator of the Universe

Now that Bramha is believed to be ‘creator of the Universe’, which  is shown to be false- 

Firstly he believes thus – Bramha got a desire that ‘I am one, now I shall be many’.

There it is enquired- If in previous state he was unhappy, then he would desire another state; here Bramha desired to be many from  a single state, then what was the sorrow he had in that single state?

Then he says – there was no sorrow, but just a curiosity was generated.

He is told- If earlier he was somewhat happy and with such intrigue, he became very happy then one would think of carrying out intrigue. But how can Bramha be very happy by changing from single state to many state form ? If he was already very happy then why should he change state? Without objective no one carries out any task. If he was happy earlier and with fulfilment of desired deed he again became happy, but  was he not unhappy at the moment of desire?

Then he says- The moment the desire takes place for Bramha , the act is performed at the same time; hence he does not become unhappy.

He is told- From aspect of coarse period of time, it can be thought so, but from aspect of sookshma kaal, the desire and the deed cannot happen at the same time. The desire takes place because the deed is not there; when deed is there the desire does not occur; hence for sookshma kaal the desire was present, so he would have been unhappy  since desire itself is sorrow and there is no other form of sorrow. Hence how can Bramha have desire?

Then they say- Upon desire the Maya of Bramha was revealed.

-          Even such Bramha had Maya hence Bramha is proved to be Mayavi (deceitful) ; how did he remain Shuddha form? Does  Bramha and Maya have stick-stick holder form association relation or fire-heat form Samavay relation?

If association relation is there then Bramha is different and Maya is different; how did the Bramha remain as Adwait? Just as stick holder considering stick as useful, accepts it; in the same way the Bramha knowing Maya to be beneficial accepts it; otherwise why should he accept it? The Maya which was accepted by Bramha, how can that be negated? It should be  venerable.

It the relationship is Samavay form then just as fire  has hot nature, in the same way Bramha has Maya as his nature. How can the nature of Bramha be now negated? – It should be accepted as supreme.

Again they say- Bramha is Chaitanya ; the Maya is corporeal.

But in Samavay relation such two natures do not appear feasible. Just as light and darkness cannot be together.

Then he says- On account of Maya the Bramha himself is not deceived, with his Maya the Jiva gets deluded.

He is told – Just as deceiver knows his deception himself ; hence he himself is not deceived; with his deception others get deluded. The deceiver is that only who carries out deception; with his deception others were deceived, they are not called deceivers.

In the same way Bramha knows his Maya himself; hence he is not deceived, but with his Maya other Jivas get deluded. The Bramha only would be called as deceiver; with his Maya other jivas have been deceived, then why are they called as deceivers?

Further it is asked- Those Jivas are one with Bramha or are different? If they are one- then if someone hurts himself, he is called as ‘mad’; in the same way Bramha, makes other jivas miserable by means of Maya, who are not different from self, then how can this be accepted?

And if they are different then just as some demon, without any reason , deceiving other jivas , causes misery to them; in the same way the Bramha , without any reason, generating  Maya to other jivas , causes misery, which too cannot be accepted.

-          Such Maya is said to belong to Bramha, how is that possible ?

Then they say- With Maya, the Lok was created; there the consciousness of the jivas is Bramha form; the body etc. is Maya form. Just as in several  different pots water is filled, in them the image of moon is seen separately, the moon is one only; in the same way in several different bodies, the Chaitanya illumination of Bramha is seen differently, Bramha is one only; hence jivas have Chetana which belongs to Bramha.

-          Such depiction is delusion only, since the body is corporeal, in  that with image of Bramha the consciousness was produced, then pots and pans are also corporeal, why did the image of Bramha not reflect in them and why did they not become conscious?

He says- He does not make body as conscious, he does so for Jiva.

They we ask- the form of Jiva is Chetan or Achetan? If it is already Chetan then how can Chetan be made Chetan? If it is Achetan then body , pots and pans etc. had the same category as Jiva?

Further it is asked- The Chetana of Bramha and Jivas is one or different? If it is same then how the less or more of Gyan is observed? Further these Jivas, mutually do not know what is known by one, what is the reason for it? (what is known  by one should be known  by all.)

If you say- These pots etc. are different afflictions and hence the Chetana is different in different jivas . Now with the destruction of pots form affliction, the Chetana would merge with Bramha or would it get destroyed? If it would get destroyed then the jiva would become Achetan.

Then you will say- Jiva merges with Bramha only.

Then after merger with Bramha , its sovereignty remains or not? If the sovereignty remains, then he also exists and the Chetana also remained with it- then who merged with Bramha? And if the sovereignty did not remain, then he got destroyed- what merged with Bramha?

If you say- The Chetana of Bramha and Jivas is different then Bramha and all jivas, themselves are different only.

In this way the assertion that the Chetana of Jivas is belonging  to Bramha is not acceptable. 

There you call body etc. as belonging to Maya, then does Maya take the form of bones-flesh etc. or with the nimitta of Maya some thing else take that form. If it is Maya only,  then the colour-smell etc. of Maya are newly produced or were they existent earlier? – if they were existent earlier, but the Maya belonged to Bramha earlier; while Bramha is non-corporeal, how the colour etc.  were  possible to him? If they are new, then non corporeal has become corporeal, then non corporeal nature did not  remain permanent.

If you say- with the nimitta of Maya, someone else takes the form.

Then we say- other substances you have not accepted, then who was it?

If you say- New substance has been produced.

Then we say- is it different from Maya or is it  produced as indifferent from Maya? If it is different from Maya, then why do you call the body to be Maya form? They are of that substance form  only. And if they are indifferent from Maya then Maya only has taken that form; why do you call it generation of new substance?

In this way telling that body etc. are Maya form – it is delusion only.

There they say- From Maya three qualities are generated – Rajas, Tamas and Sattvik.

But how can even that be told? Since pride  etc. Kashaya form Bhava is called ‘Rajas’ ; anger etc. Kashaya form bhava is called ‘Tamas’ ; weak Kashaya form bhava is called as ‘Sattvik’ ; these bhavas are observed to be consciousness form directly and the form of Maya is told to be corporeal; how can these bhavas be produced to the corporeal?

If they belong to corporeal then stone etc. also should have it, but consciousness form jivas only are seen to have these bhavas; hence these bhavas are not produced by Maya. If Maya is declared to be Chetan then it can be accepted, but by accepting Maya to be Chetan, the body etc. cannot be accepted to be generated from Maya; hence decide, what is the point in being delusion form ?

There they say- from these qualities Bramha-Vishnu-Mahesh – these three devas were produced.

How is it possible? Since Guni has guna; how can there be Guni produced from Guna? Man can  have anger but how can man be produced from anger? There these gunas are criticized, but how the Bramha etc. produced from these are believed to be venerable? And Gunas are Maya form and these are called as incarnation of Bramha, but these are incarnation of Maya; how can they be called as incarnation of Bramha? And to whosoever these gunas belong, they are preached to relinquish it while those who are embodiment of the same are considered as venerable- what type of delusion is this?

And their acts also appear to be of the same nature. Intrigue etc., womanizing etc. and war etc. acts are carried out, these activities are carried out by the ‘Rajas’ etc. gunas; hence they have ‘Rajas’ etc.- say so; calling them as venerable, Parameshwara is not justifiable. Just as other worldly people are there, these are also same.

Probably you may say – The worldly people are within control of Maya; hence without knowing carry out such acts. Maya is under control of Bramha etc.; hence knowingly they carry out such acts.

This too is delusion only, since under control of Maya only the desire-anger etc. are produced.

And what happens? – These Bramha etc. are seen to have excess of desire-anger etc. With high intensity of sexual desire, under influence of women, they started dancing-singing, becoming restless, started indulging in improper activities; under influence of anger, indulged in war etc.; under influence of pride, for showing their greatness, resorted to different means; under influence of deceit , carried out several deceptions; under influence of greed, started accumulating possessions etc.

What more can be told? – Under their influence, the unclothing etc. shameless activities,  stealing curd etc. activities of thieves, wearing garlands of bones etc activities of mad, adopting different attires etc. activities of demons , being cow-herd etc. activities of lower caste people, etc. all deplorable activities are carried out ; what other activities can be carried out under influence of Maya ? This cannot be understood.

Just as someone believes the night of new moon having clouds to be free of darkness; in the same way Bramha etc. having strong sexual desire, anger etc., doing improper external activities  are believed to be free of Maya.

Then  he says – They are not pervaded with sexual desire-anger etc. , this too is a Leela (spectacle) created by Parameshwara.

He is told- He carries out such activities, they are carried out with desire or without desire? If he does it with desire then the desire of enjoyment with women only is called ‘Kaam’; the desire to carry out war only is called ‘anger’, the others also may be known similarly. If he does it without desire then the things which he does not desire- such activities happen due to other’s control, how can the influence of others be feasible here?

And you call it Leela (spectacle)- If Parameshwara by incarnating carries out Leela of these activities, then why other jivas are preached to relinquish these acts to attain salvation? All the preachments of forgiveness- contentedness- morality-restraint is proven to be false.

Then he says- Parameshwara does not have any objective, for engaging in worldly practices, for protection of disciples and for punishing devils, he carries out incarnation.

He is asked- without objective even ant does not do anything; why should Parameshwara do?

You told this objective- for engaging in worldly practices he does them. There just as some person by engaging in bad activities teaches them to his own sons and when they engage in those activities, then he beats them; how can such a father be called right? In the same way Bramha by engaging in kaam-anger form activities makes the people created by him to engage in those activities and when those people do such activities, then  he sends them to hell etc. The result of such bhavas have been told to be narak etc, in shastras; hence how can such Prabhu be accepted as right?

Then you told this objective also- The protection of disciples and punishment of devils. There the devils who caused misery to disciples were created  with the desire of Parameshwara or without his desire? If they were produced with his desire- then just as someone gets own servant beaten by asking someone   and later himself beats that someone, then how can such owner be told to be right? In the same way , the one who himself with own desire causes misery to disciples through  devils and later by own incarnation kills those devils, then how can such Ishwara be accepted to be right?

If he says- Those (jivas) were devils without the desire of Ishwara.

Then- either the Parameshwara did not have such knowledge of future that ‘ these devils, would cause misery to my disciples’  or earlier such power was not there ‘ to prevent such happening’.

Then he is asked – If for such acts he had to take incarnation; did he have such capability without carrying out incarnation or not? If it was there, then why did he have to carry out incarnation? If it was not there then what is the cause  by   which such capability was produced?

Then he says- without doing so, the glory of Parameshwara would not have been revealed.

He is asked- For own glory, protects own followers and destroys opponents; that only is raga-dwesha- such raga-dwesha only is characteristics of worldly jivas. If Parameshwara also has such raga-dwesha then why other jivas are preached to give up raga-dwesha and follow equanimity? And in accordance with  raga-dwesha the act was carried out, there the act cannot be completed without taking some time hence for that period the Parameshwara would also have been restless.

Just as – some work can be carried out by lowly person only, if that work is carried out by the king himself, then the king does not get glorified; instead he gets criticized only. In the same way the act which can be carried out by King or Vyantar etc. devas, if that act is carried out by Parameshwara by taking incarnation himself – then with such belief the Parameshwara does not get glorified; instead gets criticized only. The glory is for showing off to some other person; you believe in Adwait Bramha, whom do you show the glory and the objective of showing glory is to be venerated by them, here whom does he wish to be venerated by ?

Further you say – all jivas, manifest in accordance with  the desire of Parameshwara and if he himself desires to be venerated then make all of them  to manifest in the form of worshipping him; why does he have to do some other deed? Thus the activity for the sake of own glory is also not justifiable.

Then he says- Parameshwara is non-karta in spite of doing these deeds, this cannot be decided. 

He is told-  you say that’ this is my mother also and is barren also ‘  then how do we accept your statement? How do we accept him non-karta who does the deed also.

And you say- It cannot be decided; accepting it without decision is like accepting  flowers of sky and horns of donkey -  telling such impossible things is not proper.

-          Thus the forms of Bramha-Vishnu-Mahesh are described which should be known to be  False.

Continued….