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….

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….