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….