Jain Refutation of Advaita Vedanta
From the Moksha Marg Prakashak
by Acharyakalp Pt. Todarmalji Jaipur
translated by Br. Hem Chand Jain
from Jain World
Analysis of the Theory of Ubiquitous Monotheism (Addvait Brahma)
Many people believe Addvait Brahma (monism) as to be the ubiquitous and the creator of whole world but no such person is there. First, they believe him ubiquitous but all kinds of substances are distinctly separate and their nature are perceived distinctly separate; how to believe them as one? The following are the different ways of believing him to be ubiquitous:
The one way of such belief is this: Though all things are separate-separate but conjecturing them altogether some common name is given. For example, the horses, the elephants etc. are separate-separate but their collective name is army reality there is no such thing as army different from horses etc. So in this way all substances which are termed Brahma, that Brahma is not proved to be a distinct entity; it is mere imagination.
Another way of such belief is this: From individual point of view all things are separate-separate, but those are conjecturally treated as one from common character point of view. For example, one hundred horses are there; from individual point of view, those are separately- separately one hundred only. Seeing their common features, they are collectively treated as one class but that class is not something different from those individual horses. In this way, looking at some common specific features of all substances, if their collective name is one Brahma, then in reality no separate existence of Brahma is proved.
A third way of such belief is this: Though all substances are separate from each other, owing to their conglomeration, one lump is formed, that is called one. As the molecules of water are separate-separate, on their getting conglomerated, their collective name is called sea etc. and on getting the conglomeration of the molecules of clay, it is termed as `pot' (Jar) etc. But in these examples, there is nothing like a separate sea or a separate pot different from the molecules from which they are formed. Thus, all kinds of substances are separate-separate, but" sometimes by getting conglomerated those (substances) become one and that is Brahma. If this is to be accepted then no Brahma is proved to be something separate distinct entity.
A fourth way of such belief is this: Though the limbs are separate-separate, yet he who has those limbs is one corporal form. As the eyes, hands, legs etc. are separate-separate but the man who has those limbs is one human being. Thus, all these substances are limbs and the one who possesses these, in the corporal form is one Brahma. This whole universe in gigantic form is the limb of Brahma - this is what they believe. But, if there be any gap in the form of disconnection between hands, legs, etc., limbs of the human body, there remains no oneness; only on their remaining connected, those are collectively called one body. In the universe, the substances are seen mutually disconnected from one another; how then to believe in its oneness? Even if in such disconnected state of existence oneness is believed, then where would the separateness of all substances be believed?
Question: In the center of all substances, the limbs of Brahma, in the subtle form, are existing, by means of which all remain connected.
Answer: Whichever limb is connected to whatever other limb, does it remain connected so with it or continues getting connected with the other different limbs by breaking repeatedly? If the first side of the argument is accepted then the sun etc. make movement; with them by which subtle limbs it gets connected, those will also move. And due to their movement, the subtle limbs, which remain connected with the other massive limbs, will also move; in this way, the whole universe will become unstable. As on pulling any one limb of the body all the limbs get pulled, similarly, by making movement etc. of any one substance, all the substances will start making movement. But this does not seem to be logical. And if the second side of the argument is accepted then due to breaking of the limbs the separateness is definitely caused; how would then oneness remain existing? Therefore, how can it be possible to believe Brahma to be the oneness of the whole universe?
Another way, of such belief is this: Originally he was one, later on became many, again becomes one, so he is one. For example, water was one but in different utensils it got divided, when it meets again, it becomes one. And as there was a lump of gold, later on it was turned into bangle, ring, etc., it again becomes the lump of the gold by reunion. Similarly, there was one Brahma, later on he modified into many forms and again he will become one, therefore he is one.
In this way, the monist believes the oneness. Here our query is that when he assumed different forms then he remained united or got disconnected? If he will say that `He' remained united then the aforesaid fault will arise. If he will say that `He' got disconnected then at that moment there remained no oneness. Further, they (the monists) call water, gold etc. as to be one even on their getting separated but this (oneness) is stated from one specific point of view. But here the class of all kinds of substances does not appear to be as one. Some are animate and some are inanimate; thus, the substances are of various kinds; how can their class be described to be as one?
Further, they believe that originally he was one, later on he got separated; so as a stone turns into pieces by splitting up, similarly. The Brahma, got turned into pieces. Further, the monist believes that those pieces get reunited; so does their character remains separate there or it becomes one? If, it remains separate then, there, those are assuredly separate by their individual characteristics and if they become one then the inanimate things also will turn into animate beings and the animate beings will turn into the inanimate things. When many (different) things become one thing, it will be necessary to call them many in some moment and one in some moment; then it will not be possible to say- "there is one eternal infinite Brahma"
And if he will say that by creation or non-creation of the universe the Brahma remains one and unchanged, therefore the Brahma is eternal & infinite, then our question is -"In the universe, the earth, the water etc. are seen. Are all these things created newly and separately or the Brahma himself has obtained these forms? If these are created newly and separately then these things are separate and Brahma remains separate. This means there is no ubiquitous Addvait Brahma. And if the Brahma has transformed himself in the form of these things then sometimes he became universe and sometimes remained as Brahma; how did then he remain unchanged?
Further, he says that whole of the Brahma does not transform into the universe, its some portion only transforms. There, we ask him-' as one drop of the sea is transformed into poison then from gross-vision point of view it is beyond perception but from one drop point of view the sea has changed. Similarly, Brahma's one portion on getting separated transformed into the universe; nothing is comprehensible there by gross-vision but on thinking minutely the Brahma has changed from the one portion point of view. This change has not occurred to anything else.
In this way, believing the universal form of Brahma is nothing but a fallacy only.
Further, another way of such belief is this- "As the space (sky) is an ubiquitous one, similarly, the Brahma is an ubiquitous one. If you (the monist) believe so, then believe the Brahma also as big as space and wherever the material objects, jar, cloth, etc. are found, the space is also found there; in the same way, believe the existence of Brahma too. But how could the jar, cloth, etc. and the space be treated and called as one only? Similarly, how the universe and the Brahma could be believed to be as one? And the differentia of space is perceived to be everywhere; so, its existence is believed to be everywhere; but the differentia of the Brahma is not perceived everywhere; so how could then his existence be believed everywhere? In this way also. no universal form of Brahma is established."
From all these considerations, the existence of one Brahma is in no way established. All substances appear to be separate- separate entities.
Here the respondent says- "All is one only, but you are under delusion, that's why you are not able to perceive him as one. And you have put up your logic but the nature of Brahma is beyond logic. And his nature is not describable in words. He is one as well as many. He is separate as well as united. His glory is so great".
Our answer to him is- "What I, you and all are perceiving clearly, you call it delusion. And if we deduce by logic then you say that the real nature is beyond logic. And if you say that the real nature is not describable in words then how can one ascertain without words? "Further he says- "He is one as well as many, is separate as well as united", but you do not specify the viewpoint and instead like an insane person you are magnifying his glory by asserting that he is like this and also like that. But, where there is no justice, the liars indulge there in such garrulousness only. So, let them do so but justice will remain unchanged.
Revocation of World-creatorship
Further, some people believe that Brahma is the creator of the universe: the falsehood of the same is being shown hereunder :-
Firstly, they believe that such a desire arose to Brahma that (H) "I am single, so I would like to be many". There we ask them-" If one was unhappy in earlier state then he would like to change that state". Brahma desired to obtain many forms discarding the earlier one form. What was the sorrow in that state of one form? Then the monist says that there was no sorrow but it was just an inquisitive instinct. Then we say to him- "If earlier one be less happy and if by inquisitiveness, he becomes more happy, then he may think of indulging in inquisitiveness. So, how is it possible for Brahma to have become more happy by changing into many forms from one form. And if he was perfectly happy in the earlier state, why should he change that state or form? Without any purpose, no body wants to indulge in any activity.
And suppose he was happy earlier and also remained happy after completing the desired act but would he not be unhappy at the moment of rise of the desire? Then he says- "the moment desire arises in Brahma, at the same moment the desire is fulfilled, so he does not become unhappy. Then we say- "One can accept this from relatively longer period point of view but from the instantaneous time period point of view the fulfillment of desire is not possible the moment it arises. The desire arises only when the act is not fulfilled; and when it is fulfilled there remains no desire. So, he must have become unhappy at least in that minute interval of time. Because the desire itself is misery and none else is misery. Therefore, the rise of desire in Brahma is inconceivable."
Further, they (the monists) say that on evolution of desire the Maya (illusion) of Brahma got produced. Since Maya got produced in Brahma then Brahma also became an illusive (deceitful) person; how did then here main of pure nature? And Brahma and Maya have the coherent relation just like a staff-bearer and the staff or both have an inseparable relation just like fire and heat. If it is a coherent relation then the Brahma is separate and the Maya is separate; how did `He' remain undivided (Addvait) Brahma? And as the staff-bearer holds the staff knowing it to be helpful, similarly Brahma knows the Maya as to be helpful to him, that's why he holds it, otherwise why should he hold it? And the Maya which Brahma himself holds, how is it possible to deny (forbid) it? Rather, it is proved useful. And if it is an inseparable relation then as heat is the nature of fire, similarly Maya is proved to be the nature of Brahma. That which is the nature of Brahma, how its denial is possible? Thus Maya is proved to be useful.
Further, they say that the Brahma is a sentient being, Maya is insentient. But in inseparable relation such two (contrary) natures (of a thing) are not possible; e.g., how can light and darkness both be found together?
Further, they say that Brahma himself does not become deluded by Maya, rather (other) Jiva gets deluded by his Maya. Our answer is: As a treacherous knows his treachery himself, so he himself does not get deluded, rather the other persons get deluded by his treachery. But he who indulges in treachery, is called a treacherous; the others who got deluded due to his treachery are not called treacherous. Similarly, the Brahma knows his Maya; the other Jivas get deluded. There, the Brahma only will be called treacherous (Mayavi); how the other Jivas who got deluded by his Maya could be called treacherous (Mayavi)?
Further we ask them - whether Jivas are one with the Brahma or are separate entities? If they are one then as someone himself starts giving pain to his own limbs so he is called an insane person, similarly, the Brahma himself by his Maya starts giving pain to those Jivas who are not separate from him; so, how would this be possible? If the (Jivas) are separate from him, then as some ghost (peripatetic god) without any purpose creates delusion to other Jivas and makes them miserable., similarly, without any purpose the Brahma creates Maya for other Jivas and makes them miserable; this also seems illogical.
Thus, saying that Maya is of Brahma cannot be established. Further, they say that on evolution of Maya the universe got created; there the consciousness found in Jivas is part of Brahma's nature and their bodies etc. are Maya. For example, water is filled in many separate utensils; in (the water of) all those utensils moon appears separately-separately, whereas the moon is one. Similarly, the consciousness light of Brahma is found separately-separately in many separate- separate bodies, where as the Brahma is one, therefore, the consciousness found in Jivas is that of the Brahma.
This statement is also full of delusion because the body is inanimate; if in this body the consciousness got created due to the image of Brahma, why could not then the image of Brahma fall in other inanimate substances like jar, cloth, etc. and create consciousness in them?
Further, the monist says that the Brahma does not make the body conscious but makes the Jivas conscious.
Then we ask him - "Is the nature of Jiva Chetana (conscious) or acetone (non-conscious)? If it is conscious then what would new consciousness be created in the already conscious Jivas? If Jiva is non-conscious then the category of body, jar, etc. and that of the Jiva proves to be the same. "Further, we ask him," - `Is the consciousness of the Brahma and that of the "Jivas one and the same or separate? If it is one and the same then how is the knowledge seen more or less in different Jivas?" And why one Jiva does not know whatever is known by other Jiva?' You might say that this is due to difference in embodiment of various Jivas. Then due to difference in embodiments, the consciousness of different Jivas is proved to be separate-separate. On destruction of embodiment, will the consciousness of the Jivas get intermingled in Brahma or get destroyed? If it will get destroyed then this Jiva will become inanimate. And if you will say that the Jiva itself gets intermingled with Brahma then there on intermingling with Brahma its own existence remains or does not remain? If Jivas existence remains separate then that Jiva along with his own consciousness also existed (remained intact); what did then intermingle with Brahma? And if existence does not remain then it means it got destroyed; who did then intermingle with Brahma? If you will say that the consciousness of Brahma and that of the Jivas are separate then the Brahma and all Jivas prove to be separate-separate. Thus, the belief that the consciousness of the Jivas and that of the Brahma are one and the same is also disproved.
You call the bodies etc. as to be of the Maya; so, does the Maya itself turn into the bone-flesh etc. or due to the instrumentality of Maya someone else turns in those forms? If the Maya itself converts then were the color, smell etc. of Maya existing formerly or are produced afresh? If those were existing formerly then Maya was formerly of Brahma but Brahma is of immaterial form; how are the color etc. attributes possible in him? And if those are produced afresh then he being of the immaterial form, got turned into the material form; hence, consequently the immaterial form did not prove to be eternal. And if you will say that due to the instrumentality of Maya someone else turns then the question is that when you do not prove or accept existence of the other substances who else got turned then?
If you will say that the new substance gets created, then does it get created separate from Maya or inseparable with it? If it is produced separate from Maya, why do you call then Miyamae Sharira i.e., the bodies etc. to have formed from Maya? But those prove to be of their own substances. And if those substances are created as inseparable then Maya itself became tantamount; why do you then say that the new substances got created? Thus, your this statement that the body etc. are of the nature of Maya is fallacious.
Further, they say that three qualities (constituents) got produced out of Maya, (i) Rajas- the quality of passion, of love and pleasure (ii) Tamas- the quality of malignancy and (iii) Satvik- the quality of goodness and virtues. This statement is also not maintainable; because the disposition of pride-passion-form is called Rajas, the disposition of anger-passion-form is called Tamas and disposition of feeble- passion-form is called Satvik. So, these dispositions are clearly seen full of consciousness but the nature of Maya according to you is inanimate. So, how would these dispositions be created out of the inanimate objects ? If the inanimate objects too have these (qualities) then stone etc. will also have these dispositions; but only the Jivas of conscious nature are seen possessing these dispositions; therefore, these dispositions are not produced out of Maya. If Maya is considered to be of conscious nature, then this can be believed. So, on accepting the Maya as to be conscious, if you will say the bodies etc. as produced out of Maya then nobody will believe it. Hence, you should ascertain properly; what is the gain in believing fallaciously?
Further, they say that from those three qualities, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh, these three deities are born; so how is it possible? Because the quality is produced from the substance possessing qualities; how would the substance of qualities be produced from the quality? The anger passion will get produced from man, but how will man be produced from anger passion? Moreover, these qualities are censured; how are Brahma etc. produced from these (qualities) considered venerable? Further, these qualities are full of Maya and the same are described as to be the incarnation of Brahma; but these are proved to be the incarnation of Maya, how are these described as to be the incarnation (Vishnu Puran, chapter 22/58. Vayu Puran, chapter 7/68-69.) of Brahma? And those who are found having even a little of these qualities they are sermonized to give up them, but how could those who are the idols of these qualities only be treated as venerable? Is it not delusion?
Further, their actions also seem to be full of these traits. They indulge in the acts of sportiveness etc., sexual intercourse etc. and combating etc.; so, from those Rajas etc. qualities, only these acts are caused; therefore, you should say that the Rajas etc. traits are found in them. Treating them venerable and supreme God etc. is not befitting. They too are like other mundane beings.
Further, you might say that the mundane beings are under the influence of Maya, so unknowingly they indulge in those acts. But Maya is under the control of Brahma etc., so they indulge in these acts knowingly. So, this too is fallacy. Because by being under the control of Maya, sex-passion, anger-passion etc. only are created, what else is created? Only the vehemency of sex-passion, anger etc. is found in those Brahma etc. Due to the vehemence of sex-passion, they being overpowered by women, started dancing and singing, started becoming impatient, started indulging in bad demeanor in many ways and started combating in various ways under the influence of anger, started adopting various means for exhibiting one's excellence under the influence of pride, started making lot of frauds under the pressure of deceit, started accumulating belongings (paraphernalia) being overpowered by greed and so on, - what more to describe? Thus being overpowered by passions, they started doing many censurable acts, such as the immodests' act of snatching off the cloths of the ladies, the thieves' act of looting the curd, the mads' act of wearing the wreath of human heads*, `the ghosts' act of making different forms of the body and the plebeians' act of cow- keeping (herdsmanship) etc.; what more censurable acts would have resulted on being overpowered by Maya is beyond comprehension!
Believing Brahma etc. who are found with censurable external acts and intense carnal desires etc. to be deceitless is similar to believing cloudy no-moon night as without darkness.
Further, he says that the sex-passion, anger etc. do not over power them; this also is a sportive act of supreme God. Our question is "Such passional acts which he does are done with desire or without desire?' If he does with desire then the name of desire of sexual intercourse itself is sex-passion, the name of desire of combating itself is the anger passion and so on. And if he does without desire then the act, which he himself does not want to do, is caused only on being dependent on someone; so, how is dependence possible in Brahma? Further, you regard this as to be a sportive act; so, if the God performs such sportive acts by reincarnating, then why do they preach the other Jivas forgetting liberation by detaching themselves from such acts? The discourse of observing forbearance, contentment, chastity, continence, etc. all is proved useless.
Further, he says that God has no motive; just for the sake of keeping the worldly phenomena running he incarnates (Paritranraye sadhunam, vinashaye cha dushkritam; Dharm sansthapnarthaye sambhvami yugai yugai) for protecting the devotees and punishing the cruel. Then we ask him: Without any motive even an ant does not do anything, why would then God do so?" And you have also told the purpose that "He acts for the sake of keeping the worldly phenomena running". So as some man himself teaches his sons with ill intention and when they start behaving in that fashion then he beats them; how would then such a father be called good? Similarly, if Brahma etc. by his passionate form of activity causes his own creation to indulge in untoward acts and when they do so then why he places them in the hell etc.? In the scriptures, the consequence of these dispositions is described as getting birth in hell etc.; so, how can such a God be believed to be good?
And you have stated that the motive of God is to protect the devotees and punish the cruel. Here we ask you that the cruel who torture the devotees were created by the desire of God, or without his desire? If they were created by God's desire then tell us as to how such a master be called good who firstly gets his own subordinates beaten by others and later on beats those beaters? Similarly, how such a God be called good who himself willingly causes his devotees to be afflicted by the cruel and then he starts killing those cruel by incarnating (into embodied form)?
If you will say that the cruel got created without his desire then either the God might not be having such a foresight that these cruelwill torture his devotees or earlier he might not be having such sort of power that this should not be allowed to happen. Further, we ask him- 'If God incarnated for the purpose of performing such activity, so, did he possess such power without incarnating or not? If he was possessing such power, why did then he incarnate? And if he did not possess such power then what was the cause of obtaining such power later on?'
Then he says- `How would the glory (importance) of God be reflected without doing so?' Then we tell him- "Protecting one's followers and punishing opponents for establishing one's glory is nothing but attachment-aversion passions (Raag & Dwesha) and Raag-Dwesha is the characteristic of the mundane being (Sansari-Jiva). If God also is found having Raag-Dwesha then why to preach the other Jivas for effectuating equanimity by quitting Raag-Dwesha? Moreover, as he thought to act according to Raag-Dwesha, so no work is accomplished without consumption of some more or less time; then during that period God would remain restless. If the king himself undertakes to do the work which can be performed by a person of lower status then this does not glorify the king, rather it becomes a cause of his censure. Similarly, if God himself undertakes to do, through incarnation that work which can be accomplished by a king and a peripatetic deva etc., then this does not glorify God, rather it becomes a cause of his censure.
Further, the importance is shown to someone else if someone else be there, but you believe in one ubiquitous `Addvait Brahma' only; to whom he shows the importance? And the effect of showing the importance is to cause others to pray him; so, by whom does he want to be prayed? And you say that all Jivas function as per the will of the God, so, if the self has the desire of causing others to pray him then direct all the Jivas to pray him. Why should people engage themselves in other activities? Therefore, Gods, action for being glorified by others also does not seem to be logical.
Further, he says that God, even by doing all these acts remains non-doer; this cannot be ascertained. We say to him- "If you would say that this is my mother as well as is a barren lady" then how to believe your saying so? The one who does the work, how to believe him to be a non-doer? And you say that the ascertainment is not possible, so this means believing something without its ascertainment; then you should also believe that sky produces flowers and asses have horns; but such statement supporting impossible phenomenon is not logical.
In this way, belief in the existence of Brahma, Vishnu & Mahesh is false belief.
Further, they say that Brahma creates the Srishti (universe), Vishnu protects it and Mahesh destroys it; all this is also not possible, because while performing these duties someone would like to do one thing whereas the other would like to do the contrary thing; then there will arise mutual contradiction.
And if you will say that this also is a characteristic of God, why would there be any contradiction? Then "creating (the universe) himself and destroying it himself" - in performing such a task, what is the result? If the Srishti (creation) is harmful to the self, why did he create it then? And if it is beneficial why did he destroy it? And "if earlier he felt it beneficial so he created it, later on he felt it harmful so he destroyed it"- if it is so then either God's characteristic is wrong or the creation's characteristic is wrong. If you will favor first side of the logic then God's character is not proved to be of one nature. So tell us what is the reason of not having one nature? Why would the turning of the nature happen without the cause? And if you will favor second side of the logic then when the creation was under the control of God, why did he allow it to happen so, that it appeared harmful to himself ?
Further, we ask him- "Brahma creates the universe; so how does he create it?" The one way is this that as the builder of the temple makes the shape (of the building) etc. by collecting lime, (cement) stones etc. material. Similarly, Brahma creates the universe by collecting the material. Let us know that place where from he brought and collected the material and if only Brahma alone created the whole universe then either he might have made it in parts - some parts earlier and some parts later or might have made his hands etc. many? Whatever answer you will give, it will also prove contradictory on thinking over it.
And the one way is this that as the work is performed as per king's order, similarly the universe is created by the order of Brahma, (If this be so) then whom did he order? And where from the persons who were ordered brought the material and how did they create the universe?
And the one way is this that the work gets accomplished automatically as per the desire of the person possessing supernatural powers. Similarly, the universe gets automatically created as per the wish of Brahma. If this be so, then Brahma's role remained confined to desiring only and the universe got automatically created. Moreover, the desire arose in Parma Brahma, what was then the role of Brahma whom you advocate creator of the universe?
If you will say that Parma Brahma also desired and Brahma also desired then the universe got created. Then it appears that the desire of Parma Brahma alone is not efficacious. This shows lack of power in Parma Brahma.
Further, we ask, 'If the universe is created only by creating it then the creator will surely create it for the sake of happiness and then he will create the favorite things only. But in this universe the favorite things are found in lesser number and unfavorable things are found in greater number. Amongst the Jivas, Devas (celestial beings) etc. were created as favorite beings for the sake of enjoyment and for adoration. But what for worm, ant, dog, pig, lion, etc. were created? Those are neither pleasing nor do they worship; rather, they are harmful in all respects. And why were such harmful objects like poor-wretched, unhappy-hellish beings, etc. created by seeing which disgust, aversion, sorrow are caused?'
There he says that the Jivas suffer due to their own sins in the embodied forms of worm, ant, pauper, hellish beings, etc. We ask him, ultimately you may say that these embodied forms Paryaya are produced owing to the consequence of vicious acts only, but why were these created earlier at the time of creating the universe? And later on the Jivas turned sinful, so why did they turn sinful? If you will say that they themselves turned so, then it appears that Brahma first created them and afterwards they did not remain under his control; for this reason Brahma felt sorry.
And if you will say that Brahma activates them to become active then why did he activate them for sinful deeds? The Jivas were created by him; why did he mean ill of them? Therefore, this too is illogical.
And amongst the insentient objects, he created many things of good color, good smell etc. for the sake of enjoyment but what for did he create the distressing things having bad colors, bad smell, etc.? Brahma would not be happy by seeing these things. And if you will say that he created these things for torturing the wicked Jivas; then what for did he do such cruelty with the self-created Jivas that for them he created distressing things earlier? Further, dust, mountain, etc. are some such things also which are neither pleasing (delightful) nor distressing; what for did he create these things? Of their own those things may get any shape or size, but if there is a creator of them then he will create them with some purpose only. How is therefore Brahma called creator of the universe?
And they call Vishnu as protector of the universe. The protector performs only two acts; firstly he does not allow development of the causes of misery and secondly he does not allow development of the causes of destruction or devastation. But in the universe all everywhere only the causes of growth of miseries are seen and those things are seen causing misery to Jivas. The Jivas are suffering from hunger, thirst, etc., sorrow is caused due to cold and heat, etc., Jivas produce pain & misery to one another; weapons, etc., are the cause, of sorrow and various other causes of devastation are found. The different diseases etc., and fire, poison, weapons, etc. are seen as instrumental causes for the end of Jivas lives and in the insentient material objects also the causes of mutual destruction are seen. Thus, both types of objects could not be protected; what did then Vishnu protect being a protector?
He says - "Vishnu is the protector only. For the remedy of hunger, thirst, etc., grain seeds, water, etc. are created, ants get grain particles and elephants get ample food; He helps in difficulty. Even when the causes of death arise, he protects as he did in the case of lapwing (peewit)[A king of bird which used to live on seashore. The sea used to sweep away her eggs. Sorrowfully she prayed to Lord Vishnu through the adjutant bird , so , he caused those eggs to be given back to her from the sea. Such sort of story is there in Hindu mythology.] - thus, in many ways Vishnu protects". There, we say to him- "If it is so, then where hunger, thirst, etc. cause excessive pain & misery to the Jivas and food grain, water, etc. are not avail-able, when one is in difficulty no help is rendered, even a slight cause causes death - in all these cases either Vishnu's power became week or he did not have the knowledge of these things? In the universe; many Jivas generally live unhappy and die; why then did Vishnu not protect them?
Then he says- "It is the outcome of the Jivas own acts & conduct". Our answer to him is - "As an ignorant greedy- liar-physician, finding someone benefited somewhat by his medicine, says that he has cured him but when the case gets spoiled or the patient dies then he says that it was his destiny. Similarly, you say, if something happened good (agreeable) to someone then it is attributed to as done by Vishnu and if something happened bad (disagreeable) then it is said to be the outcome of his own acts & conduct. Why should therefore one have such a misconjecture? Either say that both the good and bad conditions are caused by Vishnu or say that both are the outcome of one's own acts & conduct. If everything is done by Vishnu then how can he be called a protector when many Jivas are seen unhappy and dying quickly? And if it is the outcome of one's own acts & conduct then "as he will sow so shall he reap"- what will then Vishnu protect?
Then he says - "Those who are the devotees of Vishnu, he protects them." We say to him- 'Ants, elephants etc., are not his devotees then, believing the duty of Vishnu in supplying food grain, etc. to them, in helping in difficulty and in not letting one die, why do you then believe him to be the protector of all? Rather believe him to be the protector of the devotees only. But he does not seem to be the protector even of the devotees, because the non-devotees also are seen torturing the devotees.'
Then he says- On many occasions he has helped Prahlad etc., we say to him - 'Wherever he has helped, there you may believe him to be so. 'But we find that the devotees are afflicted by the wicked barbarian, Mohammedan, etc., 'non- devotees and temples etc. are being destroyed by such persons then why does he not help in such situations? So, either he does not possess the power or he is not aware of it. If he does not possess the power then he is proved to be weaker than the non-devotees too. If he is not aware of it then one who does not know even this much, he is proved to be an ignorant.
And if you say that Vishnu possesses the power also and knows also, but he desired this way only. Why do you then call him kind to devotees? Thus, believing Vishnu as the protector of the universe is not proved.
Further, they, the monists, say- 'Lord Mahesh is the destroyer'. We ask them - Whether Mahesh indulges in the act of destruction always or does so only at the time of total destruction of the world? If he always does so, then as you have adored Vishnu for protecting the universe, similarly you should censure Mahesh for destroying the universe. Because the protection and destruction are contradictory.
And how does he do the destruction? As a person beats someone by his hands, etc. or gets him beaten by others, so similarly does Mahesh do the destruction by his own limbs or gets destroyed by ordering someone else? In whole of the universe the destruction of many Jivas is continuously taking place every moment; then how does he destroy all together simultaneously, by what kinds of limbs and by ordering whom? Moreover, if you say that Mahesh merely desires and the destruction takes place automatically by his desiring only; then he would always be having cruel thoughts of the form of killing others and how would the desire of killing many Jivas altogether simultaneously be produced in him? And if he destroys at the time of total destruction of the world, then does he do so at the instance of Parma Brahma or does he do so without his wish? If he does so at Parma Brahma's wish then how did such intense anger arise to Parma Brahma that he desired to destroy all? Because, without any reason, the desire of destruction cannot arise and the desire of destruction itself is anger. So, tell us the reason for such anger.
And if you say that Parma Brahma had created this game of universe; later on he demolished it - for this no reason can be given. The game-maker creates the game when he likes it and finishes it when he dislikes it. Similarly, if this universe appears to be good or bad to him (the Parma Brahma), then it shows that he has attachment aversion with the universe. Why do you then say Brahma's nature to be that of a mere observer? A mere observer is the name of that person who merely remains knower and seer of what automatically happens. How could he be called a mere observer if he creates or destroys the universe by treating it to be good or bad (agreeable or disagreeable). Because remaining a mere observer and also being doer & destroyer are contradictory to each other. Both these things are not possible in one person. Originally, Parma Brahma desired that "I am one, so I shall be many", then he became many. Now this desire cropped up- "I am many, so I will become less". So, as out of innocence, someone indulges in some work and then gives it up, similarly Parma Brahma also after becoming many desired back to become one; so, it appears that the work of becoming many he might have done out of innocence only. Had it been done with foresightedness then why for did he desire to give it up?
And if without the desire of Parma Brahma, Mahesh indulges in destruction then he is proved to be an opponent of Parma Brahma and Brahma.
Further, we ask- 'How does Mahesh destroy the universe? Does he do so by his own limbs or destruction takes place automatically just on his desiring? If he destroys by his own limbs then how does he destroy all things at once?' And if destruction takes place automatically by his (Mahesh's) desire, then we ask - as to why did he destroy the universe when the desire originated in Parma Brahma?
Further, we ask him- "Where have the Jivas and Ajiva (i.e. living and non-living substances) of the universe gone on complete destruction?' Then he says- 'Among the Jivas those who were the devotees, they got united with Brahma and the rest got united with Maya'. Now, we ask him- 'Does Maya remain separate from Brahma or later on it gets unified with him? If it remains separate, then Maya is also proved to be eternal just like Brahma, then Brahma did not remain an Addvait (single undivided) Brahma. And if Maya gets unified with Brahma then the Jivas who intermixed with Maya, they also got intermixed with Brahma along with Maya; then it is established that at the time of total destruction all Jivas got inter-mixed with Parma Brahma; why should then the Jivas make effort for liberation (Moksha)?'
'Further, the Jivas who were united with Maya, will the same Jivas come back into the universe on recreation of the universe or because these were united with Brahma so will the new Jivas be created? If the same Jivas will come back then it appears that those Jivas remain separate-separate; why do you call them united? And if the new Jivas are created then the Jiva's existence remains for a very short duration only; why should then the Jivas make effort for getting liberated?'
Then he says- 'Only the earth etc. (inanimate objects) get united with Maya;' then we ask whether Maya is an immaterial animate object or a material inanimate object? If it is an immaterial animate object then how would the material in animate object get united with the immaterial one? And if it is a material in animate object then does it get united with Brahma or not? If it gets united with Brahma then due to this union Brahma would also got intermixed with the material inanimate object. And if it does not intermix then the undividedness (monotheism) did not remain intact. And if you say- "All these become immaterial inanimate", then the soul and the body etc. proved to have become one, and this is what a mundane being believes (in the oneness of the soul and the body); why to call him an ignorant self?
Further, we ask- 'On total destruction of the universe., Mahesh is also destroyed or not?' If he is destroyed then his destruction takes place along with that of universe or some-what earlier or later. If Mahesh and the universe get destroyed simultaneously then how could he destroy the universe who himself gets destroyed simultaneously. If the destruction takes place somewhat earlier and later then where did Mahesh reside after distrusting the universe, because he himself was a part of the universe. Thus, believing Mahesh to be the destroyer of universe is proved impossible.
In this way, believing Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh respectively as to be the creator, protector and destroyer of the universe is proved to be wrong by the logic given above and by various other reasons; hence. believe the universe as eternal uncreated and endless.
The Vindication of the Eternity & Infinity of the Universe
In this universe whatever Jivas etc. substances are, they all are separate-separate and eternal and their states (modes) always continue changing; from this point of view they are said to be getting created and destroyed. And whatever heaven, hell, islands, etc. are there, they too are existing in the same form as they are from the beginningless time and will remain always existing in the same form infinitely.
Perhaps you may ask- 'How would such shapes, etc. be formed without making them? Therefore, the various shapes, etc. which are found existing, are there only after being created?' This is not so. How could any logic be advanced about the substances which are found existing from the beginningless time? The way in which you believe Parma Brahma's nature as to be beginningless and endless, so similarly the Jivas etc. and heaven, etc. are believed to be eternal and uncreated. If you ask- "How the Jivas etc. and heaven, etc. came into being?" Our rejoinder is- "How Parma Brahma came into being?" You might ask- 'Who made all these like this?' We will ask- 'Who created Parma Brahma like this?' You may say- "Parma Brahma is self-established"; we will say- "The Jivas etc. and the heaven, etc. are self- established". You will say- "How is the parity between these and Parma Brahma possible?" Then you should spell out the flaw or fault in the possibility of their existence. We have already pointed out many flaws and faults in the belief that the universe is newly created and gets destroyed. Now you tell us what is the fault in believing the universe beginningless and endless.
You believe in the existence of Parma Brahma, but no such separate entity is there. There are Jivas in this world; they attain the state of passionlessness and omniscience by acquiring the right path of liberation through right knowledge.
Further, he argues- "You are maintaining that the Jivas are separate-separate and eternal, but after their attaining liberation they become formless, how is then their remaining separate-separate possible there?
Answer: After attaining liberation, they are seen by omniscients or not? If they are seen, some configuration of them would also be visible. What did the omniscient see without seeing the form? And if they are not visible then either the substance itself is not there or the omniscient is not there! Hence from the viewpoint of knowing through material senses they have no form; from this angle they, the liberated souls, are formless. But because they are known by omniscients, so they have an immaterial form. When their immaterial form is established then what is wrong in accepting them separate-separate? And if you say that they are one from one class point of view, then we also believe like that. For example, each grain of wheat is separate- separate but their class is one; in this way, if they (the liberated souls) are believed to be one then their is no fault.
Thus on the basis of right faith, all substances in the universe are to be believed to be uncreated, separate- separate and eternal. If someone under fallacy does not ascertain the truth or falsehood then it is up to him; he will bear the fruit of his own belief.
Negation of Hereditary Succession from Brahma
And they (the monists) maintain that the hereditary succession through son, grandson, etc. is from Brahma and they uphold that amongst the races there exists mutual sexual relationship between demons, humans, gods and animals. There they believe that birth of son - daughter from any mother and any father such as human from god, god from human and human from animals, etc. takes place; how is this possible?
Further, they say that birth takes place through mental imagination, inhaling air and smelling semen, etc. All this clearly appears to be wrong. If this be true then how could the rule of hereditary succession of son, grandson, etc. prevail? And they further believe that the big noble saints are born from different mothers and different fathers, but how would the noble persons take birth from the unchaste mothers and fathers? This is an abuse in the world; why then they ascribe nobility to those persons?
Further, they ascribe the birth of Ganesha etc. to have taken place from filth, etc. and say that someone's limbs are found joined with someone other's limbs. All this is clearly contradictory and false.
X-ray of Incarnation Theory
Further, they say that there have been 24 incarnations of the God.
(1. Sanat Kumar, 2. Shookaravatar, 3. Devarshi Narad, 4. Nar-Narayana, 5. Kapil, 6. Dattatraya, 7. Yajna Purush, 8. Rishabha avatar, 9. Part avatar, 10. Matsya, 11. Kachchhapa, 12. Dhanvantari, 13. Mohini, 14. Nrisinghavatar, 15. Vaman, 16. Parasuram, 17. Vyas, 18. Hansa, 19. Ram avatar, 20. Krishna avatar, 21. Haya Greeva, 22 . Hari, 23. Buddha and 24. Kalki; these are believed to be the 24 Avatars (incarnations of God). of the God. Some of these Avatars are said to be complete incarnations and some others incomplete incarnations. When complete incarnations took place, then Brahma remained pervasive elsewhere or not? If so, then why call these incarnations as complete? If it did not remain pervasive then Brahma remained only of this much extent. And when incomplete incarnations took place then what extra event happened, since Brahma's part is found present all everywhere? Moreover, this act was insignificant; why then Brahma himself took the incarnation. This shows that without taking the incarnation Brahma did not possess the power of doing that act; why should one make more effort when the same act can be accomplished by small effort there?
And in these Avatars the Matsya (Fish) Kachchhapa (Tortoise) etc., incarnations are said to have taken place; so, for minor acts, why did he incarnate in the form of inferior beasts? And for protecting Prahlad he incarnated in the form of Nrisingh. But why did he allow Harinankush to act that way and cause sorrow to his devotee for such a long period? And what for did he assume such a form? Further, they uphold that the King Nabhi was blessed with Vrashabha-Avatara, and he (Brahma) incarnated for blessing King Nabhi with son's pleasure. Why did he observe severe austerities in that incarnation? There was nothing to be accomplished by him. You might say that he acted so just to show to the world; then he showed some incarnations with the austerities and some incarnations with enjoyment, etc. In this condition, to which incarnation the world will believe god?
Further, he says that there had been a king named Arihanta who discovered the Jaina-faith by accepting the religion of Vrishabha Avatar. Then we say to him that in Jaina tradition not only one Arihanta had been there but any man who on acquiring omniscience becomes adorable, his name is called `Arhat'.
And they (the monists) regard Ram & Krishna, these two in- carnations, as to be the main incarnations, so what did Ram avatar do? He moaned for Sita (his queen), fought with Ravana and killed him and then ruled. And in Krishna avatar, first he became a cow-keeper and indulged in many contemptible gestures and bodily actions for fascinating other cow-keepers-wives and became a king after killing Jarasindhu etc. So what is achieved by such acts?
Moreover, they mention that Ram and Krishna had one identity. But where did they live during such a long gap of time? If they lived in Brahma, then did they remain separate or united? If they remained separate then it appears that they live separate from Brahma. And if they remained united then how do you say that Ram himself became Krishna, Sita herself became Rukmani?
And in Ram avatar, they lay emphasis on Sita (Ram's wife) and in Krishna avatar they say that Sita is born as Rukmani (Krishna's wife) but they do not regard her as superior lady and instead regard Raadhika Kumari as superior lady. When asked, then they say- 'Raadhika was a devotee of Krishna, but how is it justified to regard a maid servant superior to one's own wife. And Krishna is said to have indulged in all sorts of actions in the form of illegal relationship with other's wives including Raadhika. How could this be called adoration? Such acts are certainly highly condemnable. And he treated Raadha as superior to Rukmani; this means that he might have established illegal relations with other's wives knowing this as a good thing. Moreover, he did not remain captivated in one Raadha lady only but also got involved with Gopika Kubja (Bhagwat - skandh-10, chapter 48,1-11). etc., other ladies. Thus, this incarnation was Perhaps meant for all such acts only.
Further they say- `Lakshmi is his (Brahma's) wife and the wealth, etc. is called Lakshmi'. But as the stones, dust, etc. are found in the earth, etc., similarly, gems, gold, etc. wealth are also found; who else is then this Lakshmi whose husband is Narayana? And they say that Sita etc. are the form (nature) of Maya (illusion). And when they (those Ram, Krishna incarnations) got captivated in them then how did they not got captivated in Maya? How long! how more to describe; whatever they say all that is found contradictory. But the Jivas feel gratification in the fables of sensual pleasures, etc.,that is why narration of the same is pleasing to them.
Such Avatars (incarnations) are said to be the form of Brahma. And many other things also they describe to be the form of Brahma. One is Mahadeva whom they believe Brahma- swaroopa. They call him a recluse (yogi), what for did he accept the yoga (penance's)? And he uses skin of deer and smears the body with ashes. What purpose is served by this? And he wears the garland of the trunks of human heads but even touching of bone is contemptible. Then why does he put it round his neck? He wears snakes, etc. like a garland but what is the greatness in this act? He eats susallow-wort and thoru-apple; so what benefit flows out of it? He keeps the trident, so whose fear he has? And he keeps Parvati with him but being an ascetic he keeps woman, so why did he indulge in such contrariety? If he was so passionate, he should have remained at home. And he indulged in various types of contrary activities; no purpose seems to be served by these acts. All these actions seems to be that of a mad-man. Such a person is said to be the personification of Brahma.
And sometimes they call Krishna to be the attendant of him (Mahadava) and some other times call him to be the attendant of Krishna. Sometimes they call both to be one and the same. All seems to be baseless.
Further, they call the Sun etc. as the personification of Brahma. And they put up Vishnu as saying - "Gold in metals, kalpa-vraksha in trees, lie in gambling etc. -I am found in all these". All this is irrational. One who is described great by mundane beings from a particular aspect, the same is said to be the personification of Brahma. But if Brahma is omnipresent then why is such specific personification imagined? And if Brahma is found in Sun, gold, etc., then the sun gives light, gold is wealth; due to these qualities you consider these things as parts of Brahma. If this is so then treat the lamp also which gives light like Sun; and silver- iron, etc. also which are wealth like gold, -such qualities
are found in other substances also; so this way accept them also as parts of Brahma. You may treat them big or small Brahma but their class is one. This shows that for proving false greatness they put up different illogical arguments.
Further, they describe Jwalamalini etc., many goddesses as the personification of Maya (illusion) and regard them as adorable by creating sin of injury (sacrifice) etc., but Maya is censurable; how is its worshipping possible? And how could the act of committing injury be good? And they regard cows, snakes, etc. animals as adorable, which eat non-eatables, etc. And they describe fire, air, water, etc., venerable by regarding them as gods and also describe trees, etc. as venerable by supporting with false reasoning.
What more to say? All objects with a masculine name are imagined to be Brahma personified and all objects with a feminine name are treated as Maya personified and regard all those adorable. They do not apply their mind as to what will come out of their adoration. They misguide the world by ascribing false causes of temporal gains and purposes in these objects.
Further, they say that the creator Brahma makes the body and the god of death (called Yama) kills, and at the time of death the messengers of Yama come to take him; after death lot of time is spent in the way, there they prepare the balance account of Punya (virtue) and Papa (vice) and there they give him punishment, etc., but all this is fictitious, false conjecture. At each unit of time, i.e., every moment, infinite Jivas take birth and die; how is such simultaneous happening possible? And also there appears to be no reason for this belief.
They further say that the dead person is benefited by performing Shraaddh etc. after his death, but in the alive state none is seen becoming happy-unhappy by other's pious- impious acts; how would then he become happy-unhappy after death? This illogic is put up for the purpose of fulfilling one's greed by befouling people.
Ant, Moth, Lion, etc. Jivas also take birth and die. All these are regarded to be Jivas of destruction. But the birth and death of these animals too are seen like that of human beings, etc., what is the gain in misconjecturing? Further, they narrate the fables in the Shastras (scriptures), but on thinking over them they are found to be contradictory.
Further, they regard Yajna (sacrificial-oblation-ceremony) as a religious activity; there they sacrifice (burn) the big animals into the fire. They indulge in the sinful act of producing lot of fire, etc. and in that a lot of Jivas die; but in their own scripture and in the world also killing of Jivas is forbidden. But they are so cruel that they do not bother at all and say that Yagyarth pashva srishta": the beast are created for sacrifice in Yajna only; there is no sin in killing them"
Further, for the sake of accomplishing their greed, they misguide the kings, etc. by asserting that the performance of Yajna would result in heavy rains and destruction of enemy, etc. This is as contradictory as saying that by devouring poison people will become alive. Similarly, advocating the act of killing to be religion and the means of fulfillment of desire, is clearly contradictory. But the Jivas whose sacrificing is advocated do not possess much power and no body feels afflicted by their killing. It would have been befitting if the sacrificing of some powerful and beloved one would have been approbated. But there is no fear of sin, that is why the wicked people are engaged in doing ill of the self as well as of others by killing the weaker beings for the sake of fulfillment of their greed.
Analysis of Jnana-Yoga Theory
Now the nature of the Salvation-path as described through Jnana-yoga (knowledge-means) by different sects is being explained:-
There, the believers of this theory regard knowing of an absolute ubiquitous Para-Brahma (Supreme God) as Jnana (knowledge); so, its falsehood has already been explained earlier.
Believing oneself totally pure and of the nature of God and knowing sex, anger, etc. and bodily existence, etc. as delusion, is regarded as Jnana (knowledge). So, this too is fallacy; if the self (soul) is, pure then why do you endeavor for salvation? When himself is pure Brahma then what remains to be achieved? And the sex, anger, etc. are clearly seen arising to the self and the association of the body, etc. is also seen; hence, when their dissociation will take place at its proper time, how then their association in the present state of existence is treated as delusion?
They further say that "Making effort for Moksha (final release) is also delusion. As the rope is a rope only, knowing it a snake was delusion, on removal of delusion it is a rope only. Similarly, one is Brahma himself, knowing (or believing) oneself impure was the delusion, when this delusion ends, the self remains Brahma only". All this statement is false. If the self is pure and one knows it to be impure then it is delusion; but the self is in impure state due to sex, anger, etc. How would then believing impure as impure be called delusion? Rather knowing pure would be delusion. Therefore, what is gained by believing oneself as pure Brahma due to false delusion?
And if you will say that "These sex, anger, etc. impure dispositions are the traits of mind and Brahma is separate". then we ask you- "Whether the mind is your own functionary or not?" If it is, then the impure dispositions of sex, anger, etc. are also your own. And if those are not yours then tell us- 'Whether you are of sentience nature or of material (insentience) nature?' If you are of sentience nature then the knowledge in you is seen functioning through the mind and the senses only. If anybody can establish the knowledge functioning without these (mind and senses) then that can be accepted to be your separate nature, but it is not discernible. Moreover, the word Mana (mind) is derived from the root Mana-Jnan (in grammar), i.e., Mana means 'To know', so the mind (mana) is of the knowledge form, so tell us whose is this knowledge? But knowledge does not appear to be separate from you. And if you are a material (insentient) object then without knowledge how do you think of the nature of self ? This does not seem to be possible. And you say that Brahma is separate", so whether you yourself are that separate Brahma or someone else is? If you yourself are, then your knowledge which believes that "I am Brahma", is the function of the mind only, it is not separate from the mind and believing I-ness i.e., belief of self is found in oneself only. In a separate entity, one cannot develop the feeling of oneness. If Brahma is separate from the mind, then why does the knowledge of mind-form establish oneness in Brahma? And if Brahma is an entity separate from you then why do you believe oneness with Brahma? Hence, give up your fallacy and know that as the touch, etc. senses are the nature of the body so those are lifeless (insentient) but the knowledge which is caused through them is the nature of the soul. Similarly, the mind also is a heap of subtle particles of matter and is a Part of the body only. The knowing activity and the feeling of sex, anger, etc. which are generated through it are all nature (function) of the soul.
The specific point to be noted here is that the act of knowing is one's own nature and the feeling of sex, anger, etc. are the perverse (impure) dispositions (of the self); owing to them, the soul is in impure state. When in due course of time, the sex, anger, etc. (impure dispositions) will vanish and the dependence of knowing act on mind and senses will end then on manifestation of omniscience-nature of soul, the soul will become pure.
Similarly, know about the intellect, egotism, etc. also, because the mind and the intellect, etc. are synonyms and the egotism, etc. are also the perverse impure dispositions like sex, anger, etc.; knowing these separate from the self is a fallacy. Rather, knowing these as one's own dispositions, it is desirable to make effort for uprooting these impure dispositions. Those Jivas who are unable to uproot them and want to establish their superiority, behave in an unrestrained manner by not accepting these impure dispositions to be of the self. Rather, they remain engaged in sensual objects and acts of injury, etc., by intensifying the feelings of sex, anger, etc.
Moreover, giving up of egotism, etc., is also not correctly under-stood by them. Believing all as Par-Brahma; not establishing I-ness in any object and dispositions, is regarded by them as giving up of egotism. But this is a fallacy. Because, is he himself a separate entity or not?' If he is a separate entity then how not to believe I-ness in the self. If the self is not an entity then who believes everything to be Brahma? Therefore, uprooting egotism consists in giving up the sense of I-ness and doing in the body, etc. which are non-self (foreign) objects. But having I-ness feeling in the self (soul) is not wrong.
Treating all equal, not differentiating in objects of different nature, is stated to be uprooting of attachment- aversion (Raag-Dwesh). This (belief) also is wrong because all kinds of substances are not of similar nature. Some substances are Chetan (sentient) and some substances are Achetan (insentient), each is different from the other; how can all those be believed to be similar? Therefore, not believing the non-self objects agreeable-disagreeable is relinquishing of Raag-Dwesh; however, there is nothing wrong in knowing the details of various substances.
In the same way, they imagine contrarily other dispositions (modes) pertaining to salvation-path and due to such false imagination they indulge in adultery, eat the non-eatables, do not differentiate between various castes, etc.; adopt low conduct which is perverse conduct. When someone questions then they say- "This is the function of the body or things change according to destiny or things happen as per God's desire; we should not ramble.
See the lie! The one himself knowingly indulges in various aforesaid activities and states it as to be the function of the body. He himself knowingly makes efforts for the said acts and puts the blame on providence. Further, he willfully indulges in passionate acts and acclaims it to be the wish of God. He involves himself in rambling, yet absolves himself from its responsibility. Because he wants to enjoy sensual pleasures under the shelter of religion. So, he puts forward such false logic. If he does not involve himself interestedly in such acts then we will not hold him responsible for the same. For example, suppose someone is sitting in meditation posture and someone else covers him by cloth, there, if the meditator does not entertain any feeling of happiness, then it is true that there is no involvement on his part. But, if he accepts the cloth and wears it and feels happy by ending his suffering from cold, etc., then how is it possible that this is not treated as his own act? And the acts of indulging in adultery, eating the non-eatables, etc. cannot take place without one's own thoughts and desire. How can this be accepted as non-involvement by him? Therefore, only where the desire of sex, anger, etc. (impure dispositions) have ended, there only, one's involvement in any kind of activities is not maintainable. And if one cannot get rid of the passions of sex, anger, etc., then one should act in a manner by which these passions can be minimized. It is not desirable to increase them by behaving unrestrainedly.
Analysis of Liberation-path imagined by Other Sects.
Further, they (the monists) describe the nature of Moksha (liberation) also wrongly and of various types:-
The one type of Moksha (liberation) is this "In the abode of liberation (Vaikuntha- dham), the Thakur along with Thakurani enjoys different sensual pleasures. If one reaches there and remains engrossed in their service, so this his Moksha. But this is contradictory. Firstly, the Thakur himself is said to be indulging in sensual pleasures like other wordily persons. So, the Thakur also is portrayed like a king. Moreover, He has to be attainted by others which shows the dependence of Thakur. And if the devotee even after Moksha remains a servant then it is just like being servant. How would there he be happy on being dependant? Hence, this type of Moksha is also not possible.
Another type of Moksha is stated thus: "In Moksha the self becomes similar to God". So, this too is wrong. If the other Jivas are also found separately similar to God then there would be many Gods. Who would then be the creator and destroyer of the universe? If all are accepted to be Gods then due to rise of different desires, contradiction will arise amongst them. And if only one God is there then equality is not proved; one who has some deficiency will remain restless for attaining higher status from lower status; how will then he be happy? As the difference between a small king and a big king is found in the world, so similarly, the difference between a small God and a big God would be found in the liberated state also, but this is not possible.
Yet, another type of Moksha is described thus: "In Vaikuntha (liberated state) there is a light (Jyoti) similar to the flame of a lamp; there in that light, gets united. So, this concept, too, is wrong. The light of the lamp is of material and inanimate form; how is such kind of light possible there? And on union of one light with the other light, whether this light (Jyoti) exists or gets destroyed? If it remains existing then the light (Jyoti) will go on increasing then there will be decrease-increase in the light (Jyoti) and if it gets destroyed then how can such an act be believed to be worth achieving due to which our own existence gets destroyed? Therefore, this concept also is not possible.
One other form of Moksha is this: " The soul is Brahma only; on destruction of Maya's (illusion) cover, liberation gets manifested". So, this concept also is wrong. When he was under the cover of Maya, then was he one with Brahma or separate from him? If he was one then Brahma himself became Maya (illusion) and if he was separate then on destruction of Maya he gets united with Brahma; thereafter, his separate existence remains or not? If it remains then the omniscient would definitely be knowing his existence to be separate; then you should say them to have got united due to their meeting together, but from spiritual or realistic point of view they are not united. And if his existence is lost then who would like to get his own existence destroyed? Therefore, this concept too is not maintainable.
Yet, another kind of Moksha is advocated by many people thus: "On destruction of intellect, etc. Moksha is attained". It means the knowledge did not remain dependent on mind and senses, etc., which are the limbs of the body. This statement is possible on eradication of sex, anger, etc., impure dispositions and if the sentience is also believed to have ended there then how can the inanimate condition like stones, etc., be accepted as beneficial? Moreover, by adopting good means, the knowledge increases, then on adopting good means, the knowledge increases, then on adopting much better means how could the destruction of the act of knowledge be acceptable? And in the universe, the greatness of materialism (inanimation) is not more than the greatness of the consciousness.
In this way, they (the monists) describe Moksha (liberated state) in various ways by imagination. But they do not know the reality; rather misconjecturing the mundane state as the liberated state, they prate according to their will. Thus, in Vedanta (monistic theory), and other sects, the form of Moksha is described perversely.
end of selections