Has this universe proceeded from God or from something else?
Back to contents
A.-God is the efficient cause of this universe, but the material cause is prakriti
- the primordial elementary matter.
who has created this multiform universe, and is the cause of its sustenance as
well as dissolution, the Lord of the universe in whom the whole world exists,
is sustained and then resolved into elementary condition, is the Supreme Spirit.
Know Him, O man, to be your God and believe in no other as the Creator of the
Universe." RIG VEDA 10: 126, 8.
the beginning the whole was enveloped in utter darkness. Nothing was discernible.
It was like a dark night, Matter was in its very elementary form. It was like
ether. The whole universe, completely overspread by darkness, was insignificantly
small compared with the Infinite God who thereafter, by His omnipotence, evolved
this cosmic world - the, effect - out of the elementary matter - the cause.* RIG
VEDA 10: 129, 3
and worship that Supreme Spirit, O men, Who is the support of all the luminous
bodies (such as the sun), the one Incomparable Lord of the present as
It is remarkable that modern science is slowly but surely coming round to what
the Vedas teach. The atomic theory is losing ground and the Vedic doctrine gaining
ground day by day. Mark what one of the modern most scientists, M. Bernard Brunlhes
says:- "Matter which seems to give us the imaage of stability and repose only
exists, then, by reason of the rotatory movement of its particles so that when
atoms have radiated all their energy in the form of luminous, calorific, electric
and other forms of vibrations, they return to the primitive ether." Rama Deva.
as of the future worlds, Who existed even before the world came into being, and
has created all things that exist in space between the earth and heaven.*"RIG
VEDA 10:121, 1. 2.
Has not prakriti emanated from God?
Back to contents
A.- No, it is beginningless.
Men, that All-pervading Being alone is the Lord of the imperishable prakriti -
the material cause of the world - and of the soul and is yet distinct from both.
He is the Creator of universe - the past, present and the future." YAJUR VEDA
Supreme Spirit, form Whom all things proceed and in Whom they live and perish,
is the All-pervading God. Aspire, O men, to know Him." TAITREYA UPANISHAD BHRIGU,
Great God should be sought after, Who is the cause of the creation, the sustenance
and dissolution of the universe." VEDAANT SHAASTRA I. 1,2.
How many entities are eternal or beginningless
Back to contents
A.- Three - God, the soul, and the prakriti (matter).
Q.What are your authorities
for this statement?
"Both God and the soul are eternal, they are alike in consciousness and such other
attributes. They are associated together - God pervading the soul - and are mutual
companions. The prakriti (matter), which is
*Literally the sun. -Tr.
to the trunk of a tree whose branches are the multiform universe which is resolved
into tis elementary condition at the time of dissolution is also eternal. The
natures, attributes and characters of these three are also eternal. Of the two
- God and the soul - the latter alone reaps the fruits of this tree of the universe
- good or evil - whilst the former does not. He is the All-glorious Being who
shines within, without and all around." RIG VEDA I, 164, 20.
Great God - the King - revealed all kinds of knowledge to the human soul - His
eternal subjects - through the Veda." YAJUR VEDA, 50, 8.
prakriti, the soul and God, all of them, are uncreated. They are the cause of
the whole universe. They have no cause of the whole universe. They have no cause
and have been existing eternally. The eternal soul enjoys the eternal matter and
is wrapped up in it whilst God neither enjoys it, nor, is He wrapped up in it."
SHWETA SHWATER UPNISHAD, 4: 5.
attributes of God and the soul have been described iin the last chapter. Here
we shall treat of the properties of prakriti (matter).
"That condition of
matter in which the intellect-promoting (satva - high), passion-exciting (rajas
- medium) and stupidity producing (tamas - low)qualities are found combined in
equal proportions is called prakriti. From prakriti emanated the principle of
wisdom (Mahaatava), and from the latter proceeded the principle of Individuality
(Ahakaara) from which emanated the five subtle entities and the ten principles
of sensation and action, and the manas, i.e., the principle of attention. From
the five subtle entities issued forth the five gross entities, such as
liquids, etc. These twenty-four entities and the purush, i.e., the spirit - human
and Divine - form a group of twenty-five noumena." SANKYA SHASTRA,1: 61.
all these twenty-four, the prakriti is uncreated, the principle of wisdom, the
principle of Individuality, and the five subtle entities are the products of the
prakriti and are in their turn the cause of the ten principles of sensation, and
action and of the principle of attention. The purush - i.e., the spirit - is neither
the cause (material) nor the effect of anything. 4.
Is this whole universe nothing but God
Back to contents
But it is said in the Chhaandoya Upanishad, "Before Creation the universe was
existent"; whilst the Taitreya Upanishad says, " It was non-existent or nothing."
Again the Vrikadaaranyaka Upanishad (Chapt. I,4,1) says "It was all spirit" and
lastly the Shatapatha Brahmanad (Chapt. 11: 1, 11, 1) says, "It was all God (Brahma)"
and again "by His Own will the Great God transformed Himself into this multiform
universe." In another Upnishad it is written "Sarvam Khalu, etc.", which means
"Verily this whole universe is God, all other things are nothing but God."
do you pervert the meanings of these quotations? For those very Upanishads it
is said "Oshwetketo, proceed thou from effects to causes and learn that prithivi
(solids) proceed from liquids, apah (liguids) from teja - that condition of matter
whose properties are heat and light, ectc., - and teja from the uncreated prakriti.
This prakriti - the true existence - is the source, abode and support of the whole
universe." What you have translated
"this universe was non-existent" means that it was non-existent as universe in
their gross physical and visible form. But it existed in essence or in elementary
form as the eternal prakriti. It was not nothing, God and the soul also were existent.
Your quotations which begins with "Sarvam khualu" is nothing but a pot-pouri,
for, you have taken parts of two verses from two different Upanishads and put
them together and formed them into one sentence. "Sarva Khalu", etc., is tiken
form the Chhaandogya Upanishad ( chapt III: 14, 1) and Nehanaanaaa, from the Katha
Upnishad (chapt. II:4,11).
as the limbs of the body are of use only so long as they form part of it, but
become useless as soon as they are separated or cut off form it, similarly you
can get sense out of words or sentences when in their proper places in conjunction
with what has gone before and what follows them, but they become meaningless as
soon as they are dislocated from their proper places and joined to others.
mark carefully the true meaning of the above quotation. "Worship, thou, O soul,
that Great Being Who is the Creator, the Support, and the Life of the Universe.
It is by His power that the whole universe come into being and is sustained, and
it is in Him that it exists, Worship Him alone and no other. He is an Indivisible,
Immutable, Conscious Being. There is no admixture of different things in Him,
though all things with their distinct individual existence have their being in
Him and are sustained by Him." 5.
How many causes are there of the Universe
Back to contents
A.- Three - The efficient , the material and the common. The efficient
cause is the one by whose directed activity a thing is made, and by the absence
of whose directed activity nothing is made. It does not change itself, though
it works changes in other things. The material cause is one without which
nothing can be made. It undergoes changes, is made and un-made.
cause is one that is an instrument in the making of a thing, and is common
to many things. The efficient cause is of two kinds:-
efficient cause is the Supreme Spirit - the Governor
all, Who creates the universe out of the prakriti (matter), sustains it, and then
resolves it into its elementary form.
secondary efficient cause is the soul. It takes different materials out
of the universe created by God and moulds them into different shapes.
cause is the prakiti which is the material used in the making of the universe.
Being devoid of intelligence it can neither make nor unmake itself, but is always
mad or unmade by a conscious intelligent being; though here and there even one
kind of dead matter (but those changes are never ordered). Let us take an illustration.
God made seeds (of different kinds), when they fall into a suitable soil and get
the prper amount of water and nourishment, they develop into trees; but if they
come in contact with fire they perish. All ordered changes in material things
depend for their occurrence on God and the soul.
such means as knowledge, strength and hands, and instruments, time and space,
that are required for the making of thing constitute its common cause.
Now take for illustration
a pot. The potter is its efficient cause clay its material cause, whilst the rod,
the wheel and other instruments, time, space, light, eyes, hands (of the pttter),
knowledge and the necessary labour, etc., constitute its common cause. Nothing
can be made or unmade without these three causes.
Neo-Vedantists* look upon God as the efficient as well as the material cause of
the universe, but they are absolutely in the wrong. "Just as a spider does not
take in anything from outside, but draws out filaments from its body with which
it spins its web and sports about in it, so does God evolve the world out of His
Own self, becomes metamorphosed into it, and enjoys Himself." MUNDAKA UPANISHAD,
*i.e., the modern exponents of the Vedaant Philosophy. -Tr.
Why is not the universe God?
Back to contents
"So Brahma desired and willed 'Let me assume diverse forms, in other words,
become metamorphosed into the universe' and by the mere act of willing He became
transformed into the universe."THE TAITREYA UPANISHAD, BRAHM, 6.
It is said in the
Metrical Commentary of Gaurpaada (on the Vedant Aphorisms). "Whatever did not
exist in the beginnning and will cease to exist in the end, does not exist in
the present age." THE GAURPA DHEYA KARIKA, 31.
In the beginning the world
did not exist but Brahma did. After the dissolution the world will no longer exist,
but Brahma will. Therefore, the world does not exist even in the present, it is
all Brahma. Why is not the universe Brahma then?
If, as you say, Brahma (God) were the material cause of the universe, He would
become transformable, conditioned and changeable. Besides, the natures, attributes
and characteristics of a material cause are always transmitted to its effect.
Says the Vaisheshika Darshana. I: 1,24 "The effect only reveals whatsoever pre-existed
in the (material) cause." How could then Brahma and the material world be related
as (material) cause and effect? They are so dissimilar in their natures, attributes
and characteristics. Why! Brahma is the Personification of true existence, consciousness
and bliss, whilst the material universe is ephemeral, inanimate and devoid of
is Uncreated, Invisible, whilst the material world is created, divisible and visible.
Had the material objects, such as solids, bee evolved out of Brahma He would possess
the same attributes as the material objects. Just as solids and other material
things are dead and inert, so would Brahma be, or the material objects would possess
consciousness just as Brahma does. Moreover the illustration of a spider and its
web does not prove your contention. Instead it disproves it, because the material
body of the spider is the material cause of the filaments, whilst the soul within
is the efficient cause.* In the same way, the All-pervading
*It also illustrates the wonderful creative power of God that
the soul cannot draw out filaments from the bodies of other creatures.
evolved this gross visible universe out of the subtle, visible prakriti that resided
in Him. He pervades the universe and witness all, and is perfect bliss. The text
you have translated into "God desired and willed 'Let me assume diverse forms,
etc.," really means that God mentally saw, contemplated and willed 'Let me create
the multiform universe and become revealed'; because it is only after the world
has been created that God becomes contemporaneous with the various gross physical
objects and is revealed to the human souls in their meditations, thoughts, knowledge,
preachings and hearings.
the same time of Dissolution no one except Himself and the emancipated souls know
Him. The aphorism, you have quoted, is erroneous; because, though it is true that
before Creation, the universe did not exist in this gross visible condition, nor
will it exist in this form the Dissolution onwards till the beginning of the next
creation, yet it was not nothing, nor will it be. Before Creation it existed in
a subltel invisible elementary form, so will it be after Dissolution.
the Rig Veda:-
"In the beginning it was all darkness", the whole universe
was enveloped in utter darkness." RIV VEDA10: 126,3. Again says Manu, " In the
beginning this universe was enshrouded in darkness. It was neither definable,
nor discoverable by reason. Neither did it possess any physical signs, nor was
it, therefore, perceptible by the senses." MANU 1: 5. Nor shall it be after the
beginning of, or, during the period of dissolution. But the present time it is
definable, possessed of visible signs and characteristics, and therefore perfectly
discernable by the senses, and yet that commentator declared the non-existence
of the world in the present, which is absolutely invalid. Because whatever a person
knows on the authority of direct cognition and other evidences cannot be nothing.
What object had God in creating the world?
Back to contents
A.- What object could He have in not creating it?
He not created it, He would have lived in happiness? Besides, the souls would
have remained free from pleasure and pain and the like.
These are the ideas of the lazy and the indolent, but not of men of energetic
and active habits. What happiness could the souls enjoy during the period of Dissolution?
If the happiness and misery of this world were compared, it will be found that
the happiness is many times greater than the misery. Besides, many a pure soul
that adopts the means of obtaining salvation attains final beatitude; whilst during
the period of Dissolution the souls simply remain idle as in deep sleep. Moreover
had He not created this world, how could He have been able to award souls their
deserts, and how could they have reaped the fruits of their deeds - good and evil
- done in the previous cycle of Creation.*
you were asked what is the function of the eyes, you can only say 'sight of course'.
In the same way of what use could the knowledge, activity, and power of creating
the world be in God other than that of creating? Nothing else. The attributes
of God, such as justice, mercy, the power of sustaining the world, can have significance
only when He makes the world. His Infinite power bears fruit only when it is applied
to the creation, sustenance, government and dissolution of the universe. Just
as sight is the natural function of the eye, so are the creation of the world,
the free gift of all things to the souls and promoting the well-being of all the
natural attributes of God.
the seed made first or the tree?
Back to contents
A.- The seed; because, the seed, cause, Hetu (source), Nidaana Mimitta (origin),
etc., are all synonymous terms. The cause, being also called the see, must precede
the effect. 9.
God being Omnipotent can he not create matter and soul?
Back to contents
Q - God being Omnipotent, He can also create prakriti - the primordial matter
- and the soul. If He cannot, He cannot be called Omnipotent.
We have explained the meaning of the word Omnipotent before. But does Omnipotent
mean one who can work even the impossibilities. If there be one who can do even
such impossible things as the prduction of an effect without a cause, then can
He make another God, Himself die, suffer pain, become dead and inert, inanimate,
unjust, impure and immoral or not? Even God cannot change the natural properties
of things as heat of the fire,
*That is, one preceding the last Creation.
of liquids and inertness of earth, etc. His laws being true and perfect, He cannot
alter them. Omnipotence, therefore, only means that He possesses the power of
doing all His works without any help.
Is God formless or embodied? If He be formless, how could He create the world
without bodily organs? Of course an objection like this cannot be urged if He
God is formless. He cannot be God who possesses a body; because he would then
have finite powers, be limited by time and space, be subjected to hunger and thirst,
heat and cold, wounds and injuries, pain and disease. Such a being may possess
the attributes or powers of the soul, but no Divine attributes could be ascribed
to him; since incarnate God could never grasp and control the primordial elementary
matter - prakriti - atoms and molecules, nor could he create the world out of
those subtle elements, just as we, being embodied in flesh, cannot grasp or control
does not possess a physical body of bodily organs, such as hands and feet, though
he does possess Infinite power, Infinite energy and Infinite activity, by virtue
of which He does all those works that neither matter nor the soul can do. It is
only because He is even more subtle than the soul and the prakriti, and pervades
them, that He can grasp them and transform them into this visible universe.
Is God formless or embodied?
Back to contents
Q - If God be formless, this world created by Him should also be formless,
just as in the case of other living beings, such as men, - children have bodies
like their parents. Had they been formless, their children would have been the
same. A.- What a childish question! We have already stated that God is not
the material cause of the universe. He is only its efficient cause. It is prakriti
and paramanus - the premordial elementary matter and atoms, - which are less subtle
than God, that are the material cause of the world. They are not altogether formless
but are subtler than other material objects, while less subtle as compared to
If God be formless, this world created by Him should also be formless
Back to contents
A.-No; because that which does not exist (in any form) cannot be called into existence.
It is absolutely impossible. It is as
as impossible for an effect to be produced without its cause as the story of a
man, who would brag in the following way, to be true. "I saw a man and a woman
being married whose mothers never bore any children. They had boys made of human
horns, and wore garlands of ethereal flowers. They bathed in the water of mirage
and lived in a town of angels where it rained without clouds, and cereals and
vegetables grew without any soil, etc.," or " I had neither father nor mother
and yet came into being. I have no tongue in my mouth and lo! I can speak. There
was no snake in the hole and yet one came out of it. I was nowhere, nor were these
people, and yet we are all here." Only lunatics can believe and say such things.
Cannot God create an effect without cause?
Back to contents
Q. If there can be no effect without a cause, what is the cause of the first
Whatsoever is an absolute cause, can ever be an effect of another, but that which
is the cause of one and the effect of another is called a relative cause. Take
an example. The earth is the cause of a house but an effect of liquids (Liquids
are the causes of solids as they precede them in the order of formation. The earth
is solid), but the first cause, prakriti (matter) has no other cause, viz., it
is beginningless or eternal. Says the Saankhya Darshana, 1: 67 "The first having
no cause is the cause of all effects." Every effect must have three causes before
it comes into existence; just as before a piece of cloth can be made, it must
have three things - the weaver, the thread and machinery, in the same way the
creation of the world pre-supposes the existence of God, the prakriti, the souls,
time and space which are all uncreated and eternal. There would be no world if
even one ot them were absent.
various objections of atheists are answered below: 13.
If there can be no effect without a cause, what is the cause of the first cause
Back to contents
(i) Shoonya (nought or nothing) is the one true reality. In the beginning there
was nothing but nothing, and nothing will survive in the end; because whatever
now exists will cease to exist and become nothing.
*quids are the causes of solids as they precede them in the order
of formation. The earth is a solid.
The ether, an invisible substance (such a prakriti), the space and a point are
also called nothing. It is inanimate and all things invisibly exist in it. Lines
are made up of points, while circle, squares, etc., are made of lines. Thus has
God, by the might of His creative power, evolved the earth, mountains and objects
of all other shapes and forms out of a point or nebula - nothing. Besides, He
who knows nothing cannot be nothing. [Hence shoonya (nothing) does not here mean
nothing put a point or a nebula.] 15.
Can something come out of nothing?
Back to contents
(ii) Q. Something can come out of nothing , just as a seed does not germinate
and send forth a sprout until it is split, but when you break a seed an look into
it, you do not find any sprout in it. It is clear then that the sprout comes out
That which splits a seed before it germinates, must have already been present
in the ee, otherwise what causes the see to split? Nor would it have come out
had it not been there. 16.
Do we sow what we reap?
Back to contents
(iii) Q.> It is not true 'As you sow so shall you reap,' Many an act is
seen that does not bear fruit; therefore it is right it infer that it entirely
rest with God to punish or reward a man for his deeds. It absolutely depends upon
If it were so, why does not God reward or punish a man for deeds he has never
done? It follows, therefore, that God gives every man his due according to the
nature of his deeds. God does not reward or punish men according to the caprice
of his Will. On the other hand, He makes a man reap only what he has sown.
Can effects can be produced without a cause?
Back to contents
(iv) Q. Effects can be produced without a cause just as the sharp thorns of
Acacia Arabica spring out of the branches that are not at all sharp and pointed
but are soft and smooth. It is clear from this illustration, therefore, that in
the beginning of Creation all material objects and bodies of living beings come
into being without (first) cause.
Whatever a thing springs from, is its cause. Thorns do not come out of nothing.
They come out of a thorny tree, therefore, that tree is their cause. Hence the
world was not created without a cause.
Q. All things have been created and are liable to decay. They are all ephemeral.
The Neo-Vedantis put forward objections like this, because they say, "Thousands
of books support the doctrine that Brahma alone is the true reality., the world
is a delusion and the soul is not distinct from Brahma (God). All else is unreal."
can not be unreal if the fact of their being unreal is real.
Even the fact of their being unreal is unreal. Just as fire not only burns other
things and thus destroys them, but is itself destroyed after others have been
That which is perceptible by the senses cannot be unreal or nothing, nor can the
extremely subtle matter - the material cause of the world - be unreal or perishable.
The Neo-Vedantis hold Brahma as the (material) cause of the universe; He - the
cause - being real, the world - the effect - cannot be unreal. If it were said
that the material world is only a material conception and, therefore, unreal like
the objects seen in a dream or life a piece of rope seen in the dark and mistaken
for a snake, it cannot be true; because a conception or an idea is something abstract
which cannot remain apart from the noumenon wherein it resides.
one that conceives (viz., the soul) is real, the conception cannot be unreal,
otherwise you will have to admit that the soul is also unreal. You cannot see
a thing in a dream unless you have seen or heard of it in the wakeful state, in
other words, when the various objects of this world come in contact without senses,
they give rise to percepts called knowledge by direct cognition - which leave
impressions on our souls, it is these impressions which are recalled by, and become
vivid to the soul in dreams. If it be possible for a man to dream of things of
which he has had no impressions in his mind, a man born blind, should dream of
colours which is not the
It follows, therefore, that in the mind are retained impressions and ideas of
external things that exist in the outside world. And just as external things continue
to exist even after a man ceases to have any consciousness of them as in sound
sleep, so does prakriti- the material cause of the world - continue to exist ever
after Dissolution. 18.
Why not believe that the external things seen in the wakeful state is unreal?
Back to contents
As the external objects pass out of our consciousness in slumber and those
seen in a dream in the state of profound sleep, i.e., perish as far as we are
concerned, in the same way why not believe that the external things seen in the
wakeful state are also unreal?
No, we cannot believe that; because both in slumber and profound sleep the external
objects only pass out of our consciousness. They do not cease to exist, just as
different things lying behind us are simply invisible to us but are there, and
have not ceased to exist. Therefore, what we have said before, that God , the
soul and the prakriti - the material cause - are real entities, is alone true.
If the five states of matter is eternal why isn't the world eternal?
Back to contents
(vi)Q. The five bhuts - five states of matter as Prithivi (solids), Apah (liquid)
etc., - being eternal, the whole world is eternal or imperishable.
No, it is not true; because if all those objects, the cause of whose formation
or disintegration is seen every day, be eternal, the whole material visible world
with all such perishable things as the bodies of men and animals, houses, and
their furniture and the like would be eternal, which is absurd. Therefore, the
effects can never be eternal. 20.
Are all things distinct from each other?
Back to contents
(vii)Q. All things are distinct from each other, There is no unity in them.
Whatever we see precludes another.
whole exists in its parts. Time, ether, space, God, and Order and Genus, though
separate entities, are yet common to all. There is nothing that can exist separate
from or without them. Hence all these are not separate from each other, though
they are different by nature. Thus there is unity in variety.
Q. All things exclude each other, and are therefore non-existent, just as a
cow is not a horse, nor is a horse a cow. Therefore, both the horse and the cow
are non-existent. Similarly, all things are as if non-existent.
Though it is true that the 'relation of one thing excluding others does exist
in all things, but a thing does not exclude itself. For example, a cow is not
a horse, nor is a horse a cow; but a cow as a cow and a horse as a horse do exist.
If things were non-existent how could you ever speak of this Itretaraabhaava relation
i.e., 'the relation of one thing excluding others from itself'. [Hence the world
and things contained therein do exist. They are not non-existent.]
can be no creator.
Back to contents
(ix)Q. The world comes into being by virtue of the fact that it is in the nature
of things to combine together and produce different things. Just as maggots are
produced the coming together of food, moisture and by decomposition setting in;
or as vegetables begin to grow when the seed, water, and soil are brought together
under favourable conditions; or as the wind blowing on the sea is the cause of
waves that in turn produce merchaum, which mixed with turmeric, lime and lemon
juice forms what is called concrete, so does this world come into being by virtue
of the natural properties of the elements. There is no Creator.
formation be the natural property of matter, there would be no dissolution or
disintegration; and if you say that disintegration is also a natural property
of matter, there could then be no formation. But if you say that both formation
and disintegration are the natural properties of matter, there could then be neither
formation nor disintegration. If you say that an efficient agent is the cause
of the creation and dissolution of the world, it must be other than and distinct
from the objects that are subject to formation and disintegration.
formation and disintegration be the natural properties of matter, they may happen
at any and every moment. Besides, if there is no Maker and the world came into
being by virtue of the natural properties inherent in matter, why do not other
earths, suns and moons come into existence near our earth? Moreover, whatever
now grows or comes into being, does so by virtue of the combination of different
substances - made by God. Just as plants grow wherever the water,
and the seed come in contact under favourable conditions, and not otherwise; in
the same way in the manufacture of concrete its components such as turmeric, lime,
lemon juice and merchaum do not come together by themselves, but are mixed up
together by some one, nor dot hey produce concrete unless mixed in their right
proportion. Similarly, the prakriti and atoms, until they are properly combined
by God with the requisite knowledge and skill, cannot by themselves produce anything.
It follows, therefore, that the world did not come into being by itself, i.e.,
by virtue of the natural properties of matter, but was created by God.
It was never created nor shall it ever perish.
Back to contents
Q. This world has had no Creator, nor is there one at present, nor, shall there
ever be one. It has been eternally existing as such. It was never created nor
shall it ever perish.
No action or thing - which is the product of action - can ever come into existence
without an agent. All objects to this world such as the earth, are subject to
the processes of formation, that is, are the product of definite combination.
They can never be eternal, because a thing which is the product of combination
can never exist after its component parts come as under. If you do not believe
it, take the hardest rock or a diamond or a piece of steel and smash it into pieces,
melt or roast it and see for yourself if it is composed of separate particles,
called molecules and atoms, or not. If it is, then surely a time will come when
those molecules will come apart. 23.
Can the highly exalted soul become God?
Back to contents
Q. There is not Eternal God, on the other hand a highly exalted soul, that
by the practice of yoga attains such power as the control of atoms, etc., and
omniscience, becomes God.
Had there been not Eternal God, the Creator of the universe, Who would have made
the bodies, the sense organs and all objects of this world, the very support and
means of subsistence of the yogi, by means of which he comes to possess such wonderful
powers? Without their help no one can endeavour to accomplish anything. The endeavour
being impossible how could he have acquired those wonderful powers? Whatsoever
efforts a man may make, whatsoever means he may employ, whatsoever powers he may
acquire, he can never equal God in His natural - in contradistinction to the soul's
acquired - Everlasting or Eternal powers which are infinite and manifold; because,
the knowledge of
soul, even if it were to go on improving till eternity, will still remain finite
and his powers limited. Its power and knowledge can never become infinite. Mark,
no yogi has ever been able to subvert the laws of nature as ordained by God, nor
ever shall. God - the Eternal Seer - possessed of wonderful powers has ordained
that eyes shall be the organs of sight, and ears the organs of hearing. The human
soul can never become God. 24.
In different cycles of Creation does God make the universe of a uniform or a different
Back to contents
Q. In different cycles of Creation does God make the universe of a uniform
or a different character?
Just as it is now, so was it in the past, so will it be in the future. It is said
in the Veda, "Just as God created the sun, the earth, the moon , the electricity,
the atmosphere in the previous cycles, so has He done in the present and so will
He do in the future." RIG VEDA 10: 190, 3. God's works, being free from error
or flaw, are always of uniform character. It is only the works of one who is finite
and whose knowledge is subject to increase or decrease that can be erroneous or
faulty, not those of God. 25.
Do the Vedas and the Shastras harmonize with or contradict one another ?
Back to contents
Q. Do the Vedas and the Shastras harmonize with or contradict one another on
the subject of creation?
they harmonize, why is it that in the TAITREYA UPANISHAD BRAHMANAND 1, creation
is described in the following manner? Out of prakriti - elementary material cause
of the world - God first created Akasha.* Then was evolved Vayu - gaseous or vaporous
condition of matter; out of Vayu proceeded Agni - matter which gives out
*A'kaasha is here said to be created, it only means that by the
gathering together of all the pervading elements A'kaasha as well as space becomes
manifest. In reality A'kaasha is never created, because of there were no A'kaasha
and space, wherein could the prakriti exist?
light and electricity - out of Agni proceeded Liquids; and out of liquids came
solids (such as earth); out of solids issued forth vegetables which yielded food.
Food produced the reproductive element which is the cause of the physical body
and bodily organs." In Chhaandoyga it is written that Creation begins with Agni,
in the Aitreya Upanishad that it begins with Liquids. In the Veda itself in some
places Purush (God), while in others Hiranyagarbha (God) has been described as
the cause of the Universe; whilst in the mimaansaa action or application, in Vaisheshika
time, in Niyaaya paramaanus (atoms) in Yoga conscious exertion, in Sankhya prakriti
- the primordial elementary matter, - Vedaanta, God. Now out of all these which
is right and which is wrong?
They are all right, not one of them is wrong. He is in the wrong who misunderstands
them. God is the efficient cause and prakriti the material cause of the universe.
After Mahaapralaya - Grand dissolution - the next Creation starts A'kaash. In
Minor dissolution (cycles) when disintegration does not reach the stage of Vaayu
(gas) and A'kash but reaches only that of Agni (electricity or fire) the next
creation begins with Agni. But when after dissolution in which even agni - electricity
- is not disintegrated, the next creation begins with Liquids.
other words the next Creation starts at where the previous dissolution ends. Purush
and Hiranyagarbha, as we have described in the first chapter, are names of God.
Nor is there contrariety in the description of creation given in the six Shaastraas,
because what is contrariety but contradiction of statements when the subject under
discussion is the same. Now mark how the descriptions of the six shaastraas harmonize
with each other.
shows that the Creation of the world requires six different causes which have
been described separately one by each separate Shaastra. There is no contradiction
in these descriptions. The six Shaastras together serve to explain the phenomenon
of Creation in the same way as six men
Mimaansaa says, "Nothing in this world can be produced without proper application."
says, "Nothing can be done or made without the expenditure of time."
Niyaaya says, "Nothing can be produced without the material cause."
Yoga says, "Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought."
- The Saankhya
says, "Nothing can be made without the definite combination of atoms."
- The Vedaanta says,
"Nothing can be made without a Maker."
help each other to put a thatch on the roof of a house. A man took six men - five
of them blind an the sixth possessed of dim sight - and showed them each a different
part of the body of an elephant. And then asked them what they thought the animal
was like. The first one answered 'like a pillar', the second 'like a fan', the
third 'like a big pestle', the fourth 'like a broomstick', the fifth 'like somethingflat',
and the sixth one said 'something dark like four pillars supporting the body of
a buffalo'. Similar to these six men is the condition of those men who, instead
of studying the books of rishis - the true seers of nature - read the current
Sanskrit or vernacular books written by narrow-minded men of little understanding
who malign each other and wrangle over triflings. Why should they not suffer who
are the blind followers of the blind? The lives of half-educated, selfish, sensual
and ease-loving men of to-day help to ruin and debase the world.
Why should a cause not have a cause if there can be no effect without cause?
Back to contents
A.~ O ye simple bretheren! Why do you not use your common sense a little? Mark,
there are only two things in this world, a cause and an effect. Whatsoever is
a cause (absolute) can never be an effect; and whatsoever is an effect can never
be a cause at the same time. As long as a man does not thoroughtly understand
the science of Creation, he can never have a true conception of the universe.
of matter in which intellect-promoting (satva), passion -exciting (rajas) and
stupidity-producing (tamas) qualities are found combined in equal proportions
is the uncreated, imperishable prakriti. The first combination of the highly subtle,
indivisible separately-existing particles called paramanus (atoms or electrons)
derived from the prakriti, is called the Beginning (of Creation). The various
combinations of atoms in different proportions and ways give rise to various grades
and conditions - subtle and gross - of matter till it reaches the gross visible
multiform stage called srishti - the universe."
that which enters into the first combination and brings it about, existed before
the combination, and shall exist after the component parts are pushed as under
is called the cause. Whilst that which comes into existence after the combination,
and ceases to exist after it has come to an end is called the effect. He who wants
to know the cause of a cause, the effect of an effect, the maker of maker, the
agent of an agent, the act of an act, is blind though he sees, is deaf though
he hears, and ignorant though well-read. Can ther ever be the eye of an eye, the
lamp of a lamp, and the sun of a sun? That out of which something is made is called
a cause. Whatever is made from another is called an effect. Whoever produces an
effect out of a cause is called the maker.
can ever become something, nor can something ever become nothing. These two principles
have been rightly ascertained by the true seers of nature." GITA 2: 16. How can
prejudiced, sophisticated, insincere, and ignorant minds understand them so easily?
He who is neither well-read nor associate with the good and the learned, nor meditates
on these abstruse subjects with profound attention, remains immersed in doubt
and ignorance. Blessed are they who studiously endeavour to understand the principles
of all sciences and having mastered them, teach others honestly.
is clear, therefore, that he who believes this world to have been created without
a cause really knows nothing. 27.
The slow and gradual scientific creation of the Universe.
Back to contents
When the time of Creation comes, God gathers those extremely subtle particles
(called Paramaanus). The first principle that is produced out of the highly
subtle elementary prakriti, is called Mahaatatva - theprinciple of wisdom
- which is one degree less subtle than the prakriti. Out of the Mahaatatva is
evolved Ahankaara - the principle of individuality - which is still less
subtle and in its turn gives rise to the five subtle principles, called
Bhuts, besides the five principles of sensation and five principles
of action and the principle of attention
are all a little less subtle than the principle of individuality. The five
subtle bhuts, by passing through various stages of less subtle conditions of matter,
are finally transformed into five least subtle states of matter, such as solids,
liquids, etc. From the latter spring up various kinds of trees, plants, etc.,
which are the source of food, and out of food is produced the reproductive element
which is cause of the body.
the first creation (of bodies) was not the result of sexual intercourse; because
it is only after the male and female bodies have been created by God and souls
put into them that the Maithuni (sexual intercourse) creation begins.
The wonderful creation of the physical body.
Back to contents
Behold the wonderful organization of the body!
How the learned are wonder-struck
with it? First there is the osseous frame-work girt with a net-work of vessels
- veins, arteries and nerves, etc., - invested with flesh and the whole covered
by skin with its appendages - nails and hairs. Then how beautifully are the different
organs, such as the heart, the liver, the spleen and the lungs - ventilating apparatus
- laid out. The formation of the brain, of the optic nerve with the most reticulate
formation of the retina, the demarking of the paths of indryas - the principles
of sensation and action - , the linking of the soul with the body, the assigning
of definite places to it for wakeful state, slumber and deep sleep, the formation
of different kinds of dhaatus - tissues and secretions, such as muscle, bone-marrow,
blood, reproductive elements - and the construction of various other wonderful
structures and mechanisms in the body who but God could have caused.
The wonderful creation of the earth.
Back to contents
The earth studded with various kinds of precious stones and metals, the seeds
of trees of a thousand different kinds* with their wonderful exquisite structures,
leaves with myriads of different colours** and shades, flowers, fruits, roots,
rhizomes and cereals with various scents and flavours*** none but God could create.
Nor could any one except God create myriads of earths, suns, moon and other cosmic
bodies, and sustain, revolve the regulate them.
object when perceived produces two kinds of knowledge in the mind of the observer,
viz., of the nature of the object itself and of its maker. For example, a man
found a beautiful ornament in a jungle. On examination he saw that it was made
of gold and that
*Such as Banyan tree, etc.
**Such as maroon, white , yellow, dark,
be-spotted and other mixed colours.
***Such as sweet, alkaline, saltish, bitter,
astringent, sharp and acid.
must have been made by a clever goldsmith. In the same way, the wonderful workmanship
and execution of this wonderful universe prove the existence of its Maker
Q.What was first
created, man or earth, etc.?
The earth, etc., because without them where could man live and how could he maintain
Was one man created in the beginning of Creation or more than one?
Back to contents
A.~ More than one; because souls, that on account of their previous good actions
deserve to be born in the Aishwari - not the result of sexual intercourse - Creation,
are born in the beginning of the world. It is said in the Yajur Veda, "(In the
beginning) there were born many men as well as rishis, i.e.., learned seers of
nature. They were progenitors of the human race." On the authority of this Vedic
text it is certain then that in the beginning of Creation hundreds and thousands
of men were born. By observing nature with the aid of reason we come to the same
conclusion, viz., that men are descended from many fathers and mothers (i.e.,
not from one father and one mother).
In the beginning of Creation were men created as children, adults or old people
or in all conditions?
Back to contents
A.~ They were adults, because had God created them as children they would have
required adults to bring them up, and had created them as old men, they would
not have been able to propagate the race, therefore He created them adults.
creation ever had a beginning?
Back to contents
A.~ No; just as the night follows the day and the day follows the night, the night
precedes the day and day precedes the night, so does Creation follows Dissolution
and Dissolution follows Creation, Dissolution precede Creation, and Creation precede
Dissolution. This alternate process has been eternally going on. It has neither
a beginning, nor an end, but just as the beginning and end of a day or of a night
are seen, so do Creations and Dissolutions have beginnings as well as ends. God,
the soul and prakriti - the primordial elementary matter - are eternal by nature,
whilst Creation, and Dissolution are eternal by pravah -i.e., they follow each
in alternate succession - like the flow of a river which is not continuous throughout
the whole year. It dries up and disappears in summer, and reappears in the rainy
season. Jus as the nature, attributes, and character of God are eternal, so are
His works - the Creation, Sustenance, and Dissolution (of the world).
Does not the belief of souls in lower beings impute partiality?
Back to contents
God put some souls in human bodies, while others he clothed with bodies of
ferocious animals such as tigers, others with those of cattle, such as cows, others
with those of birds and insects, other still with those of plants. Does not this
belief impute partiality to God?
No, it does not impute any partiality, because He put souls into the bodies they
deserved according to deeds done in the previous birth. Had He done so without
any consideration as to the nature of their deeds, He would have been unjust indeed.
Where was man first created?
Back to contents
A.~ In Trivishtap otherwise called Tibet. Q. Were all men of one class or divided
into different classes at the time of Creation?
They all belonged to one class, viz., that of man, but later on they were divided
into two main classes, - the good and the wicked. The good were called Aryas
and the wicked Dasyus. Says the Rig Veda, "Do ye know (there are) two classes
of men - Aryas and Dasyus." The good and learned were also called
Devaas, while the ignorant and wicked, such as dacoits (robbers), were
called Asura. TheAryas were again divided into four Classes,
viz., Braahmana (teachers), Kshatriya (rulers or protectors), Vaishya (merchants)
and Shuudra (labourers). Those who belonged to the first three classes being
educated and bearing good character, were called Dwijas - twice born; whilst
the fourth Class was so named because of being composed of ignorant and
illiterate persons. They were also called Anaryas - not good. This division
into Aryas and Shudras is supported by the Atharva Veda wherein
it is said "Some are Aryas, others Shuudras.
How did they happen to come here (to India) then?
Back to contents
A.~ When the relations between the Aryasand Dasyus, or between Devas
and Asuraas, (i.e., between the good and learned, and the ignorant
and wicked) developed into a constant state of
and serious troubles arose, the Aryas regarding this country as the best
in the whole earth emigrated her and colonized it. For this reason it is calledAryavarta
- the abode of the Aryas.
What are the boundaries of Aryavarta?
"It is bounded on the North by the Himalayas, on the South by the Vindyachal mountains,
on the East and West by the sea. It has also on its West the Sarasvati River (Sindh
or Attock) and on the East the Dhrisvati river also called the Brahmaputra which
rises from the mountain east of Nepal, and passing down to the east of Assam and
the west of Burma, falls into the Bay of Bengal in the Southern Sea (Indian Ocean).
All the countries included between the Himalaya on the North and Vindhyachal mountains
on the south as far as Rameshwar are called Aryavarta, because they were colonized
and inhabited by Devas (the learned) and Aryas - the good and the
noble." Manu 2: 22, 17.
What was the name of this country before that , and who were its oboriginal inhabitants?
had no name, nor was it inhabited by any other people before the Aryas(settled
in it) who sometime after creation came straight down here from Tibet and colonized
Some people say that they came from Iran (Persia) and hence they were called Aryas.
Before the Aryas came to this country it was inhabited by savages whom the Aryas
called Asuraas and Raakshasas as (demons), while they called themselves Devatas
(gods). The wars between the two were called by the name Devaasura Sangraam as
in the historical romances. Is this true?
It is absolutely wrong. The Veda declares what we have already repeated,
i.e., "The virtuous, learned, unselfish, and pious men are called Aryas,
while the men of opposite character such as docoits, wicked, unrighteous and
persons are called Dasyus."RIG VEDA 2: 51, 8. Besides , "The Dwijaas
( the twice-born) - Braahmanaas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyaas - are called Aryas,
while the Shuudraas are called Anaaryas, or Non-Aryas."ATHARVA VEDA19:62.
In the face of these Vedic authorities how can sensible people believe in the
imaginary tales of the foreigners. In the Devaasura wars, Prince Arjuna
and King Dashratha and others of Aryavartaused to go to the assistance
of the Aryas in order to crush the Asuras. This shows that the people
living outside Aryavarta were called Dasyus and Malechhaas; because
whenever those people attacked Aryas living on the Himalayas, the kings
and rulers of Aryavarta, went to help the Ayas of the north, etc.
war which Ram Chandra waged in the south against Ravan - the king of Ceylon -
is called not by the name of Devaasura war but by that of Raama-Raavana
war or the war between the Aryas and Raakhasas. In no Sanskrit book - historical
or otherwise - it is recorded that the Aryas emigrated here from Iran,
fought with and conquered the aborigines, drove them out, and became the rulers
of the country. How can then these statements of the foreigners be true? Besides,
Manu also corroborates our position. He says, "The countries other than
Aryavarta are called Dasyusand Malechha countries."MANU 10:45,
2:23. The people living in the north-east, north, north-west were called Raakshasas.
You can still see that the description of Raakshasas given therein tallies
with the ugly appearance of the negroes of today. The people living in the antipodes
of Aryavarta were called Nagas, and their country Pataalabecause
of being situated under the feet (of those living in Aryavarta). Their
kings belonged to the Naaga dynasty taking their name from that of the
founder who was called Naga. His daughter Ulopi was married to Prince
Arjuna. From the time of kshvaaku to that of Kauravaas and Paandavaas,
the Aryas were the sovereign rulers of the whole earth, and the Vedas
were preached and taught more or less even in countries other than Aryavarta.
was the first of the literati. His son was called Virat whose son was Manu
who had ten sons, Marichi etc., who were progenitors of seven kings beginning
with Swayambhava whose off-springs were the kings beginning with Ikshvaaku.
This Ikshvaaku colonized Aryavarta and was its first king. At the
present moment, let alone governing foreign countries, the Aryas through
indolence, negligence and mutual discord and ill-luck do not possess a free, independent,
uninterrupted and fearless rule even over their own country. Whatsoever rule is
left to them, is being crushed under the heel of the foreigner.
are only a few independent states left. When a country falls upon evil days, the
natives have to bear untold misery and suffering. Say what you will, the indigenous
native rule is by far the best. A foreign government, perfectly free from religious
prejudices, impartial towards all - the natives and the foreigners - kind, beneficent
and just to the natives like their parents though it may be, can never the people
perfectly happy. It is extremely difficult to do away with the differences in
language, religion, education, customs and manners, but without doing that the
people can never fully effect mutual good and accomplish their object. It behoves
all good people to hold in due respect the teachings of the Veda and Shaastraas
and ancient history. 36.
much time has elapsed since the creation of the world?
Back to contents
A.~ One billion, nine hundred sixty millions and some hundred thousand years have
passed since the creation of the world and the revelation of the Vedas. For detailed
exposition of this subject the readers should consult our book called "An introduction
to the Exposition of the Vedas." (1,960,852,999 years old).
orderly devolopment of the subtle ether (matter) to that of the stage of solid.Back to contents
minutest particle of matter that cannot be divided any further is called a
60 Paramaanus make one Anu (molecule).
2 Anus make one Dvyanak, which enters into the composition of the
ordinary physical Vayu (air).
3 Dvyanaks make one Trasarenu
that forms Agni - that condition of matter whose property is light, and
4 Dvyanaks formJala (liquids).
5 Dvyanaks form
Dvyanaks make one trasarenu, by doubling which earth and visible
objects are formed. It is in this way - i.e., by the process of combining Paramaanuus
and Anus and so on till the visible things are produced - that the earth
and other planets have been made of God. 37.
What supports this earth?
Back to contents
Q. What supports this earth? One man says that it rests on the head of Shesha
- a thousand-hooded snake, another says that it is supported on the horns of a
bull, a third says that it rests on nothing, a fourth one says that it is supported
by the solar attraction, and sixth one says that being heavy the earth is going
down and down in space. Out of all of these different theories which shall we
believe to be true?
Those, who say that it rests on the head of Shesha (a snake) or on the horns of
a bull, should be asked, on what the earth rested in the time of the parents of
the shesha or of the bull before it was born and what supported it. The followers
of the bull theory will be at once silenced. But the advocates of the shesha theory
willsay that the shesha rest on a kurn ( a tortoise) which rests on water, and
the water on Agni and the Agni on air and air rests on A'kaasha (space). They
should be asked on what all of them rested. They will have say "on God". If you
ask them again whose children the shesha and bull were, they will tell you that
the bull was the son of a cow and the shesha that of kurma (a tortoise), the son
of Marichi who was the son of Manu, the son of Virat, who was the son of Brahma.
was born in the beginning of creation. Six generations had thus passed before
the shesha was born, who had sustained the earth till then? What did it rest on
at the time of the birth of Kashyapa (the tortoise)? They will have nothing
further to say* and will, therefore, begin to quarrel. What it really means is
that shesha is another name for the remainder (that is, what is left behind
in subtracting one sum from another). Some poet said: "The earth rests on shesha."
Some ignorant man, not understanding the poet, invented this tale of the snake.
What the poet really meant was that the earth was supported by God - the one Unchangeable
Being in the midst of Creation and Dissolution, the One permanent element that
undergoes no change during Creation
*Literally 'thy silence adn my silence.' It is an Indian proverb.-Tr.
Dissolution. In the whole world He is the only one that remains unchanged. He
stands aloof from change. "That God who is unaffected by time, and is imperishable
sustains the sun and the earth and all other planets." ATHARVA VEDA 14:1, 1.
is passage in the Rig Veda which means "Ukshaa sustains the moon and earth."
Some ignorant person seeing the word ukshaa invented the story of the bull
supporting the earth, because ukshaa does also mean a bull, but never entered
the head of that idiot as to how a bull could be powerful enough to support such
a planet. Ukshaa her means the sun, because it waters the earth through
rain. It sustains this earth by solar attraction. But there is none besides God
Who sustains the sun. 38.
How could God sustain such big planets s the sun and the earth?
Back to contents
A.~ Just as these big planets are nothing compared to the infinite ( in which
they exist) - (they are not even as big as a drop in the ocean), - similarly compared
with the Infinite, Almighty God, these myriads of planets are not even as big
as an atom. He pervades everything within and without. "He is the Supreme Spirit
who created all things and sustains them." YAJUR VEDA. Had He not been an All-pervading
God (just as the Puranics, the Muslims and the Christians say). He could never
sustain this world, because no one can support a thing without being present there.
If some one says, "All these planets are supporting each other by mutual attraction,
where then is the necessity for God to sustain them?"
should be asked if the universe is finite or infinite. If he answers that it is
infinite it cannot be true - since a thing possessing a form can never be infinite;
and if he says that it is finite, we ask whose attraction supports what is beyond
or outside its limits. Things when spoken of collectively ar called smashti
and individually Vyashti*. If all the worlds were collectively called the
universe, there is no one but God
*For example, a group of trees would be called Smashti,while
each tree individually Vyashti.
attracts and sustains it as it is said in the Yajur Veda, "God it is Who creates
and sustains luminous bodies, (such as the sun) as well as the non-luminous (such
as the earth)."YAJUR VEDA 13:4. As He pervades all. He is the Creator and sustainer
of the universe.
Do the earth and other planets revolve or are they stationary?
Some say that it is the sun that moves, not the earth, while others say just the
reverse. Now who are right?
They are both half grown; because it is written in the Veda, "This earth with
all it waters revolves round the sun." YAJUR VEDA 3, 6. This shows that the earth
revolves. Again says the Veda, "The Glorious , resplendent sun, that gives life
and energy to al the world, - animate and inanimate - through rain and solar rays,
and makes all physical objects visible, attracts all other planet and rotates
in its own orbit, but does not move round other planets." YAJUR VEDA 33:43.
In each solar system
there is one sun that gives light to all the planets (such as the earth).
Says the Veda,
"As the moon is illuminated by the sun, so are other planets ( such as the earth)
illuminated by the light of the sun." ATHARVA VEDA14: 1. But the day, and the
night are constantly present. It is day in that part of the earth which in its
revolutions round the sun confronts it, whilst it is night in the other half which
is hidden from it. In other words, the sunrise, the sunset, the twilight, the
mid-day and the mid-night, etc,. are always present in different countries at
the same time; thus when it is sunrise in India, it is sunset in America and vice
versa; when it is mid-day or mid-night in America and vice-versa. Those, who say
that the sun moves round the earth
is stationary are all ignorant; because, had it been so, one day and one night
would have lasted thousands of years, since the sun is called Bradhna,
which means that it is a hundred thousand times bigger than the earth, and millions
of miles distant from it; consequently it would require much longer time for the
sun to go round the earth than for the latter to go round the former. Just as
if a mountain were to go round a mustard seed, it would take much longer time
when the latter would go round the former.
who say that the sun is stationary are ignorant of Astronomy; because had it been
so, how could it move form one zodiac to another; besides, a heavy body like the
sun could never remain in space without rotating constantly. The Jainees, who
say that the earth does not move, but on the other hand is going down and down
in space, and that in one Jamboo Island alone there are two suns and two moons,
are like one suffering from Delirium Tremens the result of over-intoxication with
the earth were going down and down, it would smash into pieces from want of support
of the air which could no longer encircle it. The people living on the top (uppermost)
should have more air than those below, it being unequally distributed. Had there
been two suns and two moons there would have been no night and no dark half of
the month. Therefore, there is only one moon for our planet and one sun amidst
many planets. 39.
What are the sun, the moon and the stars?
Back to contents
Q. Are they inhabited by man and other living creatures or not?
A.~ They are worlds
inhabited by men and other living beings, The Shatpatha Braahman 14:6, 9, 4. says.,
"The earth, the water, the heated bodies, the space, the moon, the sun, and other
planets are all called Vasus or abodes, because they are abodes of living
beings as well as of inanimate objects." When the sun, the moon and other planets
are abodes like our earth, what doubt can there be in their being inhabited? When
this little earth of God is full of men land other living beings, can it ever
be possible that all other worlds are void? How can myriads of other worlds be
of any use unless they are inhabited by man and other beings? It follows, therefore,
that they are inhabited.
272 40. Do they have the same bodies?
Would men and other living beings in the other worlds have the same kind of
bodies and bodily organs as they have here or different?
A.~ Most likely
there is some difference in their form and the like, just as you see some difference
in form, countenance, appearance and complexion among people of different countries
as the Ethiopeans, Chinese, the Indians and the Europeans. But the creation of
the same class or species on this earth and other planets is identical. The class
or species that has its sense organs (as eyes) in some definite place in the body
here (on this planet), will have them in the same place other planets; for it
is said in the Veda, "Just as God created the sun, the moon, the earth, and other
planets and the objects therein in the previous cycles of Creation, the same has
He done in the present Creation." RIG VEDA 10: 190. He does not make any alteration.
Are the same Vedas revealed in the other worlds as in this?
Back to contents
A.~ Yes. Just as the policy of a king is the same in all the countries under his
rule, so is the Vedic system of Government of the King of kings identically the
same in all the worlds over which He rules.
Why should we have control of matter and soul?
Back to contents
Q. When you hold that the soul and the Prakriti (matter) are eternal and were
never created by God, why should He have any control over them, as they are independent?
as a king and his subjects live contemporaneously and yet they are subject to
him, so are the soul and the prakriti under the control of God. Why should not
the soul, with its finite powers and the dead inert matter be subject to His powers
when He creates the whole universe, awards souls the fruits of their deeds, protects
and sustains all, and possess infinite powers. It is clear, therefore, that the
soul is free to act, but is subject to the laws of God in reaping the fruits of
its acts, while the Almighty God is the Creator, Protector and Sustainer of, the
OF CHAPTER 8.