Back to contents
When the people of Aryavarta gave up the study
of the Vedic lore which alone enables one to
discriminate between right and wrong, ignorance spread
over the land and many sects sprang up, the Jain
religion, whose teachings are opposed to science, took
root in the country. We find no mention of the Jainees
in the Ramayana by Valmiki and in the
Mahaabhaarata, while in the Jain scriptures we
find the life stories of Rama, Krishna,
- the heroes of the two poems - in detail.
goes to show that this religion came into existence
after the period of the Epics, for, if the Jainees have
been right in holding that their faith dates from remote
antiquity references to it would surely have been met
with in the books like the Ramayana. It is clear,
therefore, that the Jain religion was later than the
period of these books. If it be argued that the authors
of the Ramayanaand theMahaabhaarata borrowed
the stories from the Jain scriptures, the question may
be asked as to why the sacred books of the Jainees are
not referred to in the Epics, while the latter are adverted
to in the holy books of the Jainees.
it possible for the son to be present on the occasion
of his father's birth? Form this it may be safely inferred
that the Jain and the Buddhist religions
originated even after the Shiviteand Vaama
Maarg sects had come into existence. Whatever has
been written about the Jain religion in this chapter
has been supported by quotations from the Jain scriptures
(for chapter and verse have been citied in each case).
The Jainees shold not take offence at our comments,
for in offering them we
been actuated solely by the desire of ascertaining what
is true and what is false, and not by malice or the
desire of injuring susceptibilities. The perusal of
this chapter by the Jainees, the Buddhists and other
people will engender in them the spirit of enquiry into
truth and prompt them to life up their pen in their
defense and study the subject with this end in view.
So long as discussions, whether oral or written, are
not carried on and the parties in the debate do not
maintain a spirit of love, it is impossible to arrive
at any conclusion as to the correctness or otherwise
of a belief.
is only when learned men do not act in this spirit,
that the ignorant people are steeped in utter darkness
and suffer extreme misery. Hence in order that the cause
of truth may triumph and (that of) untruth may fail,
it is the bounden duty of all men to conduct debates,
whether written or oral, in a friendly spirit. Unless
this course is followed, the human race can make no
progress. It is believed that this chapter which treats
of the Buddhist and the Jain religions
will be of immense help to the followers of other religions
and will considerably add to the stock of knowledge
because the followers of the Jainreligion do
not let others read or copy out their books.
dint of great efforts made by the author and especially
Mr. Sevak Lal Krishna Das, secretary, Arya Samaj, Bombay,
some books have been obtained. Again the study of the
Jain religion has been facilitated by the publication
of some books at the Benares Jain Prabhakar Press and
by that of the book called Prakaran Ratnakar at Bombay.
What would you think of those learned men who would
monopolize the right of studying their sacred books
and deprive other of the same. From this it is clear
that the authors of these books were in constant fear
that if the followers of other religions read their
books, they would refute the doctrines of their faith
and if their co-religionists read the scriptures of
other religions they would lose all faith in the Jain
religion, the reason being that there was a lingering
doubt in the minds of the Jain writers that their works
were replete with incredible absurdities. This, however,
is patent to all that there are many people in the world
who cannot perceive their own
but they are ever ready to notice the shortcomings of
others. This hardly just, for one should find out and
remove his own shortcomings before he proceed to discover
and remove the faults of others. And examination of
the doctrines of the Jain and Buddhist religions is
now submitted to the judgment of al impartial readers.
introduction, though short will, we hope, satisfy the
founder of the Charvaka
Back to contents
Once there lived (in India) a man named Vrihaspati
who did not believe in the existence of God, in (the
revealed character of) the Veda and in the efficiency
of good works, such as Yajnas. this is what he
~ " No living creature - not even a human being - is immortal.All
are subject to death; let a man, therefore, live in ease
and comfort so long as he draws breath. If it be objected
that the practice of virtue entails suffering, while deviation
from the path of rectitude brings on misery in the nest
birth, in reply to this it may be urged that, after death,
the body is burnt to ashes and, therefore, the man who
enjoyed himself during his lifetime never returns to this
world after his demise.
a man, then, enjoy himself to his utmost capacity, deport
himself in this world as expediency may direct, accumulate
wealth and spend it on the gratification of his desires.
All our interests are centered in this world. There
is not hereafter."
four elements, earth, water, fire and air, have entered
into the composition of the human body; consciousness
results from their combination even as inebriation results
from the use of intoxicants. Similarly, the soul takes
its births simultaneously with the body and is dissolved
with its dissolution. The reaping of the fruits of good
or evil deeds is, therefore, an utter impossibility.
soul is called into existence as the result of the combination
of the four elements and is annihilated synchronously
dissolution of the body, for, the existence of the soul,
after death, is not demonstrable by direct cognition
only. We believe in direct cognition only. Because the
inferential and cognate modes of reasoning have for
their basis direct cognition, Direct cognition being,
therefore, of primary importance, all the rest sink
into secondary importance, and are, therefore, not acceptable.
The enjoyment that results from embracing a beautiful
woman is the greatest reward of human effort.
~ Your so-called elements are devoid of consciousness,
therefore consciousness cannot result from their combination.
Just as in our day the human today is formed as the
result of sexual intercourse between the husband and
the wife, likewise it was impossible for the bodies
of men and other living beings to come into shape without
the author of the Universe causing them to do so. It
is wrong to say that consciousness is called into existence
or annihilated even as inebriation is produced or removed,
for it is a conscious being that is susceptible to the
effects of inebriation, but not one devoid of consciousness.
things are destroyed, i.e. pass into a state of invisibility,
but nothing is ever annihilated. Similarly it is a rational
belief that the soul becomes non-existent, because it
is not an object of visual perception. The existence
of the soul is made manifest only when it is embodied.
When it leaves the body, the latter suffers dissolution
and ceases to be the habitation of consciousness.
is even this which the Vrihadaranyaka Upanishad
declares. (Yajnavalka says to his wife) "O Maitreyi!
What I say is not prompted by infatuation. The soul
is immortal. Being united with, it, the body becomes
possessed of conscious effort. When it is separated
from the body, consciousness is altogether dislodged
from the latter. If the soul be not distinct from the
body, how could it be that its union with the latter
produces consciousness, while its separation from the
same makes it devoid of consciousness. The eye sees
all objects but cannot see itself, even so the soul,
which possesses the power of sensuous perception, cannot
itself be an object of that mode of perception. Though
the instrumentality of the eye, the soul sees all (visible)
objects, such as pitcher or a
of cloth, but it is conscious of the existence of the
eye by inferential reasoning. The seer is always a seer
and can never be transformed into an object of visual
perception. Just as the thing supported cannot exist
without a supporter, an effect without a cause; constituent
parts without whole, and act without a doer; even so
there can be no sensuous perception without the perceiver.
the ultimate aim of human effort be the pleasure resulting
form sexual intercourse with a pretty woman, it cannot
be true because it is momentary. Again, this act* also
produces some undesirable results, and it cannot be
said that they are the aim of human effort. Otherwise,
the carnal pleasure not being an unmixed pleasure, suffering
will result. If it be said that the aim of human endeavor
should be to obtain exemption from pain and an increase
of pleasure, that aim will be frustrated. Hence carnal
pleasure cannot be the aim of human effort.
~They are foolish who renounce (carnal) pleasure, because
it is mixed with pain. Just as a farmer thrashes out
the corn, keeps the grain and throws away the husk,
likewise, a wise man should enjoy pleasure and reject
pain, for those people that renounce immediate pleasures
of this world and desire to obtain mediate and uncertain
joys of paradise and, with that end in view, perform
Homa do righteous deeds, offer worship, devote
themselves to the acquisition of spiritual knowledge
- all these practices having been enjoined by the Vedaas
which have been composed by rogues - are sunk in ignorance.
is foolish to hope for heavenly bliss when it is clear
that there is no hereafter. "Vrihaspati (the founder
of the Charvaka faith) says that the performance of
Homa (sacred) recitations from the three Vedas, the
use of three staves, the smearing of the body with ashes
have been turned into means of subsistence by people
devoid of understanding and activity." In our opinion
physical pain such as caused by puncturing the body
with a thorn constitutes hell. Salvation is nothing
but attaining to the position of a king - who is in
point of act God - possessed of glory or the dissolution
of the body.
* The loss of the reproductive
element brings on physical weakness which brings, in its
train, disease and decay. There is no carnal pleasure,
which has not its attendant disadvantages. _Tr.
~ It is sheer folly to believe that the aim of human
endeavor is the gratification of bestial appetites and
that the realization of the heavenly state and the faithful
discharge of duty consists in getting rid of pain which
accompanies sensual gratification. Performance of Yajnas
like Homa contributes to the purification of
air, rain and water and thus promotes health and enables
one to acquire virtue, wealth, gratify natural desires
and obtain salvation.
does not understand this and scoffs at God and the Veda
and the teachings of the Vedic religion is a scoundrel.
The author of this verse is right in denouncing the
use of the three (sacred) staves and the smearing of
the body with ashes. If the pain caused by pricking
the thorn constitutes hell, why should not terrible
maladies, which bring on greater suffering, be designated
by the same name. It is, no doubt, quite true that a
king, who is possessed of glory and is the protector
of his subjects, is deserving of homage, but none except
a perfect dunce would accord divine honors to an unjust
and wicked king. If salvation is only another name for
the dissolution of the body, wherein then lies the difference
between human beings (and beasts) like dogs and donkeys
excepting in the external appearance?
arguments in favored by the Charvaka Faith.
Back to contents
is no author of the universe*. All things combine
together by virtue of properties inherent in them."
is neither heaven nor hell, nor is there any entity
like the soul to reap, hereafter, the fruits of deeds
done in this life,
* Charvakas, Buddhists, Jainees
and Abhanakas - all these four orders of atheists hold
the same view with regard to Cosmogony, i.e., there is
no author of the universe.
does the performance of duties pertaining to one's Class
and Order bear any fruit."*
the animal offered as sacrifice goes to heaven, why
does not the Yajmana (master of ceremonies) send his
parents, etc., to heaven, by killing them by way of
oblations offered to the manes of departed ancestors
satisfy the latter, what need is there, then, for
people going abroad to take with them victuals, clothes,
cash, etc., for maintaining themselves during the
journey. If a thing offered in the name of a departed
ancestor reaches him in heaven, why cannot things,
offered in the name of the person, gone abroad, by
his relations staying at home reach him in foreign
lands. If it be impossible to convey anything to foreign
lands in this way for the benefit of a traveler, how
much more so would it be to convey things to heaven
(for the benefit of the departed ancestor)?"
"If the physical wants of an ancestor in heaven cant
be satisfied by offerings made in his name in this
mortal world, why cannot the cravings of hunger, felt
by a person in the upper story of a house, be satisfied
if eatables are offered in his name by some one in
the lower story."
"Therefore, let a man pass his life in ease and comfort;
if he has got nothing with him, let him borrow money
from others. No obligations exist to pay back debts
hereafter, for a particular individual (combination
of the body and the soul) that contracted the debt
will never return to this world. Who will, then, demand
payment and who will have to pay?"
It is wrong to say that, after death, the soul leaves
the body and is transported to the next world, for
if it be otherwise, why does not the departed soul
return home, impelled by love for its family."
* The Charvakas have no belief
in the existence of the soul and in a future life but
the Buddhists and Jainees do not subscribe to that belief.
In other matters their beliefs are almost identical.
"Hence, all these practices have been invented by
the priests for their own pecuniary benefit. The ceremony
of offering rice balls on the 10th day after death,
and other funeral ceremonies like this have 'been
devised for the same selfish purpose."
"The authors of the Vedas were buffoons, scoundrels
and devils. The words like jarfari and tarfari are
symbolic of the rascally teachings of pundits."
"Mark! What the rascals teach. Who but a scoundrel
can promulgate that the wife of the master of ceremonies
should have sexual intercourse with a horse and obscene
jokes should be cracked at the expense of the bride."
"The portion of the Veda which inculcates indulgence
in flesh-diet has been composed by some fiend (in
the garb of a man).
of the eleven arguments.
Back to contents
Dead and inert substances cannot combine together
of their own accord and according to some design unless
the Conscious Being - God - fashions and shapes them.
If they could combine together by virtue of inherent
properties, why does not another set of the sun, the
moon, the earth and other planets spring into existence
The enjoyment of happiness constitutes heaven while
the suffering of (extreme) misery constitutes hell.
If there be no soul, who would enjoy happiness or
suffer misery, just as in this life the soul enjoys
and suffers, likewise it will enjoy and suffer in
the next birth. Will the cultivation of even such
virtues as veracity in speech and benevolence by people
belonging to a particular Class and a particular Order
4, 5. The Veda and other Shaastras do not at all sanction
animal sacrifice; the practice of offering oblations
to the manes of departed ancestors is an invention
of priests, because it is
to the Vedic and Shaastric teachings and finds sanction
only in the Puraana like the Bhagvat. We have, therefore,
nothing to say against the refutation of this doctrine.
Whatever exists cannot cease to exist. The soul is
an entity, therefore it can never become non-entity.
It is not the soul but the body that is reduced to
ashes (when it had been cremated). The soul (after
death) passes into another body. Whoever, therefore,
enjoys himself by borrowing from others and does not
pay back his debts is verily a sinner and will, doubtless,
suffer terribly in the next birth.
After leaving the body, the soul is transported to
another place and takes on another body; it forgets
all about its previous birth and its family, hence
it is impossible for it to return to its previous
Yes, it is true that the priests have devised these
funeral rites from motives of pecuniary gain, but,
being opposed to the Vedas, they are condemnable.
It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that if the Charvakas
had read or heard them read, they would never have
reviled them by saying, that they had been composed
by buffoons, scoundrels, and devils. It is, no doubt,
true that commentators like Mahidhar were the real
buffoons, scoundrels and devils.
is on account of their rascality that such teachings
have been fathered upon the Vedas. What a pity that
the Charvakas, the Abhanakas, the Budhists and the
Jainees never cared to study the four Vedaas in
original with a learned man. This was the reason
why their intellectual vision was blurred and distorted
and they began to revile the Vedas in a foolish
and nonsensical fashion. There read only the un-authoritative,
absolutely wrong, and dirty commentaries by wicked
Vama Margis, turned against the Veda and fell deep
down in the bottomless pit of ignorance.
No sane man would believe that any people except the
Vaama Maagis are capable of sanctioning such practices
as the co-habitation of the wife of the master of
ceremonies with a horse and poking obscene fun at
his daughter. Who but these vile reprobates (i.e.,
Vama Margis) could have thought out such a filthy,
incorrect exposition quite at variance with the Vedic
is much to be deplored that the Charvakas, etc., took
to a thoughtless vilification of the Vedas. They ought
to have made some use at least of their sense. But they
were greatly to be pitied because they did not possess
enough knowledge to enable them to sift truth from falsehood,
to champion the cause of truth and denounce error.
doctrinal differences between the Charvaka and allied
Flesh-eating is not all enjoined by the Veda, it is
only the Vama Margi commentators who have perverted
the Vedic texts to yield this meaning, they verily
deserve to be called demons in human shape. The Vama
Margi commentators and those, who have thoughtlessly
reviled the Vedas without having properly studied
them or picked up any reliable information about them,
will doubtless suffer for having committed this sin.
tell the truth, all those, who have opposed the
Vedas in the past, do so now, or will do the same
in future, being steeped in dense ignorance, suffer
great pain and misery instead of a happiness. It
is, therefore, the duty of all men to mould their
conduct according to the teachings of the Vedas.
Vama Margis, in order to gain their selfish end
- which was to be free to resort to wicked practices
such as the use of flesh and spirituous liquors,
and adultery with impunity - invented their creed
- which finds no sanction in the Shaastras - in
the name of the Vedas, and thus brought them into
Charvakas, the Buddhists and the Jainees began to
revile the Vedas when they saw that that the professed
believers in these scriptures followed such wicked
modes of conduct. The founded a new religion which
is atheistic and anti-Vedic. Had the Charvakas,
etc., read the originals, they would never have
been misled by false commentaries into forsaking
the Vedic religion. They are very much to be pitied.
When ruin is at hand, understanding is warped and
Back to contents
We shall now point out the doctrinal differences between
the Charvaka and allied faiths. They are alike in most
Charvakas believe that the soul comes into
being simultaneously with the body and ceases to exist
as soon as the body is dissolved.
do not believe in metempsychosis, nor in a future
reject all kinds of evidence except that of direct
etymological meaning of the word Charvaka is a person
who is clever in speech and is extremely fond of wrangling.
the other hand, the Buddhists and the Jainees believe
in the four kinds of evidence, such as direct cognition,
the immortality of the soul, metempsychosis, the future
life and emancipation. These are the main differences
between the Charvakas on one hand and the Buddhists
and the Jainees on the other.
points of agreement are following:-
have briefly explained the doctrines of the Charvakas.
God and His Word - the Veda.
antagonism against other religions.
in the efficacy of six acts to be described later
in the first cause.
Back to contents
Now, we shall briefly discuss Buddhism.
The Buddhists believe that there is an "inseparable
relation between cause and effect, i.e., "the cause
invariably suggests the effect and the effect the cause.
In this mental process Inference follows Direct cognition.
Without the help of the Inferential mode of reasoning
the affairs of the world cannot be satisfactorily carried
on." The Buddhism, therefore, attaches special importance
to Inference and, therefore, constitutes a system of
belief different from that of the Charvakas.
following are the different forms of Buddhism:-
the word Buddha (Buddhist) means 'one who acts in accordance
with the dictates of reasoning' that is one who accepts
reasoning as the supreme and final authority.
- It teaches that all is nought, i.e., all things
originally proceeded from nought and will ultimately
resolved into nought. Whatever we perceive continues
to exist only so long as our perceptive faculties.
at work. When they cease to act, the objects of perception
recede into naught. For example, no pitcher was inn
existence before it was made, it ceases to exist after
it was broken. It seems to exist when it is an object
of perception on our part, but when our consciousness
is concentrated on other objects it passes out of its
range (and therefore ceases to exist). Hence naught
is the sole entity.
the founder of the (Buddhistic) faith was one - Buddha,
yet on account of intellectual differences among his disciples
it came to have four forms. Take an example. When the
shades of the evening close in, a rake meets his inamorata,
while a good and learned man busies himself with the performance
of righteous acts such as truthfulness. Thus at one and
the same time two different persons act differently; each
acting according to his understanding.
teaches that nothing exists outside human consciousness,
i.e., all objects seem to exist in the mind. For example,
the knowledge of the existence of the pitcher resides
in the soul (consciousness), that is why a man calls
a particular object by the name of pitcher. If this
delusion had not previously existed in consciousness,
how would he have clothed it in words?
teaches that the existence of objects of the universe
is mainly inferred. There is nothing that can be wholly
known by direct cognition. It only affords the data
but complete perception is arrived at by means of
teaches that when a thing is known by direct cognition,
no mental images of the outside objects are formed
in consciousness. For example, when one says, "Here
is a blue pitcher," he means that the blue substance
in the form of a pitcher appears to exist outside
the four forms, the Madhyamika teaches that all
perception is of a transient nature, i.e., each individual
state of consciousness being of momentary duration,
the perception of a thing at one moment differs from
what it was a moment before. All knowledge is, therefore,
Yogachar form (of Buddhism) teaches that all
enjoyment results in pain, because gratification of
desires does not bring one
When one desire is satisfied, a new one takes its place
(and thus peace of mind is never secured).
Sautrantika form (of Buddhism) teaches that all
things are known by their Lakshanas,* just as the cow
is known by its distinctive Lakshanas and the horse
by its won distinctive Lakshanas. Lakshanas always reside
in objects of which they are attributes.
form teaches that naught is the sole entity. In this
matter there is an agreement between the Madhyamika
and Vaibhashika forms. Hence, there are many
antagonistic forms of belief among the Buddhists. The
chief of them are these four.
~ If all be naught, the knower of naught can never be
naught, for if he also be naught be cannot (being himself
naught) know naught. It is, therefore, clear that (even
from the Buddhistic point of view) there must be two
entities - the knower who perceives the naught and the
thing known - the naught.
regards the Yogachara form of belief according to which
nothing exists outside consciousness, it may be said
that even big objects like a mountain must be believed
to exists in the seat of consciousness. But this is
absurd, because it is incapable of holding a mountain.
The mountain, therefore, exists outside consciousness
and a perception of this object is formed in consciousness
- the soul.
Sautrantika form (of Buddhism) teaches that nothing
is known by direct cognition** (all knowledge is gained
by inference).(We say in reply that) if it be so, the
declaration of belief and the existence of the person
making it must be held to be the result of inference.
This being the case, it would not be logically right
to say, "This is pitcher." It rather ought to be said,
"This is part of the pitcher,: but the name pitcher
cannot be applied to a part to a part of it, it is applicable
to all the constituent parts of the pitcher taken as
is a pitcher" is a proposition which can only be made
by one who has gained knowledge by direct cognition
and not by inference, because the whole pervades its
constituent parts, and, therefore, as soon as the whole
is perceived by direct cognition, all its constituent
parts may be said to have been
* A Lakshana is that by means
of which an object is known. Attributes are also lakshanas
but the two terms do not coincide in extension.-Tr.
**In inferential reasoning we
proceed from the part to the whole, from particulars to
generals, from example to rules, etc. It is by direct
cognition alone that the knowledge of an object as a whole
is gained all at once.-Tr.
perceived in the same manner. In other words, the pitcher
is perceived as composed of constituent parts.
Vaibhashikites are not right in holding that
when a thing is known by direct cognition, no mental
images of the outside objects are formed in consciousness.
for, direct cognition is impossible unless there be
the perception of an object and a knower. Although the
object of perception is outside consciousness, yet perception
is impossible, unless a mental image of the outside
object is formed in consciousness.
An examination of the four schools of Buddhism.
Back to contents
We now proceed to examine other doctrines of the aforesaid
four schools of Buddhism.
Jainees believe in the same tirathankaras (perfect beings
or incarnations) as the Buddhists. Both these religions
are, therefore, identical.
all perception be of a transient character, there
should be not recollection of past events, but the
fact is that we do recollect what we had seen or heard
in the past, hence this belief in the momentary character
of perception is erroneous.
is not right to say that in this world there is nothing
but sorrow and misery, and there is absolutely no
happiness, even as one can conceive of the night only
in relation to the day, and vice versa.
is wrong to believe that lakshana always resides in
the object (of which it is a lakshana) sometimes it
does, and at others it does not). Take for example,
light is always perceived by the eye and, therefore,
the latter is the lakshana of the former, while light
is the lakshya (i.e., that which is known by means
of lakshana). But the eye - the lakshana is distinct
from light, the lakshaya.
proposition can also be demonstrated by taking the
relation between the color of the pitcher and the
eye as an illustration. [Now we offer an illustration
to show, that a lakshana may also reside n the lakshayas.]
The power of exciting olfactory impulses is a lakshana
of Prithivi. It resides in Prithvi and can never
be separated from it. It is, therefore, clear that
lakshanas do not necessarily reside in their lakshayas.
belief about the naught being the sole entity has
already been examined and refuted.
hold that the four kinds of beliefs stated above constitute
the means towards the attainment of freedom from all
(worldly) desires which leads to Nirvana, or extinction
(of the soul). This is their salvation. They teach their
pupils the path of Yogachara and also that whatever
falls from the lips of one's preceptor is worthy of
belief and that the beginningless intellect, being clouded
by passions and desires, appears to assume different
five mundane forms of Consciousness:-
Buddhists hold that one should realize that the
whole world is full of sorrow and pain, it is a vale of
tears. With this belief one should exert himself so as
to be freed from (the troubles of) this world. This constitutes
the highest form of salvation according to the Charvakas.
The Buddhists also believe in the Inferential mode
of reasoning and deny the existence of the soul. One of
their scriptures says:-
of objects, such as color by the senses such as eyes,
constitutes Rupa Skandha.
of the activity of the thinking faculty constitutes
of pleasure or pain - the result of Rupa Skandha and
Vijnana Skandha - constitute Vedana Skandha.
belief in the relation of the words, such as cow,
with the objects signified by them constitutes Sanjna
kinds of Klesha (affliction) such as inordinate love
and hatred, or upaklesha (minor kinds of affliction)
such as hunger and thirst, ardent passion, negligence,
vanity, virtuous and sinful acts - the result of Vedana
Skandha - constitute Sanskara Skandha.
is the duty of the Buddhists to believe in one who understands
all about the Lords of the worlds, otherwise known as
Tirathankaras such as Buddha, who possessed of
perfect knowledge and has renounced the world and attained
the blessed state of
in this life, who preaches all things separately and
has been described minutely and in different ways."
should also believe in the teachings (with regard ot
naught, etc.) of different gurus (preceptors) which
have a clear and deep significance and have briefly
been described before openly or covertly."
Dwadashayatanapuja (or the worship of twelve places)
alone can lead to salvation. Let a Buddhist, therefore,
collect all kinds of material for offering this kind
of worship and build twelve places and worship them
in the proper manner. Why should he worship anything
Buddhistic Swaddashayatanapuja consists in showing respect
to the five organs of sensation, such as ears, eyes,
nose, mouth, and the organ of touch, five organs of
action such as those of speech, locomotion, excretion
and reproduction, the principle of attention and the
principle of discernment by giving them unlimited license.
This the Buddhistic faith."
~ Had there been nothing in this world but pain and
sorrow no living soul would have had inclination for
anything in this world; but it is our daily experience
that the souls do desire for the objects for this world,
hence it cannot be true that in the whole universe there
is nothing but pain and sorrow. Both happiness and misery
are to be found in this world.
the Buddhists really believe in the above doctrine,
why do they attend to the health of their bodies, and
for this purpose take food and drink and follow the
laws of health and in case of sickness take medicine,
etc.? Why do they believe that these things are conducive
to one's happiness? If they believe that these things
are conducive to one's happiness? If they answer that
they certainly do these things but at the same time
believe that they lead to misery and pain, it can never
the soul takes to what is conducive to its happiness
and shuns what entails misery and suffering. Practice
of virtue, acquisition of knowledge and wisdom, association
with the good and the like undoubtedly are conducive
to man's happiness. Now wise man can ever assert that
these result in pain and sorrow. It is Buddhists alone
who hold such a belief. As regards the five skandhas
(given above), they are not exhaustive, since if one
were to classify skandhas like that, one does not know
where he would end. They believe that the Tirathankaras
were the teachers and lords of the world, while they
refuse to believe in the Eternal, Supreme Spirit who
is the Lord of lords.
we should like to know who was the teacher of those
Tirthankaras. If they answer that they evolved knowledge
out of their own minds, it cannot be right, because
no effect can come into existence without a cause. Besides,
if what they assert be true, why don't the Buddhists
in our day become learned, without studying with others
or hearing what they teach and associating with the
learned men? Such being the case, their assertion, which
is altogether groundless and opposed to reason, is as
valueless a the mutterings of a patient suffering from
delirium due to high fever. If, a negation of all that
exists be the belief of the Buddhists, it can never
be valid since that which exists can never cease to
exist, though it can be converted into its subtle causal
form - the elementary matter from which the whole universe
has proceeded. Hence, this statement (of the Buddhists)
is also erroneous.
they believe that it is only through the acquisition
of wealth and other worldly possessions that the above-mentioned
Swadashayatanapuja (worship of the twelve* places),
which leads to salvation, can be offered, why don't
they also worship the ten Paranas - nervauric forces
and the soul (which is eleventh)?
the worship of the senses and the mind (i.e., becoming
a slave to them) is held to be the means of attaining,
what difference is there, then, between the Buddhists
and the sensualists? When the Buddhists did not escape
being slaves to the senses, how could they ever attain
salvation? People who are slaves to their senses can
never have an idea of what salvation really is. What
a wonderful progress have hey (i.e., the Buddhists)
made in ignorance? They have really no equal in this
respect. It is certain that this is the result of
* These twelve places represent
the ten organs of sense and, action and the manas - the
principle of attention and the principle of discernment.-Tr.
opposing the Veda and God. First they imagined that
in the whole world there was nothing but sorrow and
suffering and then they formulated this doctrine of
Dwadashayatanapuja consist in worshipping objects which
are outside the world? If this mode of worship could
lead to salvation, we should think a man, with closed
eyes, could as well find diamonds.
people have come to believe in such stupid things by
rejecting the Veda and God. Even now if they seek happiness,
they should lean on the Veda and God andthereby realize
the true aim of human life.
description of the Buddhist religion by the Vivekavilasa.
Back to contents
The book called Vivekavilasa thus describes the
There are four first principles recognized as articles
of faith by the Buddhists, viz.:-
otherwise known as Buddha, is the Lord worthy of
universe is transient in nature.
men and women should endeavor to be good.
should study the science of tatwas or true principles.
"Let a man first understand that this world is a vale
of tears, it is , then, that he can make any progress.
Here follow the successive steps of this (progress)."
"There is nothing but sorrow and suffering in this
world. Let a man realize that there are five Skandhas
or mundane forms of consciousness which are as follows:-
The five organs of sense and their five objects, the
principle of attention, the principle of discernment
are the twelve Ayatanas (seats) of dharma (righteousness).
The springing up of passions, such as love and hatred,
in the heart of man is called Samudaya. The soul,
and its nature (and attributes) constitute Akhya which,
again, gives rise to Samudaya."
"All impressions are of a transient nature; cessation
of desires is the path of Buddhists and the resolution
of the soul into nothing constitutes (their) salvation."
"The Buddhists believe in only two kinds of evidence
- Direct Cognition and Inference.
Yogachara and Madhyamika.
"Vaibhashika holds that all objects, whose knowledge
exists in our consciousness, have an objective existence,
because a perfect man (i.e., a Buddhist) cannot believe
in the existence of what is not present in his consciousness;
while Sautrantika holds that all objects have only
a subjective existence, they do not exist in the outside
Yogachara believes that the reasoning faculty has
a form, while Madhyamika believes in the existence
of the ideas of objects exist (in the outside world)."
"All the four kinds of Buddhists believe that salvation
consists in the cessation of love and the like passions
in (human) consciousness."
To use deer skin ( as a seat) and water-gourd )for
carrying water), shave the head, beard, and moustache,
etc., wear garments made of bark, eat before 9:00
A.M., avoid seclusion and wear re-colored clothes
constitute the fashion of the Buddhistic mendicants."
have very briefly discussed some of the doctrinal points
and beliefs of the Buddhists. All enlightened and thoughtful
men after going through this (description of their beliefs,
etc.) will know
If Sugatadeva, otherwise called Buddha, alone is the
deva or Lord of the Buddhists (we should like to know)
who was his teacher?
If the world is transient in nature, one on seeing
an object again after a long time should not be able
to recollect that it is the same as he had seen before,
nor should that object have been there, no one, hence
would have been able to remember it. If the Buddhists
really believe in the doctrine that the world is transient,
their salvation will also be of momentary duration.
If all objects that are perceived be possessed of
consciousness, even inert substances should possess
consciousness and conscious exertion. Now how could
that which is perceptible to the senses be nothing?
If the intellect possesses a form, it should be visible.
If the outside world exist only our consciousness
and has no objective reality, it can never be true,
since there can be no perception without the existence
of objects whose percepts are formed in our consciousness.
If the cessation of passions and desires constitutes
salvation, sushupti (dreamless sleep) should also
be regarded as salvation, but such a belief opposed
to the dictates of knowledge is not worthy of acceptance.
much learning the writers of the Buddhistic scriptures
possessed and what kind of religion Buddhist is. The
Jainees also share these beliefs.
we shall mainly discuss the Jain religion.
belief in four substrata.
Back to contents
It is written in the Prakarnaratnakara, Part
1, called Nyaychakrasara, that the Buddhists believe
in five substrata (which are renewable in different
~ The belief of the Buddhists with regard to the substrata
being new in each age is quite erroneous, as Akasha, time,
the soul and atoms can never be new or old, since they
are beginningless and imperishable on account of being
factors in the causation (of the universe). How can then
such terms as new and old be applicable to them.
- a subtle form of matter, something like ether.
- material atoms.
belief in six substrata .
Back to contents
The Jainees believe in six substrata which are as follows:-
also hold that out these six, time is not an astikaya
(a substratum), it is only supposed to be a substratum
but it is not really so.
- material atoms.
Dharma is the substratum, which exists in the
soul and Pudgala - material atoms - (in which changes
are brought about by changes in motion), and becomes
the emans of sustaining motion. It is to be found
in countless places, worlds and in an unlimited measure.
Adharma is that substratum which is the means
of maintaining rest in the soul and the material atom
in which changes have been wrought by rest.
Akasha is that omnipresent substratum which
is the support of all souls and material atoms and
in which they move about and their ingress and egress
Pudgala (primordial matter) is that substratum
which is the cause (of the universe); it is also invisible,
eternal and simple. It is known by its effects such
as taste, color and smell, and is subject to development
TheSoul (the soul) is that substratum which
is the seat of consciousness, and is of service in
acquiring knowledge and
affected by countless changes (wrought in its environments).
It is the doer (of acts) and reaper (of fruits).
~ The belief of the Jainees (in the existence of the above-mentioned
six substrata) is also untenable, since Dharma (righteousness)
Adharma (unrighteousness) are not substrata but attributes
(of the soul), hence they have no separate existence from
the soul. it would have been alright, if they had believed
in (four substrata viz.), Akasha, atoms, the soul, and
(Kala) is that which is indicative of the above-mentioned
five substrata being near or far, new or old and in
which all the present events take place.
Vaisheshika Shaastra teaches that there are nine substrata,
viz., Prithvi, Apa, Teja, Vayau, Akasha*, time, space,
the soul (human or Divine) and the manas. This teaching
alone is the right one, because these mine distinct
substrata have been ascertained (by the philosophers).
It is sheer prejudice on the part of the Buddhists to
believe in one conscious entity - the soul - and refuse
to believe in the other - God.
seven Bhangas of the Buddhists and the Jainees.
Back to contents
The seven Bhangas or Periphrases and Syadvada** of the
Buddhist and Jainees are as follows:-
To affirm the existence of an object constitutes the
first Bhanga. For example, when we say "The pot exists,"
we affirm its existence and negative its non-existence.
To affirm the non-existence of an object constitutes
the second Bhanga. For example, when we say "The pot
does not exist," we negative its existence.
To affirm the existence of an object but to deny its
being different from what it is not constitutes the
third Bhanga. For example, when we say, "The pot exists
but it is not a
* These terms have already been
explained in the 3rd
Chapter of this book.-Tr.
**Syadvada is an assertion of
probability (Philosophy), it also means a form of Scepticism.
of) cloth." We affirm the existence of the pot and deny
its being a (piece) of cloth. This is quite distinct
from the first two Bhangas.
To affirm the existence of an object and deny its
existence if looked upon as a second object of the
dame kind constitutes the fifth Bhanga. For example,
it is wrong to call a pot a (piece of) cloth. It is
right to affirm ghatship* (i.e., the fact of its being
a pot) of a ghat (pot) and wrong to affirm potship*
[i.e., the fact of its being a (piece of) cloth.
To affirm, that it is not right to call an object
what it is not, and that whatever it is and that it
is, it is right to speak of its as such, constitutes
the sixth Bhanga. For example, whatever is not a pot
should not be spoken of as a pot, and whatever is
a pot is so and should be spoken of us as such.
To affirm that it is desirable to speak of another
(object) such as a pot, constitutes the seventh Bhanga.
"To affirm that the soul is, but does not exist in
the dead, inert objects is called the first Bhanga.
To affirm that the soul does not exist in the dead,
inert matter constitutes the second Bhanga.
(To affirm that) the soul is indescribable constitutes
the third Bhanga.
To affirm that when the soul is embodied, it becomes
manifest, but when it leaves the body, it remains
non-manifest constitutes the fourth Bhanga.
affirm that the soul is but is indescribable constitutes
the fifth Bhanga.
I owe the reader an apology for
coining these terms but I am constrained to do so.-Tr
like manner there are eternal and non-eternal Saptabhangas
(seven periphrases). Saptabhangas can be spoken of every
object by virtue of its special characteristics and common
characteristics, properties and changes (taking place
affirm that the soul not being cognizable by the senses
and is not visible constitutes the sixth Bhanga.
To affirm that the soul is, because its existence
can be inferred, and at the same time it is not because
it is not visible, that it is not unchangeable, on
the other hand it changes every moment, and that it
cannot be said of it that after being something constitutes
the seventh Bhanga.
is the Saptabhangi and syadvada philosophy of the Buddhists
and the Jainees.
~ All the above could be expressed by the use of the
terms Anyonyabhava* (or reciprocal negation of identity),
Sadharmya (similitude) and Vaiddharma (Dissimilitude).
To discard such easy expressions and concoct circumlocutory
methods of expressing tho9ught could have no object
other than that of ensnaring the ignorant.
mark! The soul as a soulless object does not exist,
nor does the soul-less object exist as a soul-possessing.
The fact of the mere existence of the soul and the dead,
inert matter constitutes their similitude, while the
fact of one being possessed of consciousness and the
other devoid of it constitutes their dissimilitude,
in other words consciousness exists in the soul but
inertness does not. In like manner, their Saptabhangas
and Syadvada become easily intelligible by reflecting
a little on the similarities and dissimilarities between
the characteristics (of different objects).
*It is one of the different forms
of non-existence described in Chapter3.-Tr
525 Why should then such circumlocutory and absurd
expressions be conocted?
the Buddhists and the Jainees equally believe in saptabhanga
and syadvada, though there are some minor points on
which they are divided.
on the Jain religion.
Back to contents
1. The Jainees believe in "two principal entities only,
viz., one possessed of consciousness, and the other
devoid of consciousness; Viveka consists in distinguishing
one from the other. A Viveki is one who accepts what
is worthy of being accepted and rejects what is worthy
ob being rejected."
"It is best to reject that senseless religion which
teaches that there is a Maker of the Universe, free
from passions and desires, Who created the world, and
to embrace (the Jain religion which teaches that) the
souls is possessed of the highest light and can be realized
through (the practice of )Yoga."
do not believe in any other conscious entity - God -
besides the soul. the Buddhists and the Jainees hold
that there is no Eternal, Perfect God. Raja Shiva Prasad
writes in his book called the Itihas Timirnashak that
they have got two names - Jain and Boudddha (Buddhist).
These two terms are synonymous. But some of the Buddhists
are Vama Margis and eat meat and drink spirituous liquors.
Jainees differ from them. Mahavira and Gautama Gandharas
(lords of hosts) are called Buddhas by the Buddhists,
while they have been named Ganthara and Kinavara by
the Jainees. Raja Shiva Prashad whose forefathers have
been Jaiinees for generations together writes in their
Chapter of his book called Itihas Timirnashak that Jina
lived altogether about 1,000 years before Swami Shankarcharya.
Buddhist or the Jain religion prevailed in the whole
of Bharatavarsha (India). He then adds the following
footnote. "By the term Bauddha (Buddhist religion) we
mean that anti-Vedic religion which prevailed in all
India from the time of Gandhar Mahavir, or Gautama Swami
to that of Swami Shankar and was believed in by the
Emperors Ashoka and Samprati. The Jain religion cannot
but be included in it. The words Kina from which the
word Jain is
and Buddha - from which the word Bauddha (Buddhist)
is derived - are both synonymous. The dictionary gives
the same meaning of both these words. Both (the Jainees
and the Buddhists) believe in Gautama. Besides, Shakyamuni
Gautama Buddha is often called Mahavira in the ancient
books, such as Dipavansha, of the Buddhists.
is clear then that in his time at any rate both these
religions were one and the same. The foreigners (Europeans)
have in their books called them by the name of Buddhists,
it is only for the reason that we have not used the
term Jainees for the followers of Gautama and have instead
called them Bauddha (Buddhists)."
Amarkosha* says the same thing.:-
is called Sarvajna Sugata Buddha, dharmaraja, Tahtagata
Samantabhadra, Merajit, Lokajite, (and) Jina, etc."
AMARKOSHA 1: 1:8. 9. 10.
Is it not clear even now that Baudha and Jina, or Bauddha
(Buddhist) and Jainee, are one and the same?
ignorant Jainees neither know anything about their own
religion nor that of others. Being blinded by prejudice
they simply talk nonsense, but those who are learned
among them know very well that the word Buddha is synonymous
with Jina and Baudha (Buddhist) with Jainee. There is
not the least doubt about is.
Denial of the existence of God.
Back to contents
The Jainees hold that soul itself becomes God, their
Thirthankaras having attained salvation become God.
They do not believe in an eternal God.
* It is the name of a big Sanskrit
lexicon. It was written by Amar Sing who professed Jain
(Omniscient), Vitaraga (free from passions of
love,, etc.)Arhan (worthy of homage),Kevali
(saved), Tirthankrit (sanctified) and Jina
(victorious) are the six names of the gods of the atheists
(Jainees and Buddhists).
thus describes the nature (and attributes) of the Supreme
Deity in his book called the Aptanishchayalankara:-
He that is free from such evils as passions of love,
etc., worthy of being worshipped in the three worlds,
rightly expounds all branches of knowledge is Omniscient
and Adorable is the Supreme God."
have written to the same effect:-
is no Omniscient, Eternal God demonstrable by ocular
evidence, since we do not see one at the present time.
In the absence of ocular proof there, can be no inferential
evidence, because the inferential proof of an object
can only be available after direct perception of a
part of it."
the absence of direct perception and inference, testimony
or verbal authority also cannot be available in order
to prove the existence of an Eternal, Immortal, Omniscient
Supreme Spirit. These three proofs being unavailable,
Arthavada (praise and dispraise), Prakriti (or life-sketch)
and Itihasa (history) can be of not good."
bahubrihi* compound the existence of the Invisible
Supreme cannot be demonstrated. Without hearing about
God from the preachers, the reiteration of His nature,
attributes, etc., is impossible."
* It is one of the principal kinds
of compounds in Sanskrit. In it, two or more nouns in
opposition to each other are compounded, the attributive
member (whether a noun or an adjective) being placed first
and made to qualify another substantive, and neither of
the two members separately, but the sense of the whole
compound, qualifies that substantive - The Practical Sanskrit-English
Dictionary by V. S. Apte, M.A.
Proof of the existence of God.
Back to contents
one that is first possessed of such faults as passions
of love, etc., and then later on becomes free from them,
cannot be God, because when the causes, whose operation
helps the soul to free itself from the bondage of evils
(such as passions of love, etc.,) cease to act, their
effect - the salvation - will come to an end. One that
is possessed of finite power and finite knowledge can
never be Omnipresent and Omniscient.
the soul is by nature circumscribed and possessed of
a finite nature, and finite attributes and activity,
it can never expound perfectly all the different branches
of knowledge, hence your Tirthankaras can never
Do you only believe in what is perceptible to the senses,
and not in what is otherwise? Just as color cannot be
perceived by ears, nor sound by eyes; in like manner,
the Eternal Supreme Spirit is not perceptible to the
senses. He can only be seen by a pure soul through the
purity of heart, acquisition of knowledge and the practice
of yoga. Just as one cannot reap the advantages of knowledge
without acquiring it, likewise the Supreme Spirit cannot
be seen without the practice of yoga and gaining the
just as the earth is made directly cognizable by observing
its properties, such as form, etc., which are inseparably
related to it similarly we become directly cognizant
of God by observing the wonderful design of this world.
Again, when we are inclined to commit a sin, feelings
of fear, shame and hesitation arise in our soul. nor,
these feelings are given rise to by the Omniscient Supreme
Spirit. We, thus become directly cognizant of the presence
The evidence of direct cognition as well as that of
Inference being thus available, the evidence of Testimony
in support of the Eternal, Beginningles, Omniscient
God is also valid. All these
being available it cannot but be right to praise his powers
and attributes, because the nature, attributes and characteristics
of an eternal substance are also eternal, hence, there
is nothing to prevent us from glorifying the Eternal Supreme
Jus as no human work can be done without the doer, likewise,
this great master-piece - the universe - could not possibly
have come into existence without a Maker. Such being
the case, even an idiot cannot doubt His existence.
On hearing about God from preachers, it also becomes
easy to reiterate what one has heard.
it is wrong on the part of the Jainees to deny the existence
of God on the ground that such proofs as direct cognition,
etc., are wanting.
Denial of the Vedas as the eternal revelation.
Back to contents
cannot be said of an eternal Shaastraa that it is
create, because how could a non-eternal and, therefore,
unreliable book correctly explain an Omniscient God?"
the existence of God, is proved on the authority of
His word, it comes to this that the truth of an eternal
revelation rest on the authority of an Eternal God,
while the existence of an eternal God is proved on
the authority of His Eternal Word. This is an argument
in a circle."*
you hold the Veda to be true, because it is the Word
of an Omniscient God, hoe can you, then, prove the
existence of God on the authority of that very Veda?
In order to prove that God exists and the Veda is
His Word, you will have to look for some other authority.
Hence there will be no finality in authority.**
* Literally it would mean that
they, i.e., God and the Veda will be subject to anyonyashraya
dosha, i.e., the charge of being dependent on each other
or arguing in a circle.-Tr.
** In Sanskrit philosophy it is called anavastha dosha
and is regarded as one of the faults of reasoning. It
means absence of finality or conclusion, or an endless
series of statements or causes and effects.-Tr.
Response to the denial of the Vedas as the eternal
Back to contents
~ We (believers in the Veda) hold that God, His nature,
attributes and actions are eternal. Eternal and beginningless
substances cannot be subject to anyonyashraya dosha, i.e.,
the charge of being dependent on each other for authority.
Just as an effect is known by its cause an vice versa,
and the nature and properties of a cause reside permanently
in its effect, while those of an effect in its cause;
in like manner, God and His infinite attributes, such
a knowledge, etc., being eternal, the Veda which is God's
Word, cannot be charged with anavastha dosha (absence
of finality in authority).
believe your tirthankaras to be God. Now, this can never
be true, because unless they had parents, their bodies
could not be formed. How could they have, then, practiced
austerities and attained knowledge and salvation? What
is the results of combination must have a beginning,
since combination presupposes separate existence (of
the constituent elements).
you should believe in an Eternal Creator of the world.
However great siddha* a man may be, he can never perfectly
understand the construction of the human body. Besides,
when a siddha passes into the condition of dreamless
sleep, he does not remain conscious of any thing. Again,
when a man is afflicted with (physical or mental suffering,
his knowledge also diminishes.
one but Jainees with warped intellects could believe
an entity which is possessed of finite power and is
circumscribed as God. If you say that those tirthankaras
were born of their parents, whose children were their
parents and so on. There will thus be an absence of
A DISCUSSION ON THEISM AND ATHEISM.
Back to contents
Now we give here question** set forth, in part II of
the Prakarna Ratnakar on theism and atheism, with our
- Nothing happens in this world as the result of the
Will of God. Whatever happens in this world as the result
of the Will of God. Whatever happens is the result of
* A siddha is one who has attained
the highest state of perfection possible to a man.-Tr.
** These have been approved of,
and published by many a well-known Jainee.
~ If everything is the result of deeds, who is the doer
of deeds? If you answer that the soul is the doer (of
deeds) we ask who created the organs such as ears with
which the soul does deeds? If you answer that they are
beginningless and it is in their nature to come into
being, we rejoin that what is beginningless can never
cease to exist, hence salvation will be impossible.
you say that like Pragabhavavat (that kind of non-existence
which did not exist before it came into being) it has
no beginning but has an end, all will be freed of the
necessity of doing deeds without any effort on their
part. If there were no God, (the giver of the fruits
of their deeds to souls) no soul will ever, of its own
free-will, suffer punishment for its sins, just as burglars
and other criminals do not voluntarily suffer punishment
for their crimes such as burglary, it is the law that
compels them to do so; in like manner, it is God Who
makes the soul reap the fruits of its actions, - God
or bad, otherwise all order will be lost; in other words,
one soul will do deeds while the other will reap the
- God is actionless, because of He did any deeds He
would have to reap the fruits thereof. Hence you should
also believe like us in the perfect beings who have
attained salvation and are actionless.
~ God is not actionless, on the other hand, He is active.
Why is He not active when He is a Conscious Being? When
He is active, He cannot be actionless. No enlightened
man can believer in your fictitious God who is not other
than your tirthankaras - human souls who have attained
the state of salvation, since whoever becomes God through
the operation of certain causes would become non-eternal
and dependent on causes etc.
a God was a mere human soul before he attained God-head
and then, through some cause or another, he became God,
some day he will again become a soul as it can never
get rid of its own nature. It has been a soul for an
infinite number of years and will remain so eternally.
Hence it is right to believe in the Eternal, Self-existent
mark! The soul at the present time does acts - virtuous
or sinful - and reaps the fruits thereof - pleasure
or pain, but God does not. Had God not been active,
He would not have been able to create the world. If
you believe acts to be beginningless but perishable
like pragabhvavat, they will not stand in intimate,
inseparable relation to the soul, and if this be the
cause, they will be sanyogaja (the
of union*) and hence perishable. If you believe that
the souls in the state of emancipation are actionless,
(we should like to know) if they are possessed of consciousness
or not. If you answer in the affirmative, then it is
clear that they do possess mental activity, but if you
deny them consciousness (we ask) do they, then. Become
dead, inert like stones in the state of emancipation,
lie in one place and remain idle? If you say yes, you
salvation is no salvation at all but darkness and bondage.
- God is not All-pervading, because if He be so, all
objects could be possessed of consciousness, and men
should not be divided into four Classes, viz., Brahman,
Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra some of which are higher
than others. The same God pervading all there should
be no inequality among human beings.
~ The 'pervader' and the pervaded are not one and the
same; on the other hand, one that is pervaded is localized,
whiles the pervader is present in all places, just as
ether pervades all, while the earth and other objects
such as a pot and a piece of cloth are localized, but
the ether and the earth are not one; in like manner,
God and the Universe are not one. Just as ether pervades
all objects but they do not become conscious (like God).
as a learned man and an ignorant man, a righteous man
and an unrighteous man are not equal, in like manner,
on account of differences in their qualities, such as
knowledge, in actions such as truthfulness in speech,
and in disposition, such as gentleness (Brahmans, Kshatriyas,
Vaishyas and Shudras and outcast are regarded unequal).
The duties and qualifications of the four Classes, have
already been dealt with, ( Vide Chapter 4).
The act of creating of first human beings without
Back to contents
Q. - If God be the author of creation what is, then,
the use of parents?
~ Males and females created by God in the beginning
of creation were not the result of sexual congress.
This is called aishwari shrishti; but He is not the
Authorof Jaivi Srishti (i.e., creation which is the
result of sexual union). God cannot do what is the work
of the soul. God has created trees, fruits,
* i.e. not inherent in or inseparably
related to the soul but united to it in other words, they
are a sort of accretion.-Tr.
herbs and cereals, etc.; if man would not take cereals,
etc., thrash and grind them and make them into bread
and eat it, will God do these things in his place? The
soul could not even exist if it did not do its work.
Hence it rests with God to create (human) bodies in
the beginning of Creation (but after He has done so)
it becomes the work of man to procreate children, etc.