are atheists and of weak intellect, ad continually remain
sunk in the depths of misery and pain who do not believe
in, know, and commune with, Him who is Resplendent,
All-glorious, All-Holy, All-knowledge, sustainer of
the sun, the earth and other planets, Who pervades all
like ether, is the Lord of all and is above all devatas.
It is by the knowledge and contemplation of God alone
that all men attain true happiness." RIG VEDA: I, 164,
There are more Gods than one mentioned in the Vedas.
Do you believe this or not?
No, we do not; as nowhere in all the four Vedas there
is written anything that could go to show that there
are more gods than one. On the other hand, it is clearly
said in many places that there is only one God.
What is meant by the mention of various devatas (Gods)
in the Vedas then?
or whosoever possesses useful and brilliant qualities
is called a devata, as the earth for instance; but it
is nowhere said that it is God or is the object of our
adoration. Even in the above mantra it is said that
He, who is the sustainer of all devatas, is the adorable
God, and is worthy of of being sought after, They are
greatly mistaken who take the word "devata" to mean
is called devata of devatas - the greatest of all devatas,
- because He aloneis the author of Creation, Sustenance
and Dissolution of the Universe, the Great Judge and
Lord of all. The Vedic text "The Lord of all of all,
the Ruler of the universe, the Sustainer of all holds
all things by means of thiry-three devatas" has been
explained as follows in the fourteenth chapter of the
eight are called Vasus, because they are abode of all
that lives, moves or exists. The eleven Rudras are the
ten pranas - nervauric forces - enlivening the human body
and the eleventh is the human spirit.
of ethereal space
are called Rudras because when they desert the body,
it becomes dead and the relations of the deceased, consequently,
begin to weep. The twelve months of a year are called
Adityas, as they cause the lapse of the term of existence
of each object or being. The (all-pervading) electricity
is called Indra, as it is productive of great force.
Yajna (assembly for the purposes of teaching and learning)
is called Prajapati because it benefits mankind by the
purification of air, water, rain and vegetables and
because it aids the development of various arts, and
because in it the honour is accorded to the learned
and the wise.
thirty-three aforesaid entities are called devatas by
birtue of posssessing useful properties and qualities.
Being Lord of all and greater than all, the Supreme
Being is called the thirty-fourth Devata who alone is
to be worshipped. The same thing is written on the other
Shastras. Had people consulted these books, they would
not have fallen into this error, viz., the believe that
there are more gods than one mentioned in the Vedas.
One Supreme Ruler is this universe pervaded, eve every
world in the whole circle of nature, He is the true
God. Know Him, O man! and covet not unjustly the wealth
of any creature existing. Renounce all that is unjust
and enjoy pure delight - true spiritual happiness -
by the practice of justice and righteousness which is
another name for true religion.YAJUR VEDA 40:1
teaches in the Veda "I, O men, lived before the whole
universe came into being, I am Lord of all, I am the
eternal cause of the whole creation. I am the source
and giver of all wealth. Let all men look up to me alone
as children do to their parents. I have appointed different
foods and drinks for all creatures to give them sustenance
so that they may live in happiness." RIG VEDA 10: 48,
I am God Almighty, I am the Light of the world like
the sun. Neither defeat, nor death, can ever approach
me. I am the controller of the universe, know me alone
as the Creator of all. Strive ye diligently for the
acquisition of power and wealth such ( as true knowledge).
Ask ye of me. May ye never lose my friendship. I give
true knowledge, which is real wealth, unto men who are
truthful. I am the revealer of Vedas which declare my
true nature. It is through the Vedas that I advance
the knowledge of all. I am the prompter of the good
and true. I reward those who devote themselves to the
good of humanity. I am the cause, I am the support of
all that exists in this universe. May ye never turn
away from me. May ye never accept another God in my
place, nor worship him." RIG VEDA, 10:48, 5.
O men existed in the beginning of the Creation. He is
the Creator, Support and Sustainer of the sun and other
luminous worlds, He was the Lord of the past Creation.
He is the Lord of the present. He will be the Lord of
the unborn universe. He created the whole world, and
he sustains it. He is Eternal Bliss. May ye all praise
and adore Him as we do." YAJUR VEDA, 13:4
How can you prove His existence?
A.~ By the evidences
of direct cognition, Inference, Testimony and History.
But there can be no evidence of direct cognition,
with regard to God?
"The knowledge which is the result of the direct
contact of the five senses - optic, auditory,
olfactory, gustatory and tactile - and of the
mind, with light, sound , smell, taste and touch;
with feelings of pleasure and pain, truth and
untruth is called direct cognition. But this knowledge
must be free from error and doubt". Niyaya Shastra
reflection it will be clear that it is only attributes
that can be known through the senses and the mind,
not substances, in which those qualities inhere.
As for example, we are cognizant of a solid substance
when it gives rise to the sensations of touch,
smell, etc., by coming in contact without four
senses, such as the tactile sense, and the senses
with the mind, and the latter with the soul; similarly
we are cognizant of the existence of God by observing
such qualities as design and intelligence in this
instantly the soul directs the mind and the latter
directs the senses to the pursuit of a certain
object either good - such as acts that promote
public welfare - or bad such as theft, they all
incline to the desired object and at that very
moment, feelings of fear, shame , and distrust
arise in the self consciousness if the action
be sinful, and those of fearlessness, courage,
and satisfaction of felicity, if it be good; these
feelings are prompted not by the human soul, but
by the Divine Spirit.
when the soul, freed from all impurities, devotes
itself to the contemplation and realization of
God through Yoga, it becomes cognizant of both
- itself and the Divine Spirit. When we can be
directly cognizant of the existence of God how
can there be any doubt. His existence by inference
and other evidence, because the cause is inferred
from its effects.
Is God All-pervading or does He reside in some particular
A.- He is All-pervading. If He were localized to some
particular place, He could never be Omniscient, Inward
Regular of all, Universal Controller, Creator of all,
Sustainer of all and the Cause fo resolution of all
things into their elements, as it is impossible for
the doer to do anything in place where he is not.
Is God Just as well as Merciful
A.~ Yes, he is both.
These two attributes are opposed to each other, since
Justice consists in giving a person the just amount
of pleasure or pain - neither more nor less - according
to the nature of his deeds, while mercy consisted in
letting the offender go unpunished. How could He be
both merciful and just at the same time?
Justice and mercy differ only in name. The object served
by justice is the same as accomplished by mercy. Now
the object of infliction punishment through justice
is to prevent people from committing crimes and thereby
enable them to be freed from pain and misery. What is
the object of mercy but to rid people of misery? Your
definitions of justice and mercy are not correct, because
the infliction of just punishment in exact accordance
with the amount of crime is called justice.
the offender be not punished, mercy will be destroyed,
for suffering one such criminal, a a robber, to go unpunished
amounts to giving pain to thousands of righteous and
law-abiding people. What mercy can ther be, the, in
allowing one man to go unpunished and making others
suffer? It will be an act of mercy indeed to that robber
to keep him in prison and thereby prevent him from further
commission of crimes. It will also be an act of mercy
to thousands of other people to rid them of that robber
or dacoit by putting him to death of keeping him in
What is then the object of having two terms - mercy
and justice- both having the same meaning? It is useless
to have two terms, it would have been far better to
have only one. This shows that they do not mean the
Is not an idea expressed by more than one word, and
cannot one word be expressive of more than one idea?
Yes, it is so.
Why did you doubt it then?
we hear it said in the world.
We hear both true and false statements being made in
this world, but it is our duty to discriminate between
them after due reflection. Behold the infinite mercy
of God that He has created all things in this world
for the good of all, and given them all freely! What
mercy can be greater than this? On the other hand, the
inequality in the condition of men - some are in a state
of misery - while others in a state of happiness - is
a clear proof of the operation of His Law of justice.
They - mercy and justice - only differ in the fact that
the intense desire in one's mind to bestow happiness
on all and accordingly i mercy, whilst the outward action
- such as the just infliction of punishment on an offender
by imprisoning him or putting him to death is - justice.
The one object served by both is to rescue all from
sin and consequent suffering
Has God a form or is He formless?
A.- He is formless, because if He possesses a form He
could never be Omnipresent, nor, therefore Omniscient,
since a finite substance can possess only finite attributes,
actions and nature. Besides, He could never be free
from hunger and thirst, heat and cold, disease, imperfections
and injuries. This proves, therefore, that God is formless,
If He were to possess a body, another person would be
required to make the different organs of His body, such
as eyes, ears and the like, for He, who is the product
of the combination of the different parts, must have
an intelligent formless maker. Here if it be urged that
God Himself made His own body simply by willing it,
this too goes to prove that He was formless before He
made His body. It is clear, therefore, that God is never
embodied. Being without a body He is able to make the
visible universe out of invisible causes.
Is God All-powerful or not?
A.- Yes, He is, but what you understand by the word
All- powerful is not right. It really means that God
does no require the least assistance from any person
in all His works such as Creation, Sustenance and Dissolution
of the Universe, and administration of Divine Justice.
In other words, He does all His works with His own infinite
But we believe that God can do whatever He likes.
There is no one above Him.
A.- What does He like? If you say that he likes and
can do all things, we ask - "Can God kill Himself?"
Or "can He make other Gods like Himself, become ignorant,
commit sins such as theft, adultery and the like? Or
can He be unhappy?" Your answer can only be in the negative,
as these things are opposed to the nature and attributes
of God; hence your contention, that God can do all things,
does not hold good. Our meaning only, therefore, of
the word All-powerful is true.
God Anadi or Sadi?
He is Anadi, that , He has no cause or beginning.
What does God desire?
A.- The good of all, and the happiness of all, but He
does not, by the caprice of His own will, subordinate
one person to another without an offence.
Should we glorify God, pray to Him and commune with
Will God by one's doing so suspend His laws, and
forgive the sins of His devotees?
Why should we then worship God?
Its object is altogether different from the one you
What is it?
Glorification gives rise to love of the Supreme
Being, reformation of one's nature, character and attributes
in accordance with the nature, attributes, and character
of God. Prayer crates humility, courage, and
obtains divine help. Communion results in union
with the Great Being and in direct cognition of HIm.
you Please explain it in detail?
A. Glorification is of two kinds:- Positive and
glorification consists in praising God as possessed
of positive attributes in the following manner:-
"That Supreme Being overspreads all. He is entirely
spirit, All-energy, All-powerful, Pure, Perfect, Omniscient,
Inward Controller of all, Ruler of All, Eternal and
Self-existent. He has from all eternity been teaching
uncreated immortal human souls, the true knowledge of
things through the revelation of the Veda - His eternal
knowledge." YAJUR VEDA, 40:8
glorification consists in praising God as devoid
of such ungodly qualities as passion and malice in the
"He is never embodied, is never born, is never liable
to division and is free from nervous or arterial systems,
never commits a sin , is never subject to pain, grief
and ignorance and the like." YAJUR VEDA, 40:8.
object of Glorification is reform one's nature,
attributes and character after the nature, attributes
and character of God, for instance let him be just as
God is and so on. He who praises God like a flunkey,
but does not reform his character does himself no good.
Prayer to God is to be addressed in the following
"Endow us, O Lord, who art All-glorious, through thy
mercy, at this very instant with that wisdom which the
wise, the learned, and yogis pray for." YAJUR VEDA32:
art Light, be merciful and shed that light into my heart.
Thou art Infinite energy, through Thy grace endow me
with unfailing energy. Thou are Infinite strength, endow
me with strength. Thou art Infinite power, endow me
with great power. Thou art wrathful with the wicked,
make me also wrathful.
art moved neither by slander, nor by praise. Thou art
forbearing towards those who offend against Thee, make
me also forbearing." YAJUR VEDA 20: 9.
O Ocean of Mercy, through thy grace my mind - the mind
that in the wakeful state travels long distances, and,
possesses brilliant qualities, which self-same mind
- light of the senses - in sleep attains to the state
of profound slumber and in dreams wanders over different
places - always entertain pure thoughts for the good
of the self as well as for that of all other living
beings. May it never desire to injure any one." YAJUR
O Omniscient God, my mind - which is the source of all
activity and which, thereby, enables men of learning,
piety and courage to perform acts of great public good
and heroic deeds on the field of battle and other occasions,
which possess wonderful powers and admirable qualities
and rules the senses - harbour only righteous desires
and completely renounce sin and vice." YAJUR VEDA 34:
O lord, my mind - the mind which is the repository of
the highest form of knowledge, is the faculty for consciousness
and judgement, is the light of the senses, and is immortal,
the mind without which a man is powerless to do even
the most insignificant thing - aspire for purity and
shun wickedness." YAJUR VEDA 34: 3.
O Lord of the Universe, my mind - the mind which is
the medium through which all yogis acquire knowledge
of the past, the present and the future which becomes
the means of the union of the immortal human soul with
the Supreme Spirit and thereby makes it cognizant of
the three periods of time (past, present and the future),
mind which is capable of conscious exertion and is closely
united with the five sense, the faculty of discernment
and the soul, and is the means of the advancement of
that great Yajna called yoga - be endowed with true
knowledge and yoga and thereby be freed from all kinds
of pain and ignorance." YAJUR VEDA 43: 4.
O Great God, Wises of the wise, through Thy grace, my
mind - which like the hub of a wheel into which all
the spokes are inserted, is the repository of the Rig
Veda, the Yajur Veda, The Sama Veda and also the Atharva
Veda, the mind in which Omniscient, Omnipresent conscious
Being - the Witness of all - makes Himself known - be
freed from all ignorance and be endowed with the love
of knowledge." YAJUR VEDA 34: 5
O Lord, the Controller of the Universe, my mind - which
is like a driver who can swing the horses around in
all directions, sways men hither and thither, is seated
in the heart, possessed of great activity and extreme
energy - restrain all the senses from treading the path
of wickedness and always direct them in the path of
righteousness. Mayestt, Thou O Lord, of Thy kindness
grant me this prayer." YAJUR VEDA 34: 6.
us, O Bestower of all happiness, Omniscient, Supreme
Spirit, into the path of rectitude and thereby inspireus
withh all kinds of knowledge and wisdom, rid us of all
that is false and sinful in our conduct, and make us
pure. To ths end, we in all humility repeatedly praise
and adore Thee." YAJUR VEDA 40: 16.
not, Thou, O Punisher of the wicked, destroy our young
ones, nor our old ones, foetuses, mothers, and fathers,
nor those who are dear to us, nor our relations, nor
our bodies. Direct us to that path by following which
we may not be liable to punishment by Thy Law." YAJUR
VEDA 16: 15.
us, O Supreme Spirit, Teacher of teachers, from falsehood
unto rectitude, from darkness into light of knowledge,
from death and disease to immortality and Eternal Happiness."
is said to be Positive or Negative according
as the Deity is looked upon as possessed of good attributes
or as free from bad qualities, faults and imperfections.
man should act in accordance with what he prays for.
For example, if he prays for the attainment of highest
wisdom, let him do his utmost to attain it. In other
words, prayer should be addressed to God for
the attainment of an object after one has strenuously
endeavoured to attain it. No on should pray in the following
manner, nor does God ever answer such a prayer:-
lord! destroy my enemies, make me superior to all. Let
me alone be honoured by all, make all other subordinate
to me, etc.' For, if both enemies were to pray for each
other's destruction, should God destroy both of them?
If some one were to say that of the two let that man's
prayer be granted who bears more love to God, we answer
that the enemy of the man whose love is less, should
also suffer destruction in a lesser degree. If people
began to address such foolish prayers, the next thing
they will do, will be to pray in this manner, "O God!
Cook our food for us, put it on the table for us, scrub
our houses, do our washing, till our land, and do a
bit of gardening a well for us." The greatest fools
are they who, trusting in God in this wise, remain slothful
and indolent; because who so-
will obey God's commandment to work assiduously will
never be happy. God commands thus:-
Let a man aspire to live by doing work for a hundred
years, i.e. as long as he lives. Let him never be lazy."
Behold! all the animate and the inanimate objects in
this universe perform their respective functions. The
ants and other creatures are always active, the earth
and other planets are always in motion, the trees are
always growing or decaying. Man should take a lesson
from these. As men help him who helps himself, so does
God help him who works righteously, just as servants
do their work only if the master himself is active and
a man with eyes and with a desire to see can be made
to see and not a blind man, likewise God lends his help
in answer to those prayers only that aim at the good
of all, and not those that are meant to injure any one.
He who only keeps on saying 'sugar is sweet, sugar is
sweet' can never taste the sweetness of sugar, nor obtain
it but he, who tries for it, sooner or later is sure
to get it.
iii. Communion(upaasanaa). On this subject the
"No tongue can express that bliss which flows, from
communion with the Supreme Spirit, into the soul of
that man whose impurities are washed off by the practice
of yoga, whose mind being abstracted from the outside
world is centred in the Supreme Spirit; because that
happiness is felt by the human soul in its inner self
word upaasanaa literally means to come close
to. All that is required in order to come close to God
by the practice of the the Octapartite (eight parts
or stages) yoga and directly see the Omnipresent, Omniscient
God should be accomplished.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
remaining six stages can be studied from Yoga shastra
or our book called "An introduction to the Exposition
of the Four Vedas."
him cease to bear malice to any living being, let
him always love all.
him always speak the truth, never an untruth.
him never commit theft, and let him be honest in his
him practice self-control, never be lustful.
him be humble, never vain. "These five together comprise
the first stage of Upaasanaa and are called Yamas."
YOGA SHASTRA SADHANPAD, 30.
Next come the Niyamas which are also five:-
Let a man be clean internally by renouncing all passions
and vicious desires, externally by the free use of
him work hard righteously but neither rejoice in the
resulting profit nor be sorrowful in case of loss.
Let him renounce sloth and be always cheerful and
him keep his mind unruffled no matter whether he is
happy or miserable, and do righteous deeds.
him always study the books of true knowledge, and
teach them as well, and associate with good and pious
men, and let him contemplate and mentally recite Aum
which is the highest name of the Supreme Spirit.
him resign his soul to the Will of God." YOGA SHASTRA
SADHANPAD, 32. These five together constitute the
second stage of Upaasanaa Yoga.
a man desires to engage in Upaasanaa (communion),
let him resort to a solitary, clean p;ace and get comfortably
seated, practise Praanaayaama (control of breath)
reatrain the senses from the pursuit of outward objects,
fix his mind on one of the following places:- the navel,
the heart, the throat, eyes, the top of the head or
the spine. Let him, then, discriminate between his own
soul and the Supreme Spirit, get absorbed in contemplation
of the latter and commune with Him. When a man follows
these practices his mind as well as the soul becomes
pure and imbued with righteousness. His knowledge and
wisdom advance day by day till he obtains salvation.
He who contemplated the Deity in this way for even one
hour out of the twenty-four hours always continues to
THE PRACTICE OF COMMUNION
Upaasanaa is positive when God is contemplated
as possessed of such attributes as Omniscience, and
it is said to be negative when the human soul being
deeply absorbed in the Supreme Spirit - who even pervades
such a subtle thing as the human soul - contemplates
on Him as free from such qualities as malice, colour,
taste, smell and touch. Its result is that the soul,
by coming close to God, is rid of all its impurities,
sorrows and griefs, its nature, attributes and character
become pure like those of God Himself, just as a man
shivering from cold ceases to suffer from it by coming
close to fire.
it behoves all to worship God - praise Him, pray to
Him and commune with Him. Leaving out the other results
that accrue from Divine Worship the gain in spiritual
strength is such that even the approach of pain or sorrow
of the greatest magnitude cannot disturb the mental
tranquility of the devotee. He is able to bear it most
patiently. Is this a trifling thing? Besides, he who
does not worship God is ungrateful as well as most foolish,
because it is nothing but extreme ingratitude and foolishness
to forget the kindness of that Supreme Spirit who has
freely given away all things of this world to his creature
to cease to believe in His very existence.
How can God do the work which can only be done through
sense organs when He is devoid of them?
A.-"God has no hands but grasps and moulds all things
by virtue of His Omnipotence. He has no feet but transcends
all in speed by virtue of His Omnipotence. He has no
eyes but sees all perfectly, no ears but hears all,
no internal organ of thought but knows all. No onecan
know His limits, has been eternally existing. He is
the Supreme Spirit that pervades all." SHWETA SHWETAR
UPANISHAD, 3, 19.
In other words, though devoid of senses and mind, He
does all His work by virtue of His Omnipotence.
Many persons say that He is 'void of all activity
and attribute.' Is this true?
A.- "The Great Eternal Spirit undergoes no modifications,
requires no instruments to work with, has no equal nor
any superior. He is the Supremely Powerful Being, endowed
with innate Omniscience, Omnipresence and Infinite activity."
SHWETA SHWETAR UPANISHAD 6, 8.
Had God been destitute of activity, He could never create
the world, sustain it and reduce it to its elementary
form. He, therefore, being Omnipresent and Omniscient,
also possesses activity.
When He acts, is His action finite or infinite?
A.- In whatsoever space and time He wants to act, in
the same He does, neither in less nor in more; because
He is All-wise.
Does God know His own limits or not?
The Supreme Spirit is All-knowledge. For what is knowledge
but the cognizance of things just as they are. God is
Infinite, therefore His knowledge of Himself as Infinite
is true knowledge - the reverse is ignorance. To conceive
a thing as infinite when it is really finite or vice
versa is called ignorance. The conception of the nature,
attributes and character of things as they are is called
true knowledge. Therefore the Yoga Shastra defines God
The All-pervading spirit, who is free from all pain
and grief (such as ignorance), and from desire for all
those deeds which are productive of results that are
good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, or of a mixed character
and who is distinct from and superior to all souls,
is called God.
Can the existence of God be proven by Direct Cognizance
Q - "The existence of God cannot be proved owing
to want of evidence of direct cognizance, and "in the
absence of evidence of direct cognizance, there can
be no inferential and other evidences"; SANKHYA SHASTRA,
1,112; besides "from the absence of the relation of
Vyaapti (the relation of the
to the pervaded) there can be no inference." SANKYA
SHASTRA 5,10,11. Both these kinds of evidence - Direct
Cognizance and Inference - being unavailable, other
kinds of evidence, such as Testimony of a truthful witness
are out of question. Therefore the existence of God
cannot be proved.
No, what the above aphorisms really mean is that the
evidence of direct cognizance is wanting not in order
to prove the existence of God but to prove Him as the
Material cause of the universe, for in the same chapter
occur the following aphorisms :-
"If the All-pervading Spirit be the Material Cause of
the universe, He would be transformed into various material
objects just as the primordial matter by the combination
of invisible and minute atoms becomes metamorphosed
into various visible and tangible objects. He is, therefore,
not the material cause of the universe but the efficient
cause." SANKHYA SHASTRA, 5,8.
the Conscious Being - God - be the material cause of
the universe, He being possessed of infinite power,
the world also should possess infinite power. But such
is not the case. Therefore, God is not the material
but the efficient cause of the world." SANKHYA SHASTRA
Upnishad also describes the primordial matter alone
as the material cause of the world" SANKYA SHASTRA 5,
12 as in the following verse:-
"the primordial matter is transformed into the diverse
objects of this world." SHWETA SHWETAR UPANISHAD 4,
5. Matter being subject to change is transformable,
whereas God - the All-pervading spirit - being unchangeable
is not metamorphosed into any other form or shape. He
is unchangeable and always resides in the interior of
the heart. Therefore, whosoever calls the sage Kapil
- the author of the above aphorism - an atheist, is
himself an atheist. Similarly,
authors of the other Shastras, for instance, Mimaansaa
from the mention of the words Dharm and Dharmi, Vaisheshika
from that ot the word Ishwar (God) and Niyaaya from
that of Atmaa - All-pervading Spirit, are not athiests.
He, who is Omnipresent, Omniscient and even pervades
the human soul, is believed in by all of them - Mimaansaa,
Vaisheshika, etc. - to be God.
Does God incarnate or not?
A.- No; because it is said in the Yajur Veda. "He is
unborn." Again "He overspreads all." He is pure, is
never born and never takes on a human form." It is clear
from these quotations that God is never born.
But Krishna says in the Gita, "Whenever there is
decay of virtue, I take on a human form." GITA 4: 7.
What is your answer to this?
opposed to the Veda, it cannot be held to be an authority.
Though it is possible that Krishna, being very virtuous
and being extremely anxious to further the cause of
righteousness, might have wished that he would like
to be born again and again at different times to protect
the good and punish the wicked. if such was the case,
there is no harm in it; because 'whatever the good and
the great possess - their wealth, their bodies, aye
eve their hearts - is at the service of humanity? In
spite of all this Krishna could never be God.
Why do people then believe in the twenty-four incarnations
Q.If this be the case, why do people then believe
in the twenty-four incarnations of God?
From want of knowledge of the Vedas, from being led
astray by the sectarians and being themselves uneducated,
people are involved in ignorance and, therefore, no
wonder, believe in and say such false things.
How could such wicked men as Raavana and Kansa be destroyed
if God did not incarnate?
Firstly, whosoever is born, is sure to die. Secondly,
what are Kansa and Raavana, when compared with the Almighty
without being incarnated has created this world, is
sustaining it and can resolve it into its component
elements? He being Omnipresent also pervaded the bodies
of Kansa and Raavana and could at His will cut their
vitals and instantaneously kill them. What shall we
then call such a man but a fool who says that the Supreme
Spirit possessed of Infinite Power, attributes and activity
takes on a human form and becomes subject to births
and deaths in order to kill an insignificant creature.
anyone to say that God incarnates for the salvation
of his devotees, then too it could not be true, for,
if the devotees conduct themselves according to the
Will of God, He is powerful enough to save them. What!
Is the destruction of a Kansa or a Raavana or the lifting
of a mountain, such as Govardhan, even more difficult
that the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the
sun, the moon and the earth and other planets? Whosoever
ponders over the great things that God has done in this
universe, cannot but come to the conclusion that "There
is no one like Him, nor shall ever be."
can the incarnation of God be demonstrated by reason,
just as as the saying of a man, that space entered a
womb or was put in a closed hand, can never be true,
for space being Infinite and Omnipresent can neither
go in, nor come out; similarly, God, being Infinite
and All-pervading, it can never be predicated of him
that He can go in or come out. Coming and going can
be possible only if it be believed that there are places
where He is not. Then was not God already present in
the womb and was not He already present outside that
He is said to have gone into and come out of it? Who
but men devoid of intelligence, can believe in and say
such things about God? Therefore, it should be understood
that Christ and other were also not incarnations of
the Deity, fear and grief, births and deaths, they were
Does God forgive the sins of His devotees or not?
A.- No; for, He were to forgive their sins, His Law
of Justice would be destroyed, and all men would become
most sinful. Knowing that their sins will be forgiven,
they will become fearless and will be greatly encourage
to commit sins. For example, if the ruler of a country
were to pardon the criminals, they would be encouraged
to commit crimes greater still. For knowing well that
not punish them, they will be confident in their minds
that they will get the king's pardon by folding their
palms and doing other acts of humility. Even those who
are not criminals, being no longer deterred by any fear
of punishment, will begin to commit crimes. Therefore,
it is but meet that God should give souls the just fruits
of their deeds and not to forgive their sins.
Is the human soul a free-agent or otherwise?
A.- It is a free-agent in the matter of performing deeds,
but it is subjected to the laws of God in the matter
of reaping the fruits thereof; He alone is said to be
a doer who is free to act.
What is free-agent?
A.- He is called a free-agent who has the body, the
vital forces, the senses and the mind subordinate to
his will. If the soul were not a free-agent it would
not reap the fruits of its deeds - good or bad. Jus
as soldiers acting under the direction of their commanding
officer are not held guilty of murder even on killing
many on the field of battle; similarly, if God were
to influence the course of human conduct or if human
actions were subordinate to His Will, it would not then
be the human souls that would have to bear the consequences
of those actions but God Himself.
the prompter He alone would suffer pain or enjoy happiness.
Just as that man alone who murders another with some
kind of weapon is arrested and punished for the crime
and not the weapon; likewise, the souls subordinate
to the Will of God could not justly be made to reap
the fruits of their deeds - sinful or virtuous. It follows,
therefore, that the soul is free to act according to
its capacity, but once it has committed a sinful act,
it becomes subjected to the operation of the laws of
God, and thereby reaps the consequence of its sin. In
other words, the soul is a free-agent in so far as the
performance of deeds is concerned but it has to submit
to Divine laws in the matter of suffering pain and misery
for its sins.
Had not God created the soul and endowed it with energy,
it could never have been able to do anything; hence
whatever a human soul does is done solely through
A.- The soul was never created. It is beginningless
like God and the material cause of the universe - primordial
matter. The body and bodily organs were made by God,
but they are all under the control of the soul. Now
whoever performs an act - good
evil - reaps the fruit thereof and not God - the Maker
of his body and bodily organs. This we can illustrate
thus :- A man dug iron-ore out of a mountain, a merchant
bought it of him; a blacksmith bought it from the latter's
shop, and made a sword out of it and sold it to a soldier
who killed a man with it. It is not the miner, nor the
iron merchant, nor the blacksmith, nor the sword that
are held responsible by the king for the crime of murder
and punished. It is the soldier alone, who killed another
with the sword, that is apprehended. In the same way,
it is not God - the Maker of the body and bodily organs
- Who reaps the fruits of the deeds done by the soul.
On the other hand, He it is Who makes the soul bear
the consequences of its acts. Had God been the actual
doer, no soul would ever have committed a sin, because
being Pure and Righteous, He could never prompted any
soul to commit a sin. It, therefore, follows that the
soul is a free-agent in doing deeds and the same may
be predicated of God.
What are God and the soul in essence, and what are
their natures, attributes and actions?
A.- In essence they are both conscious entities. By
nature both are pure, immortal and virtuous, etc., but
the creation of the universe, its sustenance and dissolution
into elementary form and its control, the awarding of
the fruits of their deeds - good and evil - to souls
are the righteous actions of God; whilst the reproduction
and rearing of children, the distribution of knowledge
and arts, etc., are acts of the soul which may be virtuous
or sinful. Eternal knowledge, Eternal bliss and Omnipotence,
etc., are the attributes of God whilst those of souls
for the acquisition of things; repulsion, activity,
feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, sorrow, displeasure;
consciousness, inspiration and expiration, nictation
- closing and opening of the eyes, organic growth, discernment,
memory and individuality, movement, regulation of the
senses, internal changes and disorders, such as hunger
and thirst, joy or sorrow, etc., are the attributes
of the soul which distinguish it from God. The existence
of the soul is known only by these attributes. as it
is not material nor perceptible by the senses. These
attributes manifest themselves only so long as the soul
is present in the body, but cease to do so as soon
the soul leaves it. Those qualities that manifest themselves
in the presence of a substance and cease to do so in
its absence belong to that substances alone; as for
example, light is the property of the sun and of the
lamp, because it is absent in their absence and present
in their presence. Similarly, God and the soul are known
by their attributes.
God being cognizant of the three periods of time (the
past, present and the future), knows all things about
the future, and as God knows so has the soul to act,
consequently the soul ceases to be a free-agent. God,
therefore, cannot be justified in punishing it for
its misdeeds, because it acts in accordance with what
God before knew.
A.- It is foolishness to speak of God as being cognizant
of the three periods of time, because what ceases to
exist is called the Past, and what does not exist but
will come into existence is called the Future. Now is
there any kind of knowledge that ceases to exist with
God or that He does not possess in the present but will
possess in the future? Hence God's knowledge is always
uniform and uninterrupted. He always lives in the Present.
The past and the future relate to the human soul only.
It is true, though, that the knowledge of three periods
of time can be said to exist in God when it is spoken
of in relation to the actions of the soul, but not absolutely.
the soul acts by virtue of its free will, so does God
know, what it does, by virtue of His Omniscience, and
as God knows, so the soul acts. In other words, God
possess the knowledge of the past, the present, and
the future and gives soul their deserts; whilst the
soul is a free-agent in whatever it does and in possessing
a limited knowledge of the present. Just as God's knowledge
of actions of human souls is beginningless, so is His
knowledge of awarding just punishment. Both kinds of
knowledge in Him are true. Can it ever be possible that
the knowledge of actions, be true while that of doing
justice be false? Hence your objection does not hold
Are the souls in different bodies distinct or is there
only one soul pervading them all?
A.- Distinct. Had there been only one soul pervading
them all, wakeful state, slumber, deep sleep, birth
and death, union and
(with the body and the senses) could never take place;
the nature of the soul, therefore, is finite, and so
is its knowledge; it is also subtle, whilst God is still
more subtle, Infinite, Omnipresent, Omniscient by nature.
Hence God and the human soul stand in the relation of
the pervader to the pervaded.
thing cannot contain another at the same time; therefore,
God and the soul can only be in the relation of close
union but not in that of the pervader to the pervaded.
This law holds good in the case of things of the same
condition but not in that of different conditions; just
as iron is gross while electricity is subtle, the latter
pervades the former and resides in the same space with
itl Similarly, the human soul less subtle than God,
whist the latter more subtle than the former, therefore
it is that God pervades the human soul while the latter
is pervaded by the former.
as God and the soul stand to each other in the relation
of the pervader and the pervaded, so do they do in the
relations of one who is served and the servitor, the
supporter and the supported, the Master and the servant,
the Ruler and the ruled, the Father and the son.
If God and the human soul be different, how will you
interpret the following mighty texts of the Vedas?
- "I am God," Thou art God" and " The soul is God."
A.- These are not Vedic texts at all, but quotations
from the Brahmanas. They nowhere called 'mighty texts'
in the true shastras. Their true meanings are as follow:-
We take the first quotation which does not mean " I
am God" but " I live in God."
is used what is called substitution of the thing that
contains or supports ofr the thing which is contained
therein or supported thereby'; just as we say "watch-platforms
are shouting." Now the platforms, being inanimate, do
not possess the power of shouting; hence it means that
the men on those platforms shout. Thus the platforms,
that support the watchmen, are substituted for the men
wo are supported by. Similarly it should be understood
in the above text that God the support is substituted
for the soul which is supported thereby or contained
you say that all things exist in God what is then the
special object of saying that the soul exists in God?
We answer that though it is true that all things exist
in God, nothing is so close to God as the human soul.
Being possessed of similar attributes, it is only the
human soul that can know God, and during the time of
salvation lives in the very presence of God, having
direct cognizance of Him all the time. Hence the relation
of God to the soul is that of a container or supporter
to the thing contained therein or supported thereby
and that of one companion to another.
is clear, therefore, that God and the soul are not one.
Just as a person says in reference to another 'He and
I are one', i.e., in complete harmony with each other,
in the same way, the human soul, being irresistable
drawn towards God by its extreme love for Him and thereby
completely immersed in Him during Samaadhi can say "God
and I are one", that is, in harmony with each other
as well as occuying the same space. That soul alone
can declare its unity or harmony with God by virtue
of similarities of attributes that becomes like God
in its nature, attributes and character.
what meaning will you give to the second text "(tat)
God (twam) Thour (asi) art i.e., O soul! Thou art God."
What do you understand by the word (tat)?
How do you know that the word (tat) refer to Brahma?
there is mention of the word Brahma in the sentence
preceding the above quotation. (Tadeva.......advitiyam)
It seems that you have never read the Chhaandogya Upanishad
(the book from which the quotation was taken). Had you
read you would not have made the wrong statement that
the word Brahma occurs in the said text. The true text
runs as (Tadeva....advitiyam). There is no such word
as Brahma there.
do you understand by the word tat then?
That Supreme Spirit should be sought after. He is infinitely
subject. He is the Soul of the whole material universe
as well as of the human soul: The Self-same Spirit is
the Great Reality. He Himself is His Own soul. O my
dear son Swetketo! (Tat) "that Omniscient, Supreme Spirit
is within thee." For instance the great sage Yajnavalkya
say to his wife in the Brahadaranyak Umnishad " O Maitreyi,
The Great God reside within the soul and is yet distinct
form it. The ignorant soul does not know that the Supreme
Spirit pervades it. The soul is a body unto Him. In
other words, just as the soul resides in the body, so
does God reside within the soul, and yet He is distinct
from it. He witnesses the deeds - good and evil - of
the soul and gives it its deserts and thereby keeps
it under control. Do Thou know O Maitreyi, that the
ver same Immortal, Omniscient Being resides within they
Can anyone give a different meaning to texts like these?
about the third so-called 'mighty text' "This (soul
is God (Brahma)." Its true sense is that when during
the state of trance (samadhi) a yogi gets direct cognition
of God, i.e., sees God, he says: "This (the very God
who resides within me) is Brahma, i.e., pervades the
whole universe." It is clear, therefore, that the Vedantists
of to-day, who declare that the human soul and God are
one and the same, do not understand the Vedant Shastra.
the Chhaandogya Upnishad God says "Having created the
universe and different bodies, I enter the body as a
soul and manifest myself under different names and forms."
CHHAANDOGYA 6: 3,2. Again, says the Taitreya Upnishad
"Having created the universe and different bodies God
Himself entered them." How can you give different meanings
to these texts?
Had you understood the construction and meanings of
words and sentences you would not have so perverted
the sense of the original in translation. You must understand
that there are two entities, one is the pervader and
other post-pervader. Now God is like the post-pervader
who enters after the soul has already entered the body
and reveals the science of names and forms through the
Veda. He caused the soul to enter the body and He Himself
entered the soul thereafter. Had you understood the
meaning of the word anu (post or after), you would not
have mistranslated it.
a man were to say that the same Deva Datta who was seen
at Kahi in the hot season, is her now-a-days at Mathura
in the wet season. Now if you disregard the differences
of time and locality (as hot and wet season, Kashi and
Mathura) and take only the individual into consideration,
the fact of the existence of the man Deva Datta only
is established. Similarly on the 'principle of partial
rejection and partial acceptance' if the unknown time,
and illusion - opaadhi i.e., the obstruction medium
- the case of I'shwara (Godin the active state), and
of the known time and locality, ignorance, and finiteness
in the case of the human soul be disregarded, and only
the property of consciousness common to both be taken
into account, the existence of Brahma (God) in both
is established. On the same principle by the rejection
of Omniscience and similar other attributes of God,
and of the finiteness of knowledge in the case of the
soul, and the acceptance of consciousness alone which
is common to both, the unity of God and the soul is
established. What answer can you give to this objection?
Would you first please tell us whether you hold I'shwara
and the soul to be eternal or non-eternal?
Both being the product of Opaadhi, we regard them as
Do you hold Opaadhi to be eternal or non-eternal?
Our belief on this subject is summed in the following
"We Vedantis hold the the following six entities as
(1) Soul, (2). I'shwara - God in the active state, (3)
Brahma - God in passive condition, (4) the distinctive
difference between Ishwara and soul, (5) Ignorance,
(6) the union of ignorance with a conscious entity.
Of these six, Brahma alone is beginningless but terminable
like that kind of Non-existence which though, existing
in the present shall cease to exist in the future. These
five continue to exist as long as ignorance lasts; and
because their beginning is not known, they are called
beginningless, but as they cease to exist when the soul
attains true knowledge they are called terminable or
Both these verses are wrong. As there can be no soul
with the conjunction of ignorance with I'shwara, and
without the conjunction of maayaa - illusion or ignorance
with Brahma, the sixth entity of your verse -i.e. the
conjunction of ignorance with a conscious entity as
a separate entity becomes superfluous; because the ignorance
or illusion is absorbed into the soul and I'shwara,
and forms part and parcel of them. For the same reason
it is useless to count I'shwara and the soul as beginningless
entities distinct from Brahma. Hence according to your
view only two entities - Brahma and ignorance - are
demonstrable and not six. Besides your idea of I'shwara
and the soul as two entities born of upaadhi or ignorance
can only be true if you could demonstrate the existence
of ignorance or illusion in Brahma Who is Infinite,
Eternal, Holy, All-knowledge, Immortal and Omnipresent.
you to believe that the ignorance (depending upon and
relating to self) in Brahma is restricted to one place
at a time and exists from eternity, the whole Brahma
cannot entirely be pure. Besides when you admit the
presence of ignorance in one place, it being movable
will keep shifting from place to place; hence which
ever part of Brahma it goes to, that will become ignorant
and whichever part it leaves, will become enlightened.
This being the case, you could call no part of Brahma
as eternally pure and enlightened.
ignorance on account of its presence and consequent
pleasure and pain, etc., in one part of Brahma, will
affect the whole, like a wound which though confined
to one part of the body causes pain to be felt throughout
the system. Again, that part of Brahma which is in the
pale of ignorance will know itself free from it. Hence,
Brahma will be divided into parts, one inside, the outside
the pale of ignorance. If you reply 'Let Him be divided,
it would be of no consequence to Him.' He would then
no longer remain indivisible. He could not be ignorant.
Besides ignorance or incorrect knowledge being only
an attribute must necessarily reside in some substance
in permanent relation to it. Hence it could not temporarily
reside in Brahma.
you believe that Brahma becomes the soul through the
intervention of an obstructing medium (opaadhi) called
Antahkaran ( internal organ of thought), we ask whether
Brahma is All-pervading or circumscribed. If you answer
that He is All-pervading but the obstruction medium
is circumscribed, i.e., limited as regards
and is separate in each man, does that medium then move
about or not?
Does Brahma as well move with it or does it remain stationary?
Then whichever part the obstructing medium - the antahkaran
- leaves, that must become free from ignorance, whilst
whichever part it goes to, that part of the pure enlightened
Brahma must necessarily become ignorant. In other words,
Brahma would in one moment become ignorant and in the
next enlightened. Hence salvation and bondage will also
become of momentary duration, and just as one cannot
remember what another has seen or heard, similarly what
Brahma has seen or heard yesterday he could no possibly
remember today; because the time and place of his observation
are totally different from those of his remembrance.
Brahma is the same in all you say. We ask, therefore,
why Brahman is not All-knowing? If you say that the
obstruction media - antahkaranas - are different or
distinct from each other in different people, the resulting
knowledge will, therefore, also be different. Our answer
is that the medium being material, it cannot be the
seat of consciousness. And if you say that it is neither
Brahma nor the antahkaran, (the obstructing medium)
- internal organ of thought - but the 'image of Brahma'
-chidaabhaas - that is, the seat of knowledge, then
too it is conscious entity that possesses knowledge.
Why it is then finite in knowledge and power?
is clear, therefore, that you cannot establish I'shwara
and the soul as products of the influence of the 'obstructive
mediums, ignorance or illusion', on Brahma. I'shwara
is really another name for Brahma - the All-pervading
God, while the other conscious, eternal, uncreated and
immortal entity is called the soul.
you say that the soul is nothing but the image of Brahma
(chidaabhaas), we answer that the image being of momentary
duration will soon perish. Who will then enjoy the bliss
of salvation? Hence God and the soul were never one,
nor are they at present, nor shall they ever be.
How can you then establish the doctrine of non-duality
which is clearly inculcated in the Upanishads as shown
by the following quotation form the Chhaandogya? "O
my dear son, in ghe beginning there was but One (God)
and no other." According to our belief the existence
of every thing else - whether of the same kind as, Brahma
or of a different kind from, or as differentiated parts
of, the same Brahma - besides Brahma, being negative
the existence of Brahma alone is established. How could
the doctrine of non-duality hold good when you believe
that Brahma (God) is distinct from the soul?
Why have you fallen into this error? Fear not and try
to understand the relation of an adjective to a substantive.
Now what is the function of an adjective?
function is to differentiate.
Then why not also admit that it serves to elucidate
and explain the character of the substantive. You should,
therefore, understand that in the verse quoted above
the word advait (i.e., and no other) is an adjective,
qualifying the noun Brahma; its differentiating function
is that it differentiates Brahma from innumerable souls
and atoms, whilst its explanatory function is that it
serves to elucidate that there is one God and one only.
As when you say, "In this town Deva Datta is the one
rich man. There is no other", or In this regiment Vikram
Singh is the one brave man and there is no other", you
mean that in this town there is none so rich as Deva
Datta and there is none in the regiment so brave as
Vikram Singh, but it does not negative the existence
of other men less rich and less brave than Deva Datta
and Vikram Singh respectively. nor of animate (as plants
and animals) and inanimate (as land and water, etc.,)
things in the town and the regiment. Similarly, in the
text, 'In the beginning there was one God and no other',
it is implied that there was nothing besides God equal
to Him, but it does no exclude the existenc of other
things such as souls and the primordial elementary matter
which are inferior to God. It is clear, then, that it
means that there is but one God whilst the souls, and
the material atoms are more than one, and the adjective
advatiya (no other) serve to differentiate other existence
from God as well as to elucidate the oneness of God.
Therefore, it does not mean that the
and matter - in atomic or the present visible condition
- do not exist. On the other hand, they all exist but
they are not equal to God. The explanation neither disproves
the doctrine of non-duality nor that duality. So not
be perplexed, think over it and try to understand it.
God and the soul possess the attributes of Existence,
Consciousness and Blissfulness common to each other
and are therefore, one. Why do you then refute this
A.-The fact of two things possessing a few attributes
common to each other does not make them one. Take for
instance, solids and liquids and fire, all these are
inanimate and visible but that does not make them one.
The dissimilar attributes differentiate them. The hardness
and prevent them from being considered as one.
take another illustration. Both a man and an ant see
with their eyes, eat with their mouths and walk with
their feet, yet they are not one and the same, having
their bodily forms different from each other, a man
having two feet whilst an ant many, and so on. Similarly,
God's attributes of Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence,
Infinite Bliss and Infinite activity, being different
from those of the soul's and the attributes of the soul,
such as finite knowledge, finite power, finite nature,
liability to error and circumscription, being different
from God's, God and the soul can never be one. Even
in essence, they are different, God being most subtle,
and the soul less subtle than God.
who makes even the slightest distinction between God
and soul is subject to fear, as fear is possible only
from a second person (i.e., not form one's own self)."
Does not this inculcate the unity of the soul with Brahma?
Your translation of this verse is wrong. The correct
meaning is, that the soul that denies the existence
of the Supreme Being or believes Him to limited to some
particular time or place, or conducts itself against
the will, nature, character and attributes of God or
bears malice to another, becomes subject to fear. Because
person alone is afraid of God or of man who believes
that God has nothing to do with him or says to another
man, "What do I care for you? What can you do against
me?" or do other harm or give them pain. Those who are
in harmony with each other in all things are called
one, as the following expression is very often used.
"Deva Datta, Yajna Datta and Vishnu Datta are all one",
meaning thereby that they are all of one mind. Harmony
is the cause of happiness, whilst want of harmony begets
misery and pain.
Do God and the soul always remain distinct from each
other or do they ever become one?
A.-We have already partly answer this question but we
will add her that on account of similarity in attributes
and close relationship they are one, just as material
solid substance is one with space, in being lifeless
and inseparably associated with it: whilst they are
distinct from each other on account of dissimilarity
of such attributes, as omnipresence, subtlety, formless
and endlessness, etc., of space and limitation visibility
and such other attributes of a solid object; in other
words, a solid object can never be separate from space,
as it must have space to exist in, whilst on account
of dissimilitude in nature they are always distinct
from each other.
the same way, the soul and the material objects can
never be separate from God as He pervades them, nor,
all, can they be one with Him as they are in nature
different from Him as they are in nature different from
Him. Before a house is built, the earth, water, iron
and other building materials are found to exist in space;
after a house is built they will exist in space, and
continue to do so even after it is demolished and the
material composing it scattered broad-cast; in short,
the building material can never be separate from space,
nor, can it being different in nature, ever be one with
both the soul and the material cause of this universe,
being pervaded by God, never were, nor are, nor shall
ever be separate from Him, and being in their natures
distinct from Him can ever be one with Him. The Vedantists
of today are like one-eyed men who see only one side
of the street they pass through and are bent on giving
such a great importance to the close connection or relationship
between God and the soul that they completely ignore
the dissimilitude between the two. There is not a single
substance in this world that is devoid of
- the property of possessing some qualities - and negativeness
- the property of being devoid of some qualities - of
close relationship and its reverse, similitude and dissimilitude
Is God positive - possessed of attributes (Saguna)
entity or a negative - destitute of attributes of
(nirgun) one? Back
A.- He is both.
How can two swords be put in one scabbard? How can on
thing be both positive and positive?
A thing that is possessed of certain qualities is called
Positive (Saguna), whilst, one devoid of certain qualities
is called negative (Nirguna). Hence all things are both
positive and negative, being possessed of certain qualities
and destitute of others, as the material objects being
possessed of visibility and other properties are positive,
whilst being devoid of intelligence and other attributes
of conscious beings, they are negative. In the same
way, conscious beings (as souls) are positive, as they
possess intelligence, whilst they are negative, as they
are devoid of visibility and other properties of the
things, therefore, are positive (Saguna) and negative
(Nirguna) by virtue of being possessed of certain natural
qualities, and devoid of those that are antithetic to
them. There is not a single substance that is only positive
or only negative. Both positiveness and negativeness
always reside in the same object. In the same way, God
is positive being possessed of certain natural attributes,
such as Omniscience, Omnipresence, etc. He is also negative
being free from the attributes of visibility and other
properties of material objects, and from feelings of
pleasure and pain, and other attributes of the soul.
People speak of a thing as Nirguna (Negative) when it
is formless and as Saguna (Positive) when it is possessed
of a form. In other words, God is called Saguna (Positive)
when He incarnates, and Nirguna (Negative) when He is
not embodied. Is this view of the terms positive and
No, it is a false conception entertained by ignorant
minds that are destitute of true knowledge. The ignorant
always make senseless noise like the lowing of cattle.
Their utterances should be looked upon as valueless
as the ravings of a man in delirium from high fever.
God Ragi - one possessed of feelings and passions, etc.-
or Vairakta - one who has renounced all things?
He is neither the one nor the other. For, you desire
for the possession of a thing that exists without you
or is better than you; but as there is nothing that
is outside or separate from God or better than He, He
could not possibly be Ragi. As a Vairakta is one who
renounces what he has, God being All-pervading can not
renounce anything; therefore He is not Vairakta either.
Does God possess desire (Ichchhaa)?
A.- No, not that kind of desire which is another name
for a passion excited by the love of an object from
which pleasure is expected, because, you only desire
to obtain a thing which you do not already possess,
which is of a superior quality and is productive of
pleasure. Now there is nothing that God does not possess
or is superior to Him, and being All-Bliss He can also
have no desire for further happiness. Therefore, there
is no possibility of the presence of desire in God.
But thereis no God what is called I'kshan, that is true
knowledge and creative power.
have treated this subject very briefly but it is hoped
that it will suffice for the wise. Now we proceed to
the treatment of the subject of the Veda.
Atharva Veda says, "Who is that Great Being who revealed
the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, The Sama Veda and the
Atharva Veda? He is the Supreme Spirit Who created the
universe and sustains it." ATHARVA VEDA 10:23,4,10.
says the Yajur Veda "The Great Ruler of the Universe,
Who is Self-existent, All-pervading, Holy, eternal and
Formless, has been eternally instructing His subjects
- immortal souls - in all kinds of knowledge for their
good through the Veda." YAJUR VEDA 5O; 8.
Do you believe God to be Formless or embodied?
formless how could He reveal the Veda without the use
of the organs of speech, as in the pronunciation of
words the use of such organs as the palate and of a
certain amount of effort with the tongue are indispensable.
Being Omnipresent, and Omnipresent, He does not stand
in need of the organs of speech in order to reveal the
Veda to the human souls; because the organs of speech
, such as the mouth, the tongue, etc., are needed in
pronouncing words only when you want to speak to another
person, and not when you are speaking to yourself. It
is our daily experience that various kinds of mental
processes and the formation of words are continually
going on in our mind without the use of the organs of
on shutting your ears with the fingers you can notice
that many different varieties of sound are audible that
are not produced by the use of the organs of speech.
In the same way, God instructed human souls by virtue
of His Omniscience and Omnipresence without the use
of the organs of speech. After the Incorporeal God has
revealed the perfect knowledge of the Veda in the heart
of a human being by virtue of His presence within it,
he teaches it to others through speech. Hence, this
objection does not hold good in the case of God.
The Vedas were revealed in the Sanskrit language. Those
Rishis were ignorant of that language. How did they
then understand the Vedas?
Whose hearts did God reveal the Vedas in?
A.-"In the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas,
Rig, Vayu, Sama, and Atharva, to Agni, Vayu, A'ditya
and Angira, respectively." SHAPATHA BRAHMAN 11:
it is written in the Shwetashwetar Upanishad,
" In the beginning God created Brahma and revealed
the Vedas in his heart."SHEWTAR UPANISHAD 6:18.
Why do you say that they were revealed to Agni,
and other sages?
Brahma was instructed in the knowledge of the
Veda through the medium of the four sages , such
as Agni. Mark what Manu
"In the beginning after human being had been created,
the Supreme Spirit made the Vedas known to Brahma
through Agni, etc., i.e., Brahma learnt the four
Vedas from Agni, Vayu, A'ditya and Angira." MANU:
Why should He have revealed the Vedas to those
four men alone and not to others as well? That
imputes favouritism to God.
Among all men those four alone were purest in
heart, therefore, God revealed the true knowledge
to them only.
Why did He reveal the Veda in Sanskrit instead
of a language of some particular country?
A.~ Had He revealed the Veda in the language of
some particular country, He would have been partial
to that country, because it would have been easier
for the people of that country to learn and teach
the Veda than for the foreigners, therefore, it
is that He did it in Sanskrit that belongs to
no country, and is the mother of all other languages.
Just as He has ordained the material creation
such as the earth, etc., which is also the source
of all the useful arts, for the equal good of
all, so should the language of the Divine revelation
be accessible to all countries and nations with
the same amount of labour. Hence the revelation
of the Veda in Sanskrit does not make God partial
to any nation.
Evidence that proves the the Vedas to be Divine
Q.What evidence have you to prove that the
Veda in Sanskrit is of Divine origin and not the
work of man?
book in which God is described as He is, viz.,
Holy, Omniscient, Pure in nature, character and
attributes, Just, Merciful, etc., and in which
nothing is said that is opposed to the laws
of nature, reason, the evidence
of direct cognizance, etc., the teachings of the
highly learned altruistic teachers of humanity
(A'ptas), and the intuition of pure souls, and
in which the laws, nature, and properties of matter
and the soul are propounded as they are to be
inferred from the order of nature as fixed by
God, is the book of Divine revelation. Now the
Vedas alone fulfil all the above conditions, hence
they are the revealed books and not books, like
the Bible and the Q'uran which we shall discuss
fully in the thirteenth
chapters (of this book) respectively.
is no necessity for the Veda to be revealed by
God. Men can by themselves by degrees augment
their knowledge and thereafter make books as well.
No, they cannot do that, because there can be
no effect without a cause. Look at savages such
as the Bhils. Do they ever become enlightened
by themselves without being instructed by others?
The same is true of men in civilized communities,
they need to be taught before they become educated.
Similarly, had not God instructed the primitive
sages in the knowledge of the Veda and had not
they in their turn taught other men, all men would
have remained ignorant. If a child were kept in
a sequestered place from its very birth with no
other company but that of illiterate persons or
animals, on attaining maturity he would be no
better than one of his company.
for example the case of Egypt, Greece, or the
Continent of Europe. The people of all these countries
were without a trace of learning before the spread
of knowledge from India. In the same way before
Columbus and other Europeans went to America,
the natives had been without any learning for
hundreds and thousands of years. Now some of them
have become enlightened after receiving education
from the Europeans. Similarly, in the beginning
of the world men received knowledge from God and
since then there have been various learned men
in different periods, Says Patanjali in his Yoga
in the present time we become enlightened only
after being taught by our teachers, so were in
the beginning of the world, Agni and the other
three Rishis (sages), taught by the greatest of
all teachers - God." YOGA SHASTRA SAMADHI, 26.
His knowledge is eternal. He is quite unlike the
human soul that becomes devoid of consciousness
in profound sleep and during the period of dissolution.
It is certain, therefore, that no effect can be
produced without a cause.
A.- They were made known to them by God, and whenever
who were yogis, imbued with piety, and with the desire
to understand the meanings of certain mantras and whose
minds possessed the power of perfect concentration,
entered the superior condition, called Samaadhi, in
contemplation of Deity. He made known unto them the
meanings of the desired mantras. When the Vedas were
thus revealed to many Rishis, they made expositions
with historical illustrations of the Vedic mantras and
embodied them in books called the Brahmanas which literally
means an exposition of the Veda.
names of the Rishis, who were seers of certain mantras
and for the first time published and taught the exposition
of those mantras, are written along with those mantras
as token remembrance." Nirukta 1-20. Those who look
upon those Rishis as the authors of the mantras should
be considered absolutely in the wrong. They were simply
seers of those mantras.
Which books are called the Vedas?
The book called the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama
Veda and the Atharva Veda - the Mantras Sanhitas only
and no other.
But the sage Katyayana says. The mantras Sanhitas together
with the Brahmanas constitute the Vedas.
You must have noticed that in the beginning of every
Mantra Sanhita and at the end of each of its chapters
it has always been the practice from time immemorial
to write the word Veda, but it is never done so in the
case of Brahmanas. We read in the Nirukt, "This is in
the Veda, this is in the Brahmanas;" NIRUKT 5: 3 &
4 - in the same way we read in Panini, " In the Chhanda
(Veda) and Brahmanas, etc." ASHTADHYAYI 4: 2, 66. It
is clear from these quotations that the Veda is the
name of books distinct from the Brahmanas. The Veda
is what is called the Mantra Sanhita or a recollection
of mantras, whilst the Brahmanas are the expositions
of those mantras. Those who want to know more about
this subject can consult our book called " An introduction
to the Exposition of the Vedas", wherein it is proved
on the authority of various kinds of evidence that the
quotation quoted as Katyayan"s could never be his. Because
if we believe that, the Veda, could never be eternal,
for in the Brahmanas there are to be found biographies
of various Rishis and Sages, kings and princes; but
since biographies of persons can only be written after
their birth, the Brahmanas that contain those biographies
must have been written after the birth of those Rishis
and kings, etc., and therefore, cannot be eternal. The
Veda does not contain the biography of any person, on
the other hand in it only those words are used by which
knowledge is made known. There is no mention of any
proper names fo any particular event or individual in
How many Shaakhaas (branches) are there of the Veda?
A.- Eleven hundred and twenty-seven.
are Shaakhaas (branches)? A.- The expositions are
hear of learned people speaking of the different parts
of the Veda as shaakhaas. Are they wrong?
If you think over it a little, you will understand that
they are in the wrong, because all the Shaakhaas are
attributed to Rishis such as Ashwalaayani and others,
whilst the authorship of the Veda is ascribed to God.
It other words, as the author of the four Vedas is believed
to be God, so are Rishis held to be the authors of the
shaakhaas, such as Ashwalaayani. And besides, all the
shaakhaas take Veda texts and expound them, while in
the Veda texts only are given. Therefore, the four Vedas
- the books of Divine revelation - are like the trunk
of a tree, whose branches (shaakhaas) are the books,
such as Ashwalaayani, written by Rishis and not revealed
the parents are kind to their children and wish for
their children and wish for their welfare, so has the
Supreme Spirit, out of kindness to all men, revealed
the Veda by whose study men are freed from ignorance
and error, and may attain the light of true knowledge
and thereby enjoy extreme happiness as well as advance
knowledge and promote their welfare.
Are the Vedas eternal or non-eternal?
A.- They are eternal. God being eternal, His knowledge
and attributes must necessarily be eternal, because
the nature, attributes and character of an eternal substance
are also eternal and vice versa.
I see. God must have given knowledge to those Rishis
who afterwards composed the Vedas. Is that what you
There can be no ideas without words. No one but an All-knowing
Being has the power to make such compositions as are
full of all kinds of knowledge and require the perfect
knowledge of music and poetry, meters, such chhandhaas
and notes, etc. True, after having studied the Vedas,
the Rishis, in order to elucidate the various branches
of learning, made books on Grammar, Philology, Music
and Poetry, etc. Had not God revealed the Vedas, no
man would have been able to write anything. The Vedas,
therefore, are revealed books. All men should conduct
themselves according to their teachings, and when questioned
as to his religion let everyone answer that his religion
is Vedic, i.e., he believes in whatever is said in the
subjects of God and the Veda have been thus briefly
been treated. In the next Chapter we shall discourse
on the Creation
of the World Cosmogony.