PAGE 329
Aryavarta
(India) before 5,000 years ago.
Back to contents
Now we shall examine the religions of the Aryas, i.e., the people who liven in
Aryvarta (India). This country is such that no other country in the whole world
can come up to the level of its excellence. It is also called the Golden Land
as it produces gold and precious stones. It was for this reason that in the beginning
of the world the Aryas cam to this country. We have already stated in the Chapter
on Cosmogony that the good and the noble men are called Aryas, whilst those who
are otherwise are called Dasyus. The
natives of all other countries on the earth praise this very country, and believe
that the philosopher's stone is to be found here. Though this story of the philosopher's
stone is a myth, yet it is true that this country (Aryavarta) itself is verily
a philosopher's stone whose very touch converts all base metals - poor foreigners
- into gold - rich nabobs. Since
the beginning of the world till 5,000 years back, the Aryas were the sovereign
rulers of the whole earth, in other words, there was only one paramount power
whose suzerainty was acknowledged by the rulers of the earth. Till the time of
the Kauravas and the Pandavas, all rulers of the earth and their
subjects obeyed the law laid sown by the rulers of this country, for it is said
in the Manu Smriti, that was compose in the beginning of the world. "Let
all other people of the earth - Brahmans*, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shoodras, Dasyus
and Malecchas - learn arts
* Braahaman's _Teachers - secular and spiritual.
Kshatriyas
- Men of governing class, statesmen, soldiers, etc.
Vaishyeas - Merchants,
artisans and farmers.
Shoodraas - Men of the servant class, laborer.
Dasyus
- Wicked people
Malechhas - Barbarians. PAGE
330 and
science suitable to them from the learned people born in this country." MANU 2:
20.
The perusal of the Mahaabhaarata proves that the Aryas were the
sovereign rulers of the earth till the coronation of EmperorYudhisthtira
and the Great War of Mahaabhaarata, for we read in that book that King
Bhaagadatta of China, Babruvaahan of America, Vidalakha*
of Europe, the Ruler of Greece, King Shalya of Persia and various other
rulers came as ordered to take part in the Great War and in the coronation of
Emperor Yudhishthira. Whe
the house of Raghu held paramount authority (in this country), even King
Raavana of Ceylon acknowledged its suzerainty. Later when he revolted against
its authority, Prince Ram Chandra having vanquished and dethroned him placed
his younger brother Vibhishana on the throne instead. Since the time of
Swyambhava to that of the Paandavas the Aryas were the paramount power
throughout the whole world. Thereafter,
mutual dissensions among them compassed their destruction, for in this world,
over which a just God presides, the rule of the proud, the unjust and the ignorant
(such as the Kauravas were) cannot last very long. It is also a law of nature
that the accumulation of wealth in a community out of al proportion to its needs
and requirements brings in its train indolence, jealousy, mutual hatred, lustfulness,
luxury and neglect of duty which put an end to all sound learning and education,
whose place is usurped by evil customs, manners and practices like the use of
meat and wine, child marriage, and licentiousness. Besides,
when people acquire perfection in the military science and the art of war, and
the army becomes so formidable that no one in the whole world can stand it on
a field of battle, pride and party spirit increase among them and they become
unjust. Thereafter, the lose all power either through mutual dissensions, or a
strong man from among families of little importance rises to distinction and is
powerful enough to subjugate them, just as Shivajee and Gobind Singh rose against
Mohammedan rule and completely annihilated the Muslim power in India.
The fact that the
Aryas were the sovereign rulers of the earth since the beginning of the world
till the Great War called Mahaabhaarata, is also proved on the authority
of the Maitreyopanishad
* Called so account of his cat-like eyes. PAGE
331 which
says, "Why! Besides these, there have been other Mighty Rulers who were the Sovereign
Lords of the whole earth; such as Sudyumna, Bhuridyumna, Indraashwapati, Shashavindu
Harishchandra, Ambrisha, Nanaktu, Saryati,Anarnya, Akshasena, and also such
like Emperors as Mauruta and Bharat." MAITRY UPANISHAD, 1,4.
The names of such
Sovereign Rulers as Swyambhava.* etc., are clearly mentioned in theMahaabhaarata,
the Manu Smiriti and other authoritative books. Only the prejudiced and
the ignorant regard these statements as fallacious.
Q. ~ Is it true that the ancients knew the use of fire-arms, such as Agneyastra,
about which we read in ancient Sanskrit literature. Were cannons and muskets known
to the ancients or not?
A.
~ Yes, it is true. Guns and like fire-arms were used in ancient times. The Agneyastra
and the like weapons can be manufactured by the application of scientific principles.
Q. ~
Were they brought into existence through magical formulae sanctified by the Gods?
A. ~ No,
the methods of manufacturing these weapons were evolved as the result of deep
thought (mantra). But mere pronouncing of mantra, which is nothing but a collections
of words, cannot produce and substance. Were any one to say that the chanting
of a mantra (or a hymn) can produce fire, he may be asked as to why it should
not burn the throat and tongue of the person who recites it. How funny that a
person should burn himself to death while meditating the death of his enemy. A
mantra literally means the power of thought, hence Raja mantri, from Raja-
state, and mantri - one who thinks) is one who thinks over the affairs of a State
and is the King's adviser. Thus,
men after deep study acquire a knowledge of the laws of nature, and by the proper
application thereof make many dis-
* What a pity that the descendants of these Aryas are being crushed
under the wheel of the foreigner. PAGE
332 coveries
in the domain of art and invented machines. As for instance, if an iron arrow
or a ball be filled with such substances as when ignited will produce smoke, which
by coming in contact with air or the rays of the sun will catch fire, he will
have invented an Agneyastra. The fire opened by it will fail of its effect,
if the commander of the opposing army discharges a Varunastra which is
made of such materials whose smoke is converted into a cloud. The
moment it comes in contact with air it immediately begins to rain and extinguishes
the fire. Likewise, there existed in ancient times other weapons of war, such
as Vaagaphansa - which when discharged against an enemy paralyzed his limbs
- and Mohanastra - which was charged with such narcotic substances whose
smoke could cause stupefaction of the soldiers of the enemy -, and Pashupatashtra
- another kind of Agnevastra, in which electricity produced from a wire,
glass or some other substance was employed to kill one's enemy. As
regards the words Top (cannon) and Bandook (muskets) they belong
to a foreign language and not to Sanskrit or to any of the Indian Vernaculars
allied to it. Now what called a Top (cannon) by the foreigners, is spoken
of as Shatagahni (literally that which kills hundreds at a time) and bandook
(musket), Bhushundi in Sanskrit and Arya Bhaashaa (one of
the most widely spoken Indian Vernaculars). Hose who are unacquainted with the
Sanskrit literature write and say all sorts of nonsense. Their writings
can never be considered as authentic by the learned. All
the knowledge that is extant in the world originated in Aryavarta (India).
Thence it spread to Egypt, thence to Greece, thence to the whole continent of
Europe,, thence to America and other countries. Even today India heads all other
countries in the matter of Sanskrit learning. The impression that the Germans
are the best Sanskrit scholars and that no one has read so much of Sanskrit
as Professor Max Muller is altogether unfounded. Yes, in a land where lofty trees
never grow, even Recinis Communis or the common Castor oil plant may be called
an oak. The
study of Sanskrit being almost non-existent in Europe, German scholars
like Professor Max Muller, who have read a little Sanskrit may have come to be
regarded as the highest authorities in Germany, but compared with India the number
of Sanskrit scholars in that country is very small. We came to know from a letter
of the President of a German University that even learned enough to interpret
a Sanskrit letter are rare in Germany. We have also made it plain from the study
of Max PAGE
333 Muller's
History of Sanskrit Literature and his commentary on some Mantras of the Vedas
that the Professor has been able to scribble out something by the help of the
so-called Tikaas or paraphrases of the Vedas current in India, for instance,
he translates the word Bradhnam into a horse in the vedic verse which runs
as:- Yunjanti bradhanam arusham charanti�." Even Sanyanacharya's rendering of
it unto the sun is much better, but its real meaning is the All-Pervading Spirit.*
This will suffice to show how much Sanskrit learning Professor Max Muller and
other Germans possess. It
is a fact that all the science and religions that are extant in the world originated
in India, and thence spread to other countries. Mr. Jacolliot, a native of France,
tells us in his book called Bible in India, that India is the source of all kinds
of knowledge and good institutions. All sciences and religions found in the world
have spread from this country. He prays to God thus, "Mayest thou, O Lord , raise
my country to that height of civilization and progress that had been attained
by India in ancient times."** Prince
Dara Shikoh had also come to the same conclusion viz., in no other language is
knowledge to be found so perfect as in Sanskrit. He says in his commentary on
the Upanishad that he read Arabic and other languages, but his doubts were never
dispelled, nor was he ever so happy till he studied Sanskrit, which cleared all
his doubts and made him extremely happy. Again
look at the Zodiac representation on the temple of Man at Banares so beautiful
is it that even today it gives wondrous information on astronomy though it has
not been properly looked after. It will be a very good thing if the rulers of
Jeypore were to look after the Temple and make necessary repairs.
The
fall of the Vedic civilization..
Back to contents
It is a pity that this jewel of country received such a rude shock from the Great
War the even today it has not recovered from its effects, for what doubt can there
be in the ruin of a country wherein brothers begin to kill each other. Rightly
has it been said, "When the time of destruction is at hand, intellect becomes
perverted," VRIDHA CHANIKYA, 16: 17, and men do foolish things. Should anyone,
offer them good advice, they
* Vide our book called " An Introduction to the exposition of
the Vedas"wherein the true meaning of this mantra is fully explained.
** These are not actually his words, this
is what he says in substance. -Tr. PAGE
334 take
it ill, but are always willing to follow unwholesome advice. When most of the
learned men, Kings and Emperors, sages and seers were killed or died in the Great
War, the light of knowledge began to grow dim, and with it the dissemination of
the Vedic Religion came to an end. The people became a prey to mutual jealousy,
hatred and vanity. The strong seized upon the country and proclaimed themselves
kings. Thus, when the empire was divided into so many independent states even
in India, who could then have kept the foreign possessions under control.
When the Braahmans
became destitute of knowledge, there could be no talk of the ignorance of the
Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shoodras. Even the ancient practice of the study of the
Vedas and other Shaastras with their meanings died away. The Braahmans only learnt
the Veddas by note - just enough to enable them to earn their livelihood. Even
that much they did teach to the Kshatriyas, and others. As
the ignorant became the teachers of the people, deceitfulness, fraud, hypocrisy,
and irreligion began to increase among them. The Braahmans thought that they should
make some arrangement for their livelihood. They held a council among themselves
and agreed to preach to the Kshatriyas and others:- "We alone are the object of
worship to you. You could never enter Heaven or obtain salvation except by serving
us. Should you not serve us, you shall fall into an awful Hell." The
Vedas, and the Shaastraas written by the Vedic sages and seers have declared men
of learning and as Braahmans and worthy of respect; but here they, who were ignorant,
lascivious, deceitful, licentious, lazy and irreligious, declared themselves as
Braahmans and worthy of homage. But how could the sterling virtues of the righteous,
learned and truth-loving Brahamans be found in them. When the Kshatriyas and others
became absolutely destitute of Sanskrit learning, whatever cock and bull stories
the Braahmans connocted, the simpletons believed. They ensnared all in their net
of hypocrisy, brought them under thorough control and began to teach:- "Whatever
a Braahman declares is as infallible as words falling from Divine lips."
When the Kshatriyas
and others who had more money and brains became their dupes, these so-called Braahmans
got a golden PAGE
335 opportunity
of enjoying sensual pleasures adlibitum. They also declared that all the best
things of the earth were meant for the Braahmans only. In other words, they subverted
the whole system of Classes and Orders, and based it on the mere accident of birth,
instead of on the qualifications, character and works of the people, as it originally
was. They even began to accept charity given in the name of the dead, in fact
they did whatever they pleased. They went even so far as to say:- "We are lords
of the earth. No one can enter Heaven without serving us." The so-called Braahmans
of the present day say the same thing. Now
if they were asked as to which place they would go to after death - since they
did such wicked deeds indeed that they deserved no better abode than a terrible
hell and therefore they would be turned into worms, ants, moths and the like -
they get highly enraged and cry out, "Were we to curse you, you would be destroyed,
for it is written "He that wrongs a Braahman shall be damned." It may be said
in reply to this, that certainly it is true he that wrongs a man, who is perfect
scholar of the Veda, is well-versed in divine knowledge and imbued with piety
and righteousness, and is devoted to the good of the whole world and is therefore
called a Braahman, shall certainly be damned, but you neither deserve to be called
Braahmans, nor are entitled to our homage. The
source of false religions..
Back to contents
Q. ~ What are we then? A.
~ You are popes. Q.
~ What is a pope? A.
~ The word pope is originally meant father in Latin, but here this term is applied
to a person who robs another through fraud and hypocrisy and achieves his selfish
end. Q.
~ No, we are Braahmans and holy men (Saadhu) for our parents were Braahmans and
we are the disciples of such and such a holy man. A.
~ It may be true, but one does not become a Braahman or a Saadhu by being the
offspring of Braahman parents or a disciple of a Saadhu. A man becomes a Braahman
or a holy man by bearing good character, by doing righteous deeds and by possessing
such good virtues as altruism. It is said that the Popes of Rome used to say to
their followers:- "If you will confess you sins before us, we shall grant you
absolution from them. No one can enter Heaven unless one pays homage to us and
thereby obtains our PAGE
336 permission.
Should you wish to go to Heaven you must deposit money with us and you will get
your money's worth of property there." Upon hearing this, those ignorant men who
had more money than brains and were anxious to enter Heaven would offer the stipulated
amount of money to the Pope who would then stand before the image of Jesus Christ
or Mary and write down a draft in the following words:- 'O
Lord Christ! The bearer has deposited Rs.100,000 to Thy credit with us in order
to get admission into Heaven. When he comes there mayest Thou be pleased to give
him in Thy Father's Kingdom, houses, gardens and parks worth Rs 25.000, horses,
carriages hounds and servants worth Rs. 25,000, foods, drinks and clothes, etc.,
worth Rs. 25,000, and get him the remaining Rs. 25,000 in cash so that he may
entertain his friends, brothers and other relations etc.' The
Pope would then sign his name on the draft and give it to the supplicant saying:-
"Tell your family members before-hand to put this draft under your head in the
grave before you are buried. The angels will then come to take you to Heaven,
and after you have been conveyed there along with the draft, you shall get everything
mentioned therein. It
seems as if the Popes had had the monopoly of Heaven. These popish practices lasted
in Europe only so long as it was sunk in ignorance, but now that the people have
become enlightened, the false practices of the popes do not flourish so well,
but at the same time have not altogether disappeared. As
in Europe, so in India the popery appeared in a thousand different forms, and
cast its net of hypocrisy and fraud, in other words, the Indian popes have kept
the rulers and the ruled from acquiring learning and associating with the good.
In fact, they have always been misleading the people and have done nothing else.
But let
it be borne in mind that it is only those who practice fraud and hypocrisy, and
follow other evil occupations that are called popes, whilst those, even among
the so-called Braahmans, who live righteous lives, are learned and devoted
to the public good, deserve to be called true Braahmans and holy men.
Thus it is proper
to designate the deceitful, the hypocritical and the selfish - i.e., those who
serve selfish ends at the sacrifice of the interest of others - alone as popes,
while good and learned men as Braahmans and holy men (Saadhus); because
had there been no such true Braahmans or Sadhus as escaped from the traps
laid by theJainees, Mohammedans and Christians, who would have helped to keep
up love for the Vedas, and the Shaastras PAGE
337 in
the minds of the Aryan people, and maintain the system of Classes and Orders?
This indeed has been the works of true Braahmans and Sadhus.Manu
has said:- "Let a wise man extract nectar even from poison."
The escape of the Aryas, however misled into popish practices, from the
snares of the Main and other religions has indeed been like nectar extracted from
poison. Thus
when the laity became bereft of knowledge, the popes who had read a little of
the ritual became haughty, they combined together and declared before the kings
and others in authority that it was unlawful to punish a Braahman or a
Sadhu, and such texts as declared "let no Braahman be killed; let
no Braahmans and Sadhus, were applied to themselves by the popes.
They also wrote books containing false statements whose authorship they attributed
to the great sages and seers of the past in order to stamp them with authority.
These books
they passed off as the writings of the great Vedic seers and read them
out to the people. Thus under the cover of these great names they succeeded in
getting themselves out of ht reach of the Law and did whatever they liked, in
other words, they have framed such strict laws that no one durst sit or stand,
eat or drink, come or go, sleep or wake without their permission. They
instilled into the minds of the rulers that these so-called Braahmans and
Sadhus, who were really popes, might do whatever they liked. They should
never be punished. The rulers should not even ever think of punishing them. When
the people became so ignorant, the popes did and made others do whatever they
wished. This
evil took root 1000 years before the Great War, and even though the Vedic
sages and seers lived in that age, yet the seeds of indolence, negligence, mutual
jealousy and hatred had begun to sprout a little, and gradually they grew into
lofty trees. When the preaching of the truth died away, ignorance spread all over
India and its people began to quarrel and fight among themselves, for it is said,
"Righteousness, wealth, gratification of legitimate desires and salvation are
attainable only when teachers of the highest type are found in a country, but
in the absence of good teachers and good disciples dense ignorance prevails. Whenever
good teachers are born who preach the truth, ignorance is dispelled and the light
of truth begins to shine forth." SAANKHYA 3:79, 81.. Then
the popes got the laity to worship them and their feet, and began to say that
in that alone consisted their (future) happiness. PAGE
338 When
the people were completely brought under subjection, the popes became entirely
negligent of their duty, and extremely immersed in sensuality. As they were like
shepherds, and the people like their sheep - ignorant dupes knowledge intellectual
power, strength, courage, bravery and valor and all other good qualities were
gradually lost. When they became licentious, they began to use meat and drink
wine secretly.
The
sect of Vaama Margis..
Back to contents
Then a sect sprung up among them whose followers wrote books called the Tantraas
in which various statements were introduced with words Shiva said. Parvati
said, Bhairava said. In these books such curious things are written as
follow:- "(Madya)
wine, (Mansa) meat, Meena) fish, (Mudra-cakes), Maithuna) copulation, all these
five beginning with the letter M lead to salvation in all ages." KALITANTRA.
"While in the circle
of Bhairava persons of all Classes are regarded as twice-born, but after leaving
the Bhairavi circle they all revert to their respective Classes." KULARNAVA.
"He, who drinks
and drinks and drinks till he falls to the ground, gets up and again drinks, shall
never be born again." MAHANIRMANA TANTRA. "Excepting
his mother let a man have sexual intercourse with all women. The Vedaas
an the Shastras and other ancient books are like harlots. But the Saambhavi
Mudra* is like a lady of high birth who lives in privacy." JNANA SANKALANI
TANTRA.
* Shambhavi Mudra is the name of certain positions of the figures
practiced in devotions or religious worship offered to Paarvati - wife of Shiva.
_Tr. PAGE
339 Now
look at the trickery of these stupid popes that whatever is considered to be highly
sinful and opposed to the Veda is regarded as virtuous by the Vaama Margis.
The use of meat, wine, fish, delicious eatables, such as various kinds of cakes,
and copulation are considered as means of attaining salvation. Believing all men
to be (incarnations of) Shiva and all women and all women (incarnations of) Paarvati
they mutter the absurd couplet, "I am Shiva and thou are Paarvati,
let us then co-habit" and they co-habit - not matter who the man and the women
be, and see no harm in it. The
low women whose very touch is considered to be polluting are regarded extremely
pure by them. As for instance the Shaastra forbids the touch of a woman
when she is menstruating, but the Vaama Margis believe her to be very clean.
Reader!
Mark, how meaningless is that verse of theirs which says:-
"Sexual intercourse
with a woman is menses is like having a bath (in the sacred Tank) at Pushkar,
with an outcast woman a pilgrimage to Kashi (Benares), with a woman working in
leather like a bath (in the Ganges) at Pragaya (Allahabad), and with a
washer-woman like a pilgrimage to Mathura, and with a prostitute like a pilgrimage
to Audhya." RUDRYA MALA TANTRA. They
call wine pilgrimage, meat purity and flower, fish No. 3 and water-cucumber, copulation
No. 4, and a cake, No. 5. they have employed such names to meat, etc., so that
others may not understand them. They call themselves lotus-like, kind hearted,
brave, merciful, mighty and the like, while they call others thorn-like, perverted,
emaciated (like lean animals). They say that in a social gathering of the Vaama
Margis all persons, whether Brahmans or outcasts, become Dwijas (i.e., twice
born), but as soon as they leave that meeting, they revert to their respective
Classes. In
a Bhairavi Circle* they mark or draw a triangle, a square, or a circle
on the earth or on a piece of board, on which they place a pitcher full of wine,
worship it and read this mantra "O Wine! Thou art free from the curse of Brahma."
In a sequestered place, where none but the Vaama Margis can go men and
women meet together; the men strip a woman naked and worship her, while the women
strip a man naked and worship him. Then, any
* i.e., social gathering of Vaama Margis. -Tr.
PAGE 340
man can
get hold of any woman, be she his own wife, daughter, mother, sister or daughter-in-law
or anyone else's and co-habit with her. They
fill a cup with wine and place meat the sweets on a plate. Then the officiating
priest takes that cup in his hand and saying, "I am Bhairava (the Indian Bacchus)
or I am Shiva " drinks it up. Thereupon the rest of the company drink out
of the same cup. Having stripped naked someone's wife or a prostitute, or a man,
they give a sword in her or his hand, call her a goddess (Devi) or him a great
God (Mahadeva). They
worship her or his private organs and make that goddess or God drink a cup of
wine and themselves drink of the same cup turn by turn. They go on drinking till
they get completely drunk. Anyone of the men can then co-habit with any woman,
be she his own sister, mother or daughter, he likes. Sometimes
when extremely intoxicated they fight among themselves with their shoes or fists,
pull each other's hair, or kick one another. If anyone vomits there, he who ahs
attained the highest stage of perfection, i.e., is an aghori (and omnivorous
person) or an adept would even eat up the vomited matter. The
following are the qualifications of an adept among them:- "He that drinks away
bottle after bottle in a public house, sleeps in a brothel in order to misconduct
himself, and commits similar other sins without compunction or shame, is like
a great Sovereign Emperor of the whole earth among the Vaama Margis." TNANA
SANKALANI TANTRA. In
short, the greatest sinner among them is called great, whilst he who is virtuous
and afraid of committing evil deeds is called small, for it is recorded in one
of their scriptures, "He that is restrained from the commission of sinful deeds
by the fear of public opinion, of disobedience to the dictates of the scriptures,
of tarnishing the family name and of being looked down upon by the country at
large is human, whilst one who commits wicked deeds without any shame is Divine
(Eternal Shiva)." The
Uddisa Tantra describes a ceremonial thus. Let bottles filled with wine
be placed in niches in all the four walls of a room. Then let a man drink a bottle
of wine from one of the four walls of a room. Then let a man drink a bottle of
wine from one of the niches and to the next, and have another bottle, thence go
to the third PAGE
341 niche,
and have still another bottle and then go to the fourth and go on drinking till
he falls down on the earth like a log. When he comes round a bit let him again
drink in the same way till he falls a second time, let him repeat it a third time,
and when he gets up a fourth time, he shall never be born again. But the fact
is that it is extremely difficult for such men to be born again as men.
They shall, on
the contrary, enter the bodies of very low creatures and remain there for long
time to come. The law has been laid down in the Tantra, books of Vaama Margis
that a man can have sexual intercourse with all women (except his mother), even
if they be his daughters, sisters or other near relations. There
are ten kinds of higher knowledge known among them. One of them is Maatangi
knowledge. One who is versed in this believes that even a mother should not
be spared, that is a man can have sexual intercourse even with his own mother.
These people mutter some magical incantations while having sexual intercourse
in the hope of acquiring occult power. Very few people indeed are there in this
world who are so insane and do idiotic as these Vaama Margis!!!
He who would advocate
untruth must revile the truth. Mark what theVaama Margis say:- "The Vedas
and the Shaastras and other ancient books are like common harlots, but
the Shambhavi Mudra is like a lady of high birth and of great chastity."
No wonder!
These Vaama Margi being so low and degraded in their morals founded a religion
so entirely opposed to the to the Veda. Later on when their religion had
widely spread over India, they roguishly introduced some of their evil practices
even in the name of the Veda as the following quotations will bear out:-
"Let a
man drink wine (sura) in the Saautramani Yajna."
"Let a man eat meat
in a Yajna."
"A slaughter ceases to be slaughter when this deed is
done in a Vedic sacrifice." "There
is no turpitude in eating flesh, drinking wine, and committing adultery, for that
is the natural way of created beings, but abstinence being great reward." MANU.
PAGE
342 Now
the word suraa, that does not mean wine, has been translated as wine in
one of the above quotations. The word suraa really means the juice of a
creeper called Soma. These Vaama Margis, who have started such wicked
practices as killing animals in a sacrifice, should be asked if, as they hold,
it to be true that a slaughter ceases to be as such in a Vedic sacrifice,
what harem will there be if a Vaama Margi and his family members be slaughtered
and then offered in a sacrifice? It
is childish to say that there is no sin in eating meat, drinking wine and committing
adultery, for meat cannot be had without killing animals, and it can never be
right to hurt or kill animals without an offence. With regard to drinking wine,
it is interdicted everywhere, and nowhere except in the books of Vaama Margis
has it been allowed, on the other hand its use has been forbidden in all (sacred)
books. Sexual
intercourse with a woman excepting one's wedded wife is undoubtedly sinful. He
who declares it permissible is indeed himself a great sinner. They
interpolated these and similar other verses into the works of the seers, and also
wrote books in the name of many great sages and savants, and thus introduced such
sacrifices as Gomedha - a sacrifice in which horses were killed. They declared
that by slaughtering these animals and offering them as a sacrifice both - the
animals sacrificed and the Yajamaana - went to Heaven. This evil practice
seems to have originated on account of their ignorance of the true meanings of
such wods as Ashwamedha, Gomedha, and Naramedha that occur in the
Braahmans, for had they understood them, they would not have committed
such blunders. What
are then the true meanings of such words as Ashwamedha, Gomedha, and Naramedha?
Back to contents
A. ~ Their meanings are not what the Vaama Margis think. Nowhere in the
scriptures and other authentic books it is written that horses, cows and human
beings should be killed and offered as a sacrifice in the sacred fire, called
Homa. It is only in the books of the Vaama Margis that such absurd
things are written. PAGE
343 Wherever
in the authentic books of the sages the sanctions of such a sacrifice is found,
it should be understood that the verse or the passage has been interpolated by
the Vaama Margis. Now mark! What the Shathapatha Braahmana says
on the subject:- "A king governs his people justly and righteously. This called
Ashwamedha." "A learned man gives a free gift of knowledge to the people.
This also called Ashwamedha. Again , "the burning of clarified butter and
odoriferous and nutritious substances in the fire in order to purify the are is
also called Ashwamedha. SHATHAPATHA BRAHMANA 13: 1, 6;3. "To
keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control. Or to make a good use
of the rays of the sun or keep the earth free from impurities (clean) is called
Gomedha." "The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with
the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha." *
Q. - The sacrificers
assert that the Yajmaanaa and the animals burnt in a sacrifice both go to heaven,
and also that they bring the animals (burnt in the sacrifice) to life again. Do
you think it to be true or not? A.
~ No, if it be true that they go to Heaven, why should not he (as well as his
dear relations), who asserts it, be killed and burnt as a sacrifice and thereby
sent to Heaven, or why could they (i.e., the sacrificer and his relations) not
be brought back to life after they have been killed and burnt in the sacrifice.
Q. -
It the Vedas do not sanction this kind of sacrifice, why should the Vedic hymns
be chanted at the time? A.
~ The hymns cannot prevent anyone from chanting them, for they are only a collection
of words, but they do not mean that the animals should be slaughtered and burnt
in sacrifices. The Vedic hymns Agnaye Swaha, etc., mean that the clarified
butter and other nutritious and odoriferous substances, when burnt in the fire,
purify the air, rain, and water, and thereby promote happiness on this earth.
How could those idiots understand the true meaning of the Vedic hymns,
because the selfish minds know and believe in nothing else but serving their selfish
ends. Seeing
these evil, popish practices as well as others, such as feeding the priest in
order to satisfy the spirits of the dead, a most dreadful religion, called Jainism
or Buddhism, that reviled the
* The Yajamaana is a person who institutes or performs a sacrifice
and pay the expenses of it. This is the orthodox meaning of the word. - Tr.
PAGE 344
Vedas
and the Shaastras, sprang up into existence. It is related that in this
very country there was a certain king of Gorakhpur who performed a sacrifice in
which these popes officiated. His beloved queen died during an act of sexual intercourse
with a horse as required in such a sacrifice. This
disgusted the king who renounced the world, handed over the government of his
kingdom to his son, became a mendicant and began to expose the trickery of these
popes. A
brief statement on Charavaka, Abhanaka and Jainism
Back to contents
There are two sects of the Jain or Buddha religion called Charvaka and
Abhanaka. Its followers wrote such verses as the following:- "If
an animal when slaughtered and burnt in a sacrifice go to Heaven, why should the
Yajamaana (the master of ceremonies) not slay his own father another dear
relations and burn them in a sacrifice and thereby help them go to Heaven?"
"If oblations offered
to the priests in the name of a deceased ancestor satisfy the latter, it is useless
for people going abroad to take any cash with them for maintaining themselves
during the journey; because of eatables offered to the priests in the name of
a departed ancestor can reach him, why cannot the food and drink prepared at home
and offered on plates and in cups in the name of the person gone abroad by his
relations reach him in foreign lands? When a person living in a distant country
or in a place, say only 10 cubits away from where the food and drink are offered
in his name, cannot obtain them, it is impossible then for a departed ancestor
to receive things offered in his name." The
people began to believe in these teachings of the Charavakas, etc., that
stood the test of reason. Thus their religion (Jainism and Buddhism) began to
spread. When many good kings and landlords became its followers, the popes too
inclined towards it, for they would go whenever they got plenty of cash. They
soon embrace Jainism. There are many popish practices, but of a different kind,
even among the Jainis. These will be described in Chapter 12 The majority of the
people embrace their religion, but others who lived in the hills in Benares or
at PAGE
345 Canouj,
and in the West and in the South (of India) did not accept it. The Jainis being
ignorant of the knowledge of the Veda attributed the popish practices (then current
among the followers of the Veda) to the Veda and began even to run down these
scriptures. They prohibited the study and teaching of the Veda, suppressed the
custom of wearing Yajnopavita (the sacred thread), which is a symbol of
culture and of belonging to one of the three upper Classes, abolished the system
of Brahamacharya, etc., destroyed as many books of the Vedic literature
as the could get hold of, and even persecuted and oppressed the Aryas a great
deal. When
they gained in power and had ceased to be afraid of any body, they began to favor
and honor their followers - both the householders and the mendicants - and to
dishonor and punish the followers of the Veda unjustly. They began to live in
ease and luxury, and being puffed up with pride became over-bearing in their manners.
They also made huge images of their religious teachers, calle Tirthankaras
- from Rishabhdeva toMahaavria - and began to worship them. Thus
the practice of worshipping idols originated with the Jains (in this country).
The belief in God decline and the people took to idolatry instead. Thus, Jainism
reigned supreme for about 300 years in India. The people during that time had
become quite destitute of the knowledge of the Veda. This must have happened nearly
2,500 years ago. Shankaracharya
Back to contents
About 2,200 years ago Shankaracharya, a Braahmana of Dravid (Southern India),
studied Grammar and all other Shaastras - books on Logic, Philosophy, Metaphysics,
Theology, etc. - during student life, and seeing the religious degradation of
his country began to soliloquies thus:- "What a pity! The true theistic Vedic
religion has disappeared, whilst the atheistic Jain religion has prevailed to
the great detriment of the people. This (i.e., the Jain religion) must be put
down somehow." Shankarcharya had not only read the Shaastras but also the
Jain scriptures. He was also a powerful debater. He
began to think as to what was the best method of overthrowing Jainism. At last
he came to the conclusion that preaching and holding discussions with the Jainis
were the best methods to put down Jainism. With this object in view he went to
Ujjain (in Central India). King Sudhanwa then ruled there. He had read
the Jain books as well as a little Sanskrit. Shankaracharya began to preach
the Vedic religion there. He went to the king and said "You have read the Jain
books as well as Sanskrit, and also believe in the Jain Religion. I, therefore
ask you to arrange a discussion between the exponents of the Jain PAGE
346 religion
and myself on the condition that the vanquished party should embrace the religion
of the victor and that you should also accept his faith. Although king Sudhanwa
was a follower of the Jain religion, yet as he had read Sanskrit he had some light
of knowledge in his heart, and his intellect had not been obscured by extreme
animalism, because a learned man can distinguish between right and wrong, and
then embrace the truth and reject falsehood. As
long as King Sudhanwa had not come across a very learned teacher, he was in doubt
as to which of the two - Vedic and Jain - religions was right, and which false.
When he heard Shankaracharya, he was very much pleased with what he said, and
replied that he would certainly arrange the desired discussion and find out which
religion was true and which false. He invited many exponents of the Jain religion
from very distant places and convened a meeting for a discussion between them
and Shankar. In
this Shankar was to prove the truth of the Vedic religion and to refute Jainism,
whilst the Jain teachers were to prove their own religion to be true and refute
the Vedic religion. The Jainis held that there was not Eternal Maker of this universe,
and the soul and the world were beginningless, they were never created, nor will
they ever be reduced to their component elements. On
the other hand, Shankaracharya maintained that the Beginningless, Omnipotent Supreme
Spirit alone was the Maker of the Universe, the world and the soul were unreal,
and as the Great God had created the universe by virtue of His Maya, he alone
sustains it and causes its dissolution. The soul and the world are like things
seen in a dream. God Himself became metamorphosed into this world and sports about
in it. The
discussion lasted for many days; in the end the religion of the Jainis were refuted
both by reason and cogent proofs, while the that of Shankar remained unrefuted.
Thereupon those Jain teachers and King Sudhanwa renounced Jainism and embraced
the Vedic religion i.e., the religion advocated by Shankaracharya. Then there
was a great stir and noise about it in the country. King Sudhanwa wrote letters
to his friends and relations and among others to rulers of the country, by whose
help discussions between Shankar and other Jainis teachers were arranged in different
places, but the Jainis having been defeated in the first discussion lost everywhere.
Thereafter
Sudhanwa and other kings arranged for Shankar's tour throughout the whole of India
and furnished him with an escort of armed men to protect him and with servants
to attend upon him. Form that time onward the people (of India) began to wear
the sacred thread and PAGE
347 study
and teach the Vedas. For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism
and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug
out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found
whole here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of
their being broken (by those who had renounced Jainism). Shankar also refuted
Shivism that ahd come into vogue a little before his time, and also Vaama Margism.
At that
time this country was very rich, and its people were also patriotic. Shankar,
King Sudhanwa and other kings had not had the Jain temples pulled down as they
intended to establish schools therein to teach the Vedas and other Shaastras.
When the Vedic religion had been established in the country and they were about
to adopt measures for the diffusion of knowledge, two men, outwardly followers
of the Vedic religion but bigoted Jainis at heart, in other words, perfect hypocrites
whom Shankar had befriended on finding a suitable occasion poisoned him with such
a poisonous substance that his appetite failed and an eruption broke out on his
body, and he died within six months. Then
all lost heart so much so that even the dissemination of knowledge that was about
to take place did not do so. Shankar's disciples began to teach his commentary
on the Vedaant Shaastra, called Shankar Bhaashya, and other books that had been
written by him. In other words, they began to preach what had been professed by
Shanker with a view to refute the Jainis more successful, viz., hat Brahmaa (God)
was the true reality, the Universe was an illusions and that the human soul and
God were one. They
started monasteries, Shringeri in the south, Bhugovarahan iin the East and Josi
in the North and Sarda at Dwarka iin he West (of India), became their abbots,
gained wealth and power , and began to live in ease and luxury, as after the death
of Shankar his disciples were highly honored. Now
it must be understood that if it was the belief of Shankar that God and the human
soul were identical and that the world was an illusion, it was not good; but if
he had avowed this doctrine simply in order to refute Jainism more successfully,
it was a little good. Beliefs
of the Neo-Vedantists.
Back to contents
The beliefs of the Neo-Vedantists are discussed below in the form of questions
and answers:- Q.
- The world is unreal like things seen in a dream, or like a piece of rope mistaken
for a snake, or like a sea-shell seen glittering in the sunshine for a piece of
silver or like a mirage for PAGE
348 water,
or like a town of angels or like a juggler's trick. (Brahmaa) God alone is real.
A. ~ What
do you call real? Q.
- What does not exist and yet appears to do so. A.
~ How can a thing appear to exist when it does not exist at all? Q.
- By adhyaropa. A.
~ What do you mean by adhyaropa? Q.
-Adhyaropa or adhyasa consists in believing a thing to be different from what
i really is; the refutation of a wrong belief is called apavaada; by the help
of these two this phenomenal world can be taken to exist in Brahmaa Who is Himself
Unchangeable. A.
~ You have fallen into this mistake by believing a piece of rope to be real while
a snake to be unreal. Is not a snake also real? If
you say that it does not exist in a piece of rope we ask, "Does it not exist in
some other place or does its idea not exist in our consciousness?" If it does,
a snake then is not unreal. In the same way, other illustrations, such as that
of a mollusk-shell mistaken for a piece of silver, can be shown to be wrong. Similarly,
things seen in dreams also exist somewhere in the world. Their ideas exist in
our consciousness, hence it cannot be said of them that they exist by adhayaropa
(i.e., by erroneously attributing the properties of one thing to another.
Q. - If this
be true, how can one see a thing in a dream that was never seen or heard to exist
in the wakeful state, such as a man' s head is cut off and he himself weeps, or
a stream of water flows uphill? A.
~ Even this argument does not support your contention, because impression of a
thing cannot exist in one's mind unless h has seen or heard of it, and there can
be no remembrance without mental impressions, and without remembrance there can
be no direct consciousness of a thing. When a person hears from another that such
and a such person's head was cut off on a field of battle and his father or brother
or some other relation was seen to weep, or when a person sees water from a fountain
jetting up, all these things make impressions on his mind. When he is no longer
in his wakeful state and dreams in his sleep of what he had seen or heard, since
he sees all these things in himself, it can be understood how he comes to imagine
that his own head is cut off and he himself weeps or that a stream of water flows
upwards. This is PAGE
349 again
not like imagining a thing to exist which does not exist at all, it is more like
sketching in which a sketcher embodies his idea of what he had seen or heard on
paper, or like painting in which a painter by forming a metal picture of his subject
paints it on canvas. It
is true though that sometimes such things are seen in dreams as are still remembered,
for instance, one sees one's teacher (in a dream), while on other occasions one
recalls things in a dream that had been seen or heard long time ago and had therefore
completely passed out of one's memory; in such cases one forgets whether one sees,
or hears the same as one ha seen or heard before in the wakeful state. But things
cannot be remembered so methodically in dreams as in a wakeful state.
Again a person
born blind can never dream of colors, hence you definition of the words Adhyaropa
or Adhyasaa is wrong. And what the Neo-Vedaantists called Vivartavada
is also untrue. The term Vivartavada means that a person erroneously
considers the universe to be real, while it is only illusory (Brahma alone being
a real entity), just as one mistakes a piece of rope for a snake. Q.
- There can be no knowledge of an Adhyasa - a thing that is supported - without
the knowledge of its Adhishthan - that which supports it, - for in the above instance
had there been no rope, the idea of a snake being there would never have entered
one's mind. As there is no snake in a piece of rope, nor there ever was, not shall
it ever be, in dim light a man may mistake a piece of rope for a snake and tremble
with fear, but when he sees it with the light of a good lamp, his mistake is at
once corrected and he ceases to fear, in like manner a man erroneously conceives
that this world exist in Brahma this illusion of the existence of the world comes
to an end, and he finds that it is all Brahma. A.
~ Who erroneously experiences this illusion of the world in Brahma?Q. - The
human soul. A.
~ Whence did the human soul originate? Q.
- Out of ignorance? A.
~ What is the origin of ignorance and where does it reside? Q.
- Ignorance is without a beginning and resides in Brahma A.
~ Was there ignorance of self or of something else in Brahma and who was it that
became ignorant? PAGE
350 Q.
- Chidabhasa A.
~ What is the nature of this Chidabhasa? Q.
- It is Brahmaa. Brahmaa become ignorant of Brahmaa, in other words, He forgets
His own nature. A.~
What is the cause of this forgetfulness? Q.
- Nescience. A.
~ Is nescience an attribute of an Omnipresent, Omniscient Being or of one who
possesses finite knowledge. Q.
- Of the latter. A.
~ Do you then believe in the existence of a second conscious entity besides the
Infinite, Omniscient, Conscious Being? And where did the being possessed of finite
knowledge, you just spoke of, come from? Of course it would be alright if you
were to believe in the existence of another beginningless, finite, conscious entity
besides Brahma, but you do not, hence the objection. Again
were Brahma to become ignorant of Self, this ignorance would spread throughout
the whole Braham just a pain in one part of a man's body makes all other
parts (of his body) helpless, so would Brahma, if afflicted with ignorance
or pain in one part, feel Himself ignorant or afflicted with pain throughout His
whole self. Q.
- It is all an attribute of Upadhi. A.
~ Is Upadhi possessed of consciousness or not? Is it real or otherwise?
Q. -
It is indescribable, in other words, it cannot be said of it that it possesses
consciousness or is without it, is real or apparent. A.
~ This is quite absurd for on the one hand you say that it is nescience, and on
the other you hold that it can neither be said to be possessed of consciousness,
nor devoid of it, neither real nor unreal. It can be compared to a piece of gold
adulterated with copper which can neither be said to be gold nor copper, but a
mixture of both. Q.
- Just as the ether of the pot, the ether of a house, and the ether of a cloud
appear to be distinct from the universal ether by virtue of being enclosed by
the pot, the house and the cloud, while in reality they are all identical with
the universal ether, in like manner Brahma appears PAGE
351 to
the ignorant different in different persons and things by virtue of the intervention
of maya, nescience, and antahkaran (the internal organ of thought) and also by
being spoken of collectively and individually, while in reality He is one and
the same in all. It is said in the Katha Upanishad, "Just as hear pervades objects
of the various sizes and shapes, such as big and small, long, broad and round,
and assumes the different forms of those objects, so does God pervades different
antahkarans an assumes their forms, but as a matter of fact He is distinct from
them." A.
~ "Even this assertion of yours is wrong. Just as you believe the pot, the house
and the cloud, in the examples cited by you, to be distinct from ether, inn like
manner why do you not believe the material world - both in its casual and present
visible forms - and the soul to be distinct from the Supreme Spirit, and the latter
distinct from the former (i.e., the matter and the soul)? Q.
- "Just as heat pervades all objects and thereby appears to assume various forms,
so does the Supreme Spirit by pervading the soul and matter appear to the ignorant
as one possessed of form, but in reality He is neither matter nor the soul." Again,
when a thousand trays full of water are placed in the sun, a thousand different
reflections of the sun are seen, but in reality the sun is one, and does not perish,
move or spread when the trays get broken or their water moves or spreads, in the
same manner Brahma is reflected in the antahkaran - this reflection is is called
chidabhasa or the image of God. The
soul exists as a distinct entity only so long as the antahkaran lasts, but the
moment the antahkaran, having attained perfect knowledge ceases to exist, the
soul attains the nature of Brahma, i.e. becomes God. But as long as the soul is
ignorant of its true nature which is Divine, and thinks that it is the Chidabhasa
that enjoys, feels pleasure or pain, commits sinful or virtuous deeds or is subject
to birth and death, it cannot get freedom from the bondage of this world.
A. ~ This
illustration of yours is of no good. The sun has a form so do the trays and the
water therein, possessed forms. Again, the sun is separate from the trays and
the water therein and vice versa. These two facts alone make it possible for the
sun to be PAGE
352 reflected.
Has all these been formless or had they not been separate from each other, there
would have been no reflection of the sun. God is Formless and being Omnipresent
like ether noting van be separate from Him., nor van the (i.e., God and the Universe)
be one and the same, as the relation of one that pervades and one that is pervaded
by exists between God and the world, in other words, when the pervader and the
pervaded seen from the anwaya and Vyatirekabhava* point of view,
they are united together and yet are always distinct from each other.
For, if they be
one, the relation of the pervader and the pervaded cannot exist but it is clearly
said in the Brihdarayaka Upanishad that this relation does exist between
God and the world. Again there can be no reflection of God because it is impossible
for a formless object to be reflected (in a transparent medium). As to your belief
regarding Brahmaa that He becomes the soul through the intervention of
Antahkaran , it is like a child's prattle, for the Antahkaran is
mutable, movable and separate, whilst Brahma is immutable and entire. Should
you not believe Brahmaa and the soul to be different form each other, how
would you answer the following objection. The
Antahkaran being movable, the part of Brahmaa which it would occupy would
become devoid of consciousness, whilst the part where it shifts from would become
possessed of knowledge, just as an umbrella cuts off the sunshine wherever it
is carried, ceases to intercept it where it has been shifted from, in like manner
will the Antahkaran by acting as an intercepting medium make Brahmaa
at one moment ignorant and bound, and at the next wise and free. From the effect
of the presence of an intervening medium like the Antahkaran, and Brahmaa
being indivisible the whole of Brahmaa will become ignorant, which can
never be true as He is ex-hypothesis, All-knowledge. Again, whatever Brahmaa,
through the medium of a certain Antahkaran, has been,
* Anwaya
in Logic means a "statement of the constant and invariable concomitance of the
Hetu (middle term) and the Sadhya (major term) of an Indian syllogism�..Anwaya,
in fact, corresponds to the universal A proposition of European logic 'All A is
B'. Vyatirekabhava means an assertion of the concomitance of the absence of Sadhya
and the absence of Hetu, and corresponds to the converted A proposition 'All not
-B is not -a'�..A cause or Hetu is said to be connected with its effect by Anwaya
Vyatirekaryapati when both the affirmative an negative relations between the thing
to be proved and the cause that proves can be equally asserted; such a Hetu alone
makes the argument perfectly sound and incapable of refutation. This process of
arriving at the Vyapati or universal proposition corresponds to the methods of
Agreement and Difference in Mills' Logic." - Tr. PAGE
353 say,
at Mathura, the same cannot be re-called in Kashi (Benares) by Brahmaa,
since He does not possess the same Antahkaran, as what has been seen by
one cannot be remembered by another. The chidabhas that sees a thing a
Mathura is not the same that lives a Benares, and the Brahmaa that illuminates
the chidabhas of Mathura isnot the same that lives at Benares. If the very
Brahmaa be the soul and not distinct from it, the soul ought to be Omniscient.
If the
reflection of Brahmaa be distinct, none should be able to recall what he
ahs seen or hear in thepast. If you say that one can remember because Brahmaa
is one and the same. We answer that pain or ignorance in one part (of Brahmaa)
should affect the whole of Brahmaa. Thus by such illustration you have
represented the Eternal, Holy, All-wise, Ever-free, Indivisible Brahmaa
as non-eternal, unholy, ignorant, and subject to bondage, and division.
Q. - Even a
formless object can be reflected, just as ether (sky) is reflected in a mirror
or a in water and looks blue or dull gray, in like manner Brahmaa casts His reflection
in all Antahkaran. A.
~ No one can see ether with his eyes as it is altogether formless, how can a thing
be reflected in a looking-glass or in water when it cannot even be seen. Only
a thing that possesses some form can look blue or deep gray, but never a formless
one. Q.
- What is then that looks bluish on high and is reflected in a mirror?
A. ~ It is the
particles of dust and water (that have gone up from the earth) and of Agni*.
If there were not aqueous vapor above, where could the rain come from? Hence what
looks like a tent (and over-spreads us) in reality a spherically-shaped mass of
aqueous vapor. Just as fog, when looked at form a distance, appears thick and
tent-like but gets thinner on approaching nearer, so does the watery vapor go
up in the sky. Q.
- Are the then the illustrations elating to a coil of rope and a snake and to
things seen in dreams and the like, which have been adduced above by us, beside
the point?
* That state of matter whose properties are light and heat, etc.
See Chapter 3 for further information on this subject.- Tr. PAGE
354 A.
~ No, it is your understanding that is to blame, and this has already been pointed
out. Pray tell us who it is that first falls a prey to ignorance? Q.
- Brahma. A.
~ Is Brahma Omniscient or possessed of finite knowledge? Q.
- He is neither Omniscient nor is He possessed of finite knowledge, because Omniscience
and its reverse can be predicated of him alone whose (psychic vision) is barred
by a limiting medium (Upaadhi). A.
~ Who is it that becomes subject to the influence of Upaadhi? Q.
- Brahmaa A.
~ Then it is proved that Brahmaa can be both Omniscient and its reverse.
Why did you then take exception to this statement? If you contend that upaadhi
is something that has not reality in existence, with whom then did this false
conception originate? Q.
- Is the soul identical with Brahmaa or not? A.
~ It is different from Brahmaa, for if it were the same as Brahmaa,
no false conceptions could originate. He, whose conception can be wrong, can never
be All-truth. Q.
- We recognize nod distinction between right and wrong, and all human utterance
is devoid of actuality. A.
~ If all that you believe and say is false, hoe can you afford safe guidance?
Q. -We
don't care whether we afford safe guidance or not. Conceptions of right and wrong
originate entirely with us (and have o objective reality). It is the soul that
is the witness and seat thereof. A.
~ If conceptions of right and wrong are purely subjective phenomena, you would
be a thief and an honest man at one and the same time and, therefore, a very unsafe
guide. For he alone is a trustworthy guide whose conceptions are correct, who
speaks what is right and acts up to his convictions in accordance with what is
right, and not one who is otherwise. Your statement being self-contradictory you
cannot be right. Q.
- Do you believe in the existence of the beginningless Maya that resides in the
and envelopes Brahmaa? A.
~ No, we do not, because you interpret Maya as something which is not and yet
appears to be. Only he whose mental vision is blurred will subscribe to this belief.
It is impossible that a thing, which does not exist at all, should appear to exist,
even as PAGE
355 it
is impossible to photograph the son of a barren woman. Besides your view is opposed
to the teachings of the Upanishads as is proved by the following passage
of the Chhandogya Upanishad, "(Do thou,) O dear son, (bear in mind) that
the world had verily a material cause." Q.
- Would you refute the teachings of even scholars like Vasishtha, Shankar and
Nischaldas who were possesses of greater learning than you are? To me it appears
that Vasishtha, Shankar, and Nischaldas could speak with greater authority.
A. ~ Are
you yourself a well-read ma or not? Q.
- Yes, I have read a little. A.
~ Alright then, try if you can establish the truth of the doctrine promulgated
by Vasishtha, Shakara and Nischaldas, we will refute your arguments. He whose
position is proved to be right, will be regarded the greater authority. If the
position held by you in common with those teachers had been impregnable, you would
have succeeded in confuting us in debate by producing the arguments advanced by
them, and in that case your position would have been accepted as right.
It is very likely
that Shankaracharya had taken up this position with the view to refute
more successfully the beliefs of the Jainis, for many a selfish scholar in response
to the requirements of expediency preaches doctrines opposed to the dictates of
this conscience. But if he really held beliefs like the identity of God with the
soul, and the unreality of the external universe, his position was altogether
wrong. Let
us now examine the claims of Nischaldas to scholarship. He say s in his
book, called Vrittiprabhakar, that the oneness of God and the soul can
be inferred from the fact of both of them being possessed of consciousness. An
argument like this can be adduced only by men possessed of a poor intellect, because
things possessing similar attributes are not necessarily identical, as points
of dissimilarity may differentiate them just as the statement that Prithivi
(solids) and Jala (liquids) being dead and inert, are identical, cannot
be valid, in the same manner the contention of Nischaldas state above is
illogical because finitude and fallibility differentiate the soul from God and
omniscience and infallibility differentiate God from the soul; it is, therefore,
clear that God and the soul are two distinct entities. Now
solidity and gankha (the property of exciting olfactory impulses) are attributes
of Prithivi (solids) which distinguish if from Jala (liquids) which
possesses rasa (the property of exciting gustatory impulses) and fluidity,
therefore solids and PAGE
356 liquids
are not identical. In like manner, God and the soul on account of possessing dissimilar
attributes, never were, nor are, nor shall ever be one. This will suffice to show
the extent of Nischaldas's learning. As regards Yoga vashishtha,
its author was a Neo-Vedaantis. It could not have been written by Balmika,
Vashishtha or Ram Chandra, for all of them were followers of the Vedic
religion and could not therefore have written a book opposed to its teachings,
nor could they have preached anti-Vedic doctrines. Q.
- Vyasa is the author of Shariraka Sutraas which also inculcate the identity of
God with the soul. For example he says, - "The
soul manifests itself after attaining its true nature which is Divine, because
the word (Swa) self stands for it its Divine Nature." VEDAANT SHASTRA 4:4,1.
- "Jaimini holds
that the soul is one with God, because there are passages in the Upanishads which
declare that the soul can attain to a state of sinlessness." VEDAANT 4:4, 7.
- "The great teacher
Audulomi believes that the soul retains the attribute of consciousness a lone
in the state of salvation (hence is identical with Brahmaa) as there are passages
in the Brihidaranyaka which declare that the soul is of the same nature as God."
VEDANT 4:4, 6.
- "Vyasa
holds that God and the soul are not different, because the passages like the above
occur in the Upanishads." VEDANT 4: 5.
- "When
a seer (yogi) attains superhuman powers and regains his Divinity, he is not longer
subject to the authority of a higher power, i.e., by virtue of his Divinity he
attains final beatitude and remains in the state of emancipation as his own master
as well as the supreme Governor of the universe." VEDANT 4: 4, 9.
Now
how would you explain these passages?) A.
~ You have wrongly translated these aphorisms. The following is their correct
translation:- PAGE
357 - "So
long as the soul is not cleansed of all its impurities, and does not regain its
pristine purity, it cannot acquire superhuman* powers and attain eternal bliss
through communication with the Divine Spirit that pervades the soul."
- "In like manner
the great sage Jaimini holds that so long as the soul does not attain superhuman
psychic powers and free itself from the bondage of sin, it cannot attain and enjoy
eternal bliss."
- "The
great Teacher Audulomi believes that when the soul is freed from all faults and
imperfections, such as ignorance, attains purity and retains the attribute of
consciousness alone, it establishes direct relationship with the All-pervading
Deity."
- "The
great sage Vyasa holds that when a man attains a beatified state in this life
by virtue of direct communion with God and acquisition of superhuman psychic powers
and absolute knowledge, he recovers his original pure self and enjoys extreme
bliss."
- "When
a yogi has reached a stage at which al his volitional activity is directed towards
righteousness alone., he attains to a state of constant communion with God and
obtains the bliss of salvation. Then he is free and is his own master quite unlike
what we see in this world of ours, wherein one man is placed above another."
Had
the interpolation of the above aphorisms been different from what is given here,
the following aphorisms would not be found in the same book. (i)
The soul which is distinct from God could not be the author of the universe, for
being possessed of finite energy and knowledge it has not the power to build up
the Cosmos. Hence the soul is distinct from God. VEDANT SHAASTRA 1:1, 16.
(ii)"The soul and
God are distinct from each other, as it has been declared by the Upanishads that
they are different. Had it not been so, it would not be true that the soul attains
bliss through communion with God Who is All-bliss and that God is the object of
realization, whilst the
* I have to use this word for want of a better word. Here the
term superhuman is used to express those powers that are not attainable by man
except through the practice of the highest form of Yoga. - Tr.
PAGE 358
soul seeks
realization." The soul and God are, therefore, not identical. VEDANT 1:1, 17
(iii)"It having
been declared by the Upanishads that God is distinguished from the soul and the
primordial matter on account of His possessing the attributes of Resplendence,
Holiness, All-glory, absence of incarnate existence, Omnipresence, and of His
being Unborn and Deathless, without the necessity of respiration, bodily existence
and mind, the subtler than the soul which again is subtler than primordial matter.
On account of the Character and attributes stated above, God is distinct from
both the soul and the matter." VEDANT 1,2, 22. (iv)"The
Upanishads inculcate the union of the Omnipresent God with the soul, and of the
soul with the Divine spirit. God and the soul are therefore distinct from each
other as union can be predicted only of two distinct entities." VEDANT 1:1,19.
"God
has been declared Omnipresent in the Upanishad and because He pervades the soul,
the soul which is pervaded is distinct from God that pervades it. This relation
can be true only of two distinct entities. Just as God is distinct from the soul,
in like manner is He different from learned men, otherwise called Devas, because
the latter enjoy the use of the senses, and manas, the earth and other material
objects, space, the atmosphere and luminaries like the sun." VEDANT 1:1,20.
(vii)"As God and
the soul are two distinct entities, the Upanishads declare that in the recesses
of the human heart there lie hidden tow spirits - divine and the human." VEDANT
1:1, 11 (vii)"The
soul circumscribed by a material body cannot be identical with God as the nature,
attributes and characteristics of God cannot be predicated of it." VEDANT 1:1,3.
PAGE
359 (ix)
"God is distinct from the soul as He pervades the senses, the manas, the earth
and other material objects, and the soul. This fact of God being Omnipresent is
clearly stated in all the Upanishads." VEDANT 1:2, 18. (x)
"The soul encased in a bodily tenement is not God, for they essentially different
from each other in nature." VEDANT 1:2, 20. Thus
even the Shariraka Sutras* teach that God and the soul are distinct from each
other in their very nature. In the same manner, it can be proved that there can
be no Upakram (i.e., the issuing of the Universe from Brahmaa) and Upsanhara (i.e.,
the merging of the Universe into God at the time of Dissolution) as held by the
Neo-Vedantis. When
they recognize not other entity excepting God, it must be He alone then that is
subject to creation and dissolution, but the Vedas and other authoritative scriptures
declare him otherwise. This belief of theirs is, therefore sacrilegious, for it
is impossible that God Who is Unchangeable, Infinite, Holy, Eternal, Infallible,
should become subject to change, creation and ignorance. Even
at the time of dissolution God (prakriti) (primordial matter), and the soul continue
to exist separately. Therefore the Neo-Vedantic theories of Creation and Dissolution
are also false. There are good many other beliefs of theirs that are opposed to
the teachings of the Shaastraas and do not stand the test of reason and experience.
After the
both the Jainis and the followers of the Shankar exercised some influence on the
religious thought of the country and there were discussions and debates between
them. Vikramaditya,
Bhartri Hari and King Bhoja and the Shivites.
Back to contents
Three hundred years after Shankara there flourished in Ujjain a glorious potentate
named Vikramaditya. He put sown internecine warfare among the ruling Princes of
India and established peace. Later on Raja Bhartri Hari acquired some proficiency
in poetry and allied branches of literature, and in other departments of learning.
He renounced the world, and abdicated the throne.
* Another name for the Vedant Shastra. 360
Five hundred
years after Vikrama there flourished another king called Bhoja. He encouraged
the study of Sanskrit Grammar to some extent, and patronized artistic poetry so
much so that even a shepherd, named Kalidas, became the author of 'Raghuvansha'.
Whoever composd a fine verse and presented himself at his court was richly rewarded
and honored. after
this the kings and aristocracy gave up the pursuit of knowledge altogether. Though
the Shivites existed before Shankar's time and after the Vaama Maarga had had
it sway, they had not, then, acquired much influence. From Vikram's time onwards
this sect began to gain in influence and power. The Shivites were split up into
many sections, such as Pashupata, even as the Vaama Maargis were divided into
ten sections such as Maha Vidya. These people raised Shankara to the position
of an incarnation of Shiva. Sanyasis also embraced the Shiva faith. They also
kept on good relations with the Vaama Margis who took to the worship of Devi,
the consort of Shiva, whilst the Shivites started the worship of Mahadeva.
Both the Vaama
Maargis and Shivites besmear their bodies with ashes and wear rosaries, the beads
of which are made of the Rudraksha tree, but the latter are not so much opposed
to the Vedic teachings as are the former. The Shivites composed many verses like
the following, "Fie on him whose forehead is not besmeared with ashes, and who
had not got a Rudraksh rosary round his neck. He should be boycotted like an outcast.
He who wears 32 beads on the neck, 40 on the head, 6 in each ear, 12 round each
wrist, 16 round each arm, one on the top of the head, and 108 next to the heart
is verily like unto Lord Mahadeva Himself." The
Shaktas share this belief. Later on the Vaama Maargis and the Shivites combined
together and introduced the worship of the male and female reproductive organs
which are termed Jaladhari and Linga. These unblushing wretches did not feel the
slightest shame in PAGE
361 following
these idiotic practices. It as been well said by a poet, "The selfish when blinded
by self-interest mistakes diabolical deeds for good actions, and are not alive
to their sinful character."
They began to look upon the worship of stalks
and stones and of the reproductive organs, as the sole means of attaining righteous
ends, wealth, the fulfillment of legitimate desires and even salvation.
When after Raja
Bhoja, the Jainis installed idols in their temples and began to frequent them
for paying homage and adoration to the images, the disciples of these popes (Vaama
Maargis and Shivites) began to follow their example. At about the same time in
Western India Mohammedans and followers off other alien religions poured into
India, the popes composed verses like the following:- "What ever may be the amount
of pain inflicted, and even though the life be in jeopardy, let not the language
of the Yavanas* be employed in speech. Let no one save his life by seeking refuge
in a Jain temple, even though he be pursued by a mad elephant, for it is better
to be killed by him than to set foot in a Jain temple. They
began to preach such pernicious doctrines to their followers. When asked to quote
chapter and verse from some authoritative scriptures they expressed themselves
(willing and ready to do so). On being pressed they quoted passages from the Markandeya
Purana and recited pieces from the Durgapath purporting to sing the glories of
Devi (goddess). In
the reigh of Raja Bhoja some Pundits wrote the Markandeya and the Shiva Puranas
and gave out that Vyasa was the author thereof. When this was brought to the notice
of the king, these Pundits had their hands chopped off by way of punishment. Further
he issued an order that all works on poetry and other subjects should bear on
their title pages the names of the authors and not of sages and seers (of yore).
This is written in the historical work Sanjivani by Raja Bhoja. This book is to
be found with the Tivari Braahmans of Bhind, a village in the Gwalior State. The
Rao Saahib of Lakhuna and his minister Ram Dyal Chaubey have seen it with their
own eyes.
* The term Yavanas is equally applied to the Greeks and the Mohammedans,
etc.-Tr. PAGE
362 It
is clearly written therein that Vyasa composed 4,400 verses of the Mahabharat,
and his pupils added another 5, 600. thus there were in all 10,000 verses in the
original Mahabharat. In the time of Raja Vikramaditya the number of verses rose
to 20,000. Raja Bhoja says that in his father's time the number came up to 25,000
and at the time of writing the books under notice, when he was a middle aged man,
it had risen to 30,000; if it went on increasing at the rate the Mahabharat will
in no time become a camel's load. He
further says that if books like the Puranas were made in the name of the ancient
sages and seers, the people of Aryavarta (India) would be steeped in superstition
and thus being deprived of the benefits of the Vedic Religion would sink deep
in degradation. This shows that king Bhoja has some idea of the Vedic teachings.
In the
country ruled over by Raja Bhoja and in the neighbourhood ther live some very
clever mechanicians who, as the Bhoja Prabandha says, "has constructed a machine
resembling a horse in shape that could traverse 27 and half Kosas or about 55
miles an hour on land as well as in air. Another mechanician had invented a fan
that gave plenty of air and worked automatically." If
these two machines had been still existent, the Europeans would not have inflated
with so much pride. The
Puranics or Vaishnavites
Back to contents
In spite of the effort of the popes. Their disciples continued their visits to
the temples of the Jainis, they even began to attend Jain meetings wherein passages
from the Jain scriptures were recited. The Jain popes began to inveigh the followers
of the Puranic popes into their nets. The Puranic popes then bethought of themselves
that unless they devised some means ot stem the tide of conversion, their disciples
would become Jainis. Upon
this the Puranic popes by mutual consultations came to the conclusion that like
the Jainis, they should also have their incarnations, temples, images and mythological
books. For instance they devised 24 incarnations in place of Jain Tirthankars
which likewise are 24 in number. The Jainis have Tantras and sub-tantras. The
Puranic popes wrote out 18 Puranas (sub-puranas). PAGE
363 The
Vaishnava sect took its birth 150 years after Raja Bhoja. The founder Shathakopa
was the son of a professional prostitute. In his time the movement achieved some
successl his successor was Munivahana the son of a scavenger. He was succeeded
by Yavanacharya who was born in a Mohammedan family. The fourth was Ramanuja,
a Braahaman by birth. He propagated this creed. The Shivites had the Shiva Puran,
and the Shaktas their Devi Bhagvat Puran, so the Vaishnavites their Vishnu Puran.
The authors
did not publish these books in their own names, but instead fathered their publications
on sages, and seers like Vyasa fearing that no one would attach any weight to
what was published in their own name. These books should appropriately have been
names Navina (i.e., of recent date). But there is nothing to wonder at if a poor
man named his son Maharaj Adhiraja (Emperor), and if a thing of recent origin
was named Sanatan (ancient). The contents of the Puranas bear on them the stamp
of the internecine warfare of these sects. Mark!
It is written in the Devi Bhagvat Purana that a goddess named Shri, the mistress
of Shripur, was the author of the universe. She also created Brahma, Vishnu and
Mahadeva. She willed and then rubbed her hands and lo! There was a blister out
of which Brahma was born. The goddess asked him to marry her. Brahma replied,
"Thou ar my mother, therefore, it does not behove me to marry thee." This enraged
the mother goddess and she reduced her son to ashes. She again rubbed her hands
and produced another son in the same way. She named him Vishnu. The same proposal
was made to him with the like result. He too was reduced to ashes. A
third son was brought into being in the same way. She named him Mahadeva and made
a proposal of marriage to him. Mahadeva replied, " I cannot marry thee, unless
thou art metamorphosed into a different woman." She did the needful. Then Mahadeva
asked her, "What do these two heaps of ashes signify?" The goddess replied, "These
are the mortal remains of thy brothers. They did not obey my orders and were therefore
reduced to ashes." Mahadeva replied, "What shall I alone do? Bring them to life
again and produce two other girls and let the three of us marry the three of them."
The goddess did what was asked of her and thus the tree couples were married.
What a shame! The fellows did PAGE
364 not
marry their mother but married their own sisters!!! Can this action be regarded
morally justifiable? Thereafter
the goddess brought into existence Indra, etc. (Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra,
were appointed as palanquin bearers of the goddess). Many such yarns have been
spun out (in this book).
It might be asked (of the Shaktas), "What was the
body of the goddess like? Who were her parents? Who was the creator of that Shripur."
Should they say back in reply that the goddess had no beginning, it could not
be right because whatever is the product of combination of elements must needs
have a beginning. If the marriage if a mother with her son be a sin, why should
not the marriage between brothers and sisters be regarded likewise? Just
as in the Devi Bhagvat Purana, Mahadeva, Vishnu, Brahma, etc., have been spoken
of disparagingly whilst the goddess (Devi) has been exalted, in like manner in
the Shiva Puran the Devi, etc., have been held up to contempt. All these have
been described therein as the servants of Mahadeva who is proclaimed their Lord
and Maser. Now
if the wearing of the stones of a fruit and the besmearing of the body with ashes
can lead to salvation, why then the donkeys and pigs and other animals who wallow
in dust, and Bhil and other low-born men who wear strings of fruit-stones on their
bodies are already saved. Q.
- In the Kalagnirudra Upanishad the besmearing of the body with ashes is enjoined.
Is that false? Even the Veda commends this practice, because the words Tryayasham
Jamadagni occur in the text of the Yajur Veda. In the Puranas it is stated that
the tree which grew out of the tears that ran from the eyes of Rudra was named
Rudraksha. It is for this very reason that the wearing of one Rudraksha absolves
one from all sins, leads him to Heaven and he terrors of hell are as nought for
him. A.
~ The author of Kalagnirudra Upanishad must have been one who was in the habit
of besmearing himself with ashes, because passages like 'the first line traced
with ashes (on one's forehead) represents the earth' which occur therein are manifestly
absurd, for how is it possible that a line drawn with hand everyday should stand
for the earth. As regards the Vedic text Tryaysham Jamadagni it does not relate
to the wearing of Rudraksha or PAGE
365 besmearing
one's body with ashes. On the contrary it means "Do thou, O Lord, ordain that
my eyesight may be preserved uninjured for 300 years and that i may also follow
such rules of health as may help to preserve it." This interpretation of the Vedic
text is supported by the Shathapatha Braahman which says, "Jamadagni does verily
signify eyesight." How
foolish it is to assert that a tree can grow out of tears streaming from an eye!
Who can subvert the laws of nature as ordained by God? Every tree grows out of
the seed assigned to it by the Supreme Sprit, and not otherwise. It therefore
follows that only savages, who are little better than beast, would wear Rudraksha,
Tulsi,* lotus buds, blades of grass Sandal and besmear their bodies with ashes.
Thsu Vaama
Maargis and Shivites are given to evil practices and are malicious. They do not
even perform their (religious, and other), duties. Whoever is a good man among
them does not believe in these things and does righteous deeds. If, as they say,
Rudraksha and ashes scare away the minions of the Angel of Death, why are not
policemen inspired with fright at their sight? When these things cannot frighten
even dogs, lions, snakes, scorpions, flies and mosquitoes, why should the hosts
of the Angel of Death (Lord of Justice) dread their sight? Q.
-The Vaama Maargis and Shivites are not good, but I suppose the Vaishnavites are
so. A.
~ Their sect being opposed to the teachings of the Vedas they are worse still.
Q.
- Why do you refute the Shaiva and other creeds, they find support in the following
Vedic texts:- "We
adore Rudra, the wrathful." "Thu art Vishnu." "Adoration to Vishnu." "We pray
to Ganesh, the Lord of Hosts." We pay homage to the goddess Bhagvati." "We worship
the Sun, the life of the universe - animate and inanimate." A.
~ These texts lend no support to Shaiva and other creeds, for Rudra means God,
vital air, the soul and heat. The text relating to Rudra would mean that we should
render obeisance to God Who is the Punisher of all evils doers, and should take
proper food to keep up the animal heat in the body. Besides, wherever
* It
is the holy basil held in reverence by the Vaishanvites.-Tr. PAGE
366 Texts
relating to Shiva are found in the Vedas, they mean that we should pay homage
to the All-merciful God who showers blessings on all. A Shaiva is really one who
worships Shiva - the All-merciful Being; a Vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu
- the All-pervading God. A Ganpata is one who worships Ganpati - The Lord of Hosts
i.e., (of the Universe); Bhagvata is one who sits at the feet of the muses. A
Saurka is one who is the devotee of the All-pervading God, the Soul of the Universe
- animate and inanimate. Thus Rudra, shiva, Vishnu, Ganapati, Surya, connote God,
and Bhagvati connotes truthful speech. These
various Puranic texts were invented owing to the wrong interpretation of the Vedic
texts (quoted above). The following story illustrates this tendency:- a faqir
had two disciples who shampooed him everyday. One undertook to massage the right
foot and the other the left. One day it so happened that one of the disciples
had gone out shopping, while the other was at his post. In the mean time the faqir
change his side andit so happened that the foot in charge of the disciple, who
was away, fell on the top of the other foot that was assigned to the disciple
that was present. The latter took a stick and aimed a blow at the offending foot.
The faqir cried out, "Oh you wicked one! What have you done? The
disciple replied "Why has the other foot fallen on the one that I am kneading?'
Just at that moment the other disciple returned home and began to knead the foot
assigned to him and found that it was swollen. He asked the faqir as to what had
happened to that foot. The faqur related the whole story. This fellow without
uttering a word or making a sign took up a stick and struck a heavy blow at the
other foot. The faqir screamed aloud and both the disciples fell to battering
his feet. When
there was a great uproar, a large number of people crowded in and asked the faqir
what the matter was. A sensible man from among the crowd rescued the faqir, and
expostulated with the foolish disciples thus "Look you her! Both these feet belong
to the body of your preceptor. If you knead them, it is he alone that is benefited
thereby, and if you cause injury to them, it is he again who suffers pain."
Just as the two
disciples in the story made fools of themselves, likewise the Shivites, Shaktas,
Vaishnavites and the like revile one another, because they are ignorant of the
true meanings of the PAGE
367 words
Shiva, Rudra, Vishnu, etc., which, as is set forth in the first chapter of this
book, are the different names of the Immutable God Who is Self-existent, All-wise
and Blissful. These
men of little understanding do not use their brains and never give the least thought
to the matter, otherwise they will soon find out that all such terms as Shiva,
Rudra, and Vishnu connote One Supreme, Incomparable< Omniscient God, the Controller
of the universe, on account of His possessing multitudinous attributes. Would
not the wrath of God descend on such people? Now
mark he wonderful trickery of the Chakrankitas and Vaishnavites!
The Ramanuja
Patal Padhiti says:- "Branding
the body with red hot iron, making the mark of a trident on the forehead, wearing
a rosary, bearing a name (ending in Das) and receiving the knowledge of the mystic
word are the five holy acts that lead to salvation." These people brand the upper-most
part of their arms with a red-hot iron marked with the sign of a conch-shell,
a discus, a mace, or a lotus, the quench the iron in a vessel containing milk.
Some even drink that milk. Now
it is clear that the person drinking that milk must be tasting human flesh. These
people hope to reach God by resorting to such practices. They argue that no one
can reach God without branding his body in the way indicated above, for till then
the devotee is raw (spiritually) unregenerated. Just
as everyone is afraid of a police constable in uniform, so the minions of Yama
(Angel of Death) dare not approach one who is branded with signs which make them
out to be Vishnu's devotees. They further say "It is a meritorious act to mark
the forehead with sign of a crozier, to brand the body with the signs of conch-shell,
a discus, a mace, and a rosary whose beads are made of lotus stalk. These symbols
inspire the Angel of Death and earthly potentates with awe. It is also a good
thing to bear PAGE
368 a
name ending in Das (servant), such as Narayan Das, Vishnu Das, and to be initiated
into the knowledge of them mystic words such as "Adoration to Narayana." This
is for ordinary people. the mystic verse for rich and respectable people is "May
we worship the feet of Narayana. Adoration to the Great Narayana, adoration to
the great Ramanuja." Verily this is quite business-like. The
wording of the mystic verse varies with the social position of the initiated.
The Chakrankits believe that these five holy acts (sanskars) are the means of
salvation. Just as Vaama Maargis have five Makaras (so-called holy practices beginning
with the letter M.), likewise the Vaishnavites have five Sanskars (so-called holy
practices beginning with the Letter S). The
Vedic mantras, that hey adduce in support of their belief as to branding the body
with the signs of a discus, and a crozier, etc., when rightly translated would
mean:- "O Lord Thou Who art the Protector of the universe and the Veda, and art
Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Holy in nature canst not be approached by a human
soul that has not been purified by means of thorough control of the senses, truthful
speech, subjugation of the animal in man, conquest of the lower self, the practice
of yoga, association with good men all these constitute Tapa) and is therefore
not spiritually regenerate. It is only those, whose souls have been cleansed through
righteous conduct and devotion to virtue, that can see Thee Who art All-Holy."
RIG VEDA. 9:83, 2. "Only
those who lead a thoroughly righteous life can attain to the realization of the
All-glorious, Supreme Spirit." RIG VEDA 9:83, 2. Now
it worth considering how Ramanuja and others can construe these texts as sanctioning
the Chankrankit creed. After this how could they be regarded learned. Had they
been so, they would not have put upon these texts such an impossible construction,
for in these texts the words atapta tanu (which would mean unbranded body according
to the Chakrankitic interpretation) occur PAGE
369 and
not atapta bhuja (unbranded arem). Again the words atapta tanu comprehend the
entire body from top to toe. Should the Chakrantikas the word tapa to mean branding
with fire, they may shove themselves into a furnace and burn their entire body,
even hen they will be acting against the spirit of this text. For in it tapa is
stated to be the performance of righteous deeds like veracity in speech.
The following verse
from the Taitreya Upanishad also supports this view. "Perfect purity of heart,
truthfulness in word, deed and thought, restraining the mind from rioting in evil,
keeping the senses under perfect control, i.e., the employment of the mind and
sense organs for the practice of righteousness, the study of the Vedas and other
books of true knowledge, and the molding of conduct in accordance with the Vedic
injunctions constitute tapa."The burning of the body by branding it with red hot
iron is not tapa. It is a remarkable fact that the Chakrankits pose as Vaishnavites
of a very superior order but do not think of the origin of their sect and of the
evil practices connected therewith. Their founder was a man named Shatthakopa.
It is written
in the authoritative works of the Chakrankitas and in the Bhagat Mal whose author
was the bard Nabha. "The seer (Shathakopa)wove winnowing baskets and earned his
living by selling them." He was born of a whore; it is very likely that when he
wanted to read with the Brahmans, he was refused this privilege, thereupon (having
been exasperated) he founded the Chakrankita sect and introduced the use of marks
on the forehead and started the practice of branding the arms All
this was opposed to the teachings of the Shaastraas and was evolved out of his
own imagination. He was succeeded by his disciple Munivhana who was the son of
an outcast. His chief disciple was Yavanacharya who was a Mohammedan by birth.
Yavanacharya is sometime corrupted into Yamunacharya. After him Ramanuja who was
a Brahman by birth, was converted to this faith. His predecessors had written
some (sacred) works in the loval dialects. Ramanuja devoted sometime to the study
of Sanskrit, was the author of a few books PAGE
370 in
Sanskrit verse and of a commentary on the Shariraka Sutras and the Upanishads
which gave an interpretation of these books quite contrary to what was given by
Shankar. He criticized Shankar a great deal. For instance, Shankar holds that
the soul and the Divine Spirit are identical; nothing besides God has an existence
in fact. The phenomenal word is an illusion and is, therefore, unreal and perishable.
Ramanuja on the contrary believes that God, the soul and matter are eternally
co-existent,. Shankar
is wrong in so far as he says that the soul and the primordial matter as distinct
from God do not exist and Rmanuja's belief, that these three entities are eternally
co-existent and yet the soul and God circumvented by Maya (matter) are one* is
altogether absurd. The denial of the freedom of will and a belief in the efficacy
of tilaka (making specific mark on the forehead) and of wearing rosary, and in
idol worship, and other evil doctrines and practices are found in the Chakrankit
faith. The creed of Shankar is not so much opposed to the Vedic teachings as that
of the Chakrankits. The
origin of idol-worship.
Back to contents
Q. - With whom did idol worship originate? A.
~It originated with the Jainees. Q.
- Why did the Jainees start idol worship? A.
~They did it out of their ignorance. Q.
- The Jainees contend that when one looks at an idol which is symbolical of deep
meditation and peaceful repose, one's soul is illumined by these spiritual influences.
A. ~ The
soul is possessed of consciousness, while idol is dead and inert. Do you mean
to say that the soul should also lose its consciousness and become lifeless like
the idol. Idol worship is a fraud. The Jaiinees were the authors of this mode
of worship. Their beliefs will be examined in the 12th Chapter. Q.
- It seems that the Shaktas have not borrowed this practice from the Jainees,
for their idols are not like those of the Jainees. A.
~ It is true that the Shakta idols are not like the Jain ones. Had they made idols
resembling Jain idols in very detail, they would have become Jainees. It is for
this reason that they dressed images quite differently from those of the Jainees,
for the Vishnavites and others deemed it their duty to oppose the Jainees and
* This
is called Vasishtaadvaita. PAGE
371 vice
versa. The Jain idols were always naked and represented a being who was seated
in a contemplative mood and had renounced the world, while on the contrary the
Vaishnava idols symbolized gods having by their sides goddesses, who were dressed
out in fine style and excited lascivious thoughts by their lewd charms and licentious
looks. The
Jains never blow conch-shell, nor ring bells (at the time of worship), while the
Vaishnavites and others make a tremendous noise (by blowing conch -shell and beating
drums, etc.). It was thus that the disciples of the Vaishnavities and the like
vilely popes escaped from the clutches of the Jainees and were ensnared into the
nets spread out bye these people. They also composed many books, which are replete
with incredibly absurd stories, in the name of the great seers like Vyasa.
Part
II
| 
