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
|
