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