Analytical Study of Different Religions

 

Further, another way of such belief is this- "As the space (sky) is an ubiquitous one, similarly, the Brahma is an ubiquitous one. If you (the monist) believe so, then believe the Brahma also as big as space and wherever the material objects, jar, cloth, etc. are found, the space is also found there; in the same way, believe the existence of Brahma too. But how could the jar, cloth, etc. and the space be treated and called as one only? Similarly, how the universe and the Brahma could be believed to be as one? And the differentia of space is perceived to be everywhere; so, its existence is believed to be everywhere; but the differentia of the Brahma is not perceived everywhere; so how could then his existence be believed everywhere? In this way also. no universal form of Brahma is established."

 

From all these considerations, the existence of one Brahma is in no way established. All substances appear to be separate- separate entities.

 

Here the respondent says- "All is one only, but you are under delusion, that's why you are not able to perceive him as one. And you have put up your logic but the nature of Brahma is beyond logic. And his nature is not describable in words. He is one as well as many. He is separate as well as united. His glory is so great".

 

Our answer to him is- "What I, you and all are perceiving clearly, you call it delusion. And if we deduce by logic then you say that the real nature is beyond logic. And if you say that the real nature is not describable in words then how can one ascertain without words?  "Further he says- "He is one as well as many, is separate as well as united", but you do not specify the viewpoint and instead like an insane person you are magnifying his glory by asserting that he is like this and also like that. But, where there is no justice, the liars indulge there in such garrulousness only. So, let them do so but justice will remain unchanged.

 

Revocation of World-creatorship

 

Further, some people believe that Brahma is the creator of the universe: the falsehood of the same is being shown hereunder :-

 

    Firstly, they believe that such a desire arose to Brahma that (H) "I am single, so I would like to be many". There we ask them-" If one was unhappy in earlier state then he would like to change that state". Brahma desired to obtain many forms discarding the earlier one form. What was the sorrow in that state of one form? Then the monist says that there was no sorrow but it was just an inquisitive instinct. Then we say to him- "If earlier one be less happy and if by inquisitiveness, he becomes more happy, then he may think of indulging in inquisitiveness.  So, how is it possible for Brahma to have become more happy by changing into many forms from one form.  And if he was perfectly happy in the earlier state, why should he change that state or form? Without any purpose, no body wants to indulge in any activity.

 

And suppose he was happy earlier and also remained happy after completing the desired act but would he not be unhappy at the moment of rise of the desire? Then he says- "the moment desire arises in Brahma, at the same moment the desire is fulfilled, so he does not become unhappy. Then we say- "One can accept this from relatively longer period point of view but from the instantaneous time period point of view the fulfillment of desire is not possible the moment it arises. The desire arises only when the act is not fulfilled; and when it is fulfilled there remains no desire. So, he must have become unhappy at least in that minute interval of time. Because the desire itself is misery and none else is misery. Therefore, the rise of desire in Brahma is inconceivable."

 

Further, they (the monists) say that on evolution of desire the Maya (illusion) of Brahma got produced. Since Maya got produced in Brahma then Brahma also became an illusive (deceitful) person; how did then here main of pure nature? And Brahma and Maya have the coherent relation just like a staff-bearer and the staff or both have an inseparable relation just like fire and heat. If it is a coherent relation then the Brahma is separate and the Maya is separate; how did `He' remain undivided (Addvait) Brahma? And as the staff-bearer holds the staff knowing it to be helpful, similarly Brahma knows the Maya as to be helpful to him, that's why he holds it, otherwise why should he hold it?  And the Maya which Brahma himself holds, how is it possible to deny (forbid) it?  Rather, it is proved useful. And if it is an inseparable relation then as heat is the nature of fire, similarly Maya is proved to be the nature of Brahma.  That which is the nature of Brahma, how its denial is possible? Thus Maya is proved to be useful.

 

Further, they say that the Brahma is a sentient being, Maya is insentient. But in inseparable relation such two (contrary) natures (of a thing) are not possible; e.g., how can light and darkness both be found together?

 

Further, they say that Brahma himself does not become deluded by Maya, rather (other) Jiva gets deluded by his Maya. Our answer is: As a treacherous knows his treachery himself, so he himself does not get deluded, rather the other persons get deluded by his treachery. But he who indulges in treachery, is called a treacherous; the others who got deluded due to his treachery are not called treacherous.  Similarly, the Brahma knows his Maya; the other Jivas get deluded.  There, the Brahma only will be called treacherous (Mayavi); how the other Jivas who got deluded by his Maya could be called treacherous (Mayavi)?

 

Further we ask them - whether Jivas are one with the Brahma or are separate entities? If they are one then as someone himself starts giving pain to his own limbs so he is called an insane person, similarly, the Brahma himself by his Maya starts giving pain to those Jivas who are not separate from him; so, how would this be possible? If the (Jivas) are separate from him, then as some ghost (peripatetic god) without any purpose creates delusion to other Jivas and makes them miserable., similarly, without any purpose the Brahma creates Maya for other Jivas and makes them miserable; this also seems illogical.

 

Thus, saying that Maya is of Brahma cannot be established. Further, they say that on evolution of Maya the universe got created; there the consciousness found in Jivas is part of Brahma's nature and their bodies etc. are Maya.  For example, water is filled in many separate utensils; in (the water of) all those utensils moon appears separately-separately, whereas the moon is one.  Similarly, the consciousness light of Brahma is found separately-separately in many separate- separate bodies, where as the Brahma is one, therefore, the consciousness found in Jivas is that of the Brahma.

 

This statement is also full of delusion because the body is inanimate; if in this body the consciousness got created due to the image of Brahma, why could not then the image of Brahma fall in other inanimate substances like jar, cloth, etc. and create consciousness in them?

 

Further, the monist says that the Brahma does not make the body conscious but makes the Jivas conscious.

 

Then we ask him - "Is the nature of Jiva Chetana (conscious) or acetone (non-conscious)? If it is conscious then what would new consciousness be created in the already conscious Jivas? If Jiva is non-conscious then the category of body, jar, etc. and that of the Jiva proves to be the same. "Further, we ask him," - `Is the consciousness of the Brahma and that of the "Jivas one and the same or separate?  If it is one and the same then how is the knowledge seen more or less in different Jivas?" And why one Jiva does not know whatever is known by other Jiva?' You might say that this is due to difference in embodiment of various Jivas. Then due to difference in embodiments, the consciousness of different Jivas is proved to be separate-separate. On destruction of embodiment, will the consciousness of the Jivas get intermingled in Brahma or get destroyed? If it will get destroyed then this Jiva will become inanimate. And if you will say that the Jiva itself gets intermingled with Brahma then there on intermingling with Brahma its own existence remains or does not remain? If Jivas existence remains separate then that Jiva along with his own consciousness also existed (remained intact); what did then intermingle with Brahma? And if existence does not remain then it means it got destroyed; who did then intermingle with Brahma? If you will say that the consciousness of Brahma and that of the Jivas are separate then the Brahma and all Jivas prove to be separate-separate. Thus, the belief that the consciousness of the Jivas and that of the Brahma are one and the same is also disproved.

 

You call the bodies etc. as to be of the Maya; so, does the Maya itself turn into the bone-flesh etc. or due to the instrumentality of Maya someone else turns in those forms? If the Maya itself converts then were the color, smell etc. of Maya existing formerly or are produced afresh? If those were existing formerly then Maya was formerly of Brahma but Brahma is of immaterial form; how are the color etc. attributes possible in him? And if those are produced afresh then he being of the immaterial form, got turned into the material form; hence, consequently the immaterial form did not prove to be eternal. And if you will say that due to the instrumentality of Maya someone else turns then the question is that when you do not prove or accept existence of the other substances who else got turned then?

 

If you will say that the new substance gets created, then does it get created separate from Maya or inseparable with it? If it is produced separate from Maya, why do you call then Miyamae Sharira i.e., the bodies etc. to have formed from Maya? But those prove to be of their own substances. And if those substances are created as inseparable then Maya itself became tantamount; why do you then say that the new substances got created? Thus, your this statement that the body etc. are of the nature of Maya is fallacious.

 

Further, they say that three qualities (constituents) got produced out of Maya, (i) Rajas- the quality of passion, of love and pleasure (ii) Tamas- the quality of malignancy and (iii) Satvik- the quality of goodness and virtues. This statement is also not maintainable; because the disposition of pride-passion-form is called Rajas, the disposition of anger-passion-form is called Tamas and disposition of feeble- passion-form is called Satvik. So, these dispositions are clearly seen full of consciousness but the nature of Maya according to you is inanimate. So, how would these dispositions be created out of the inanimate objects ? If the inanimate objects too have these (qualities) then stone etc. will also have these dispositions; but only the Jivas of conscious nature are seen possessing these dispositions; therefore, these dispositions are not produced out of Maya. If Maya is considered to be of conscious nature, then this can be believed. So, on accepting the Maya as to be conscious, if you will say the bodies etc. as produced out of Maya then nobody will believe it. Hence, you should ascertain properly; what is the gain in believing fallaciously?