Jainworld
Jain World
Sub-Categories of Passions
About This Book (Translator's Prelude)
Peculiarity of Jainism
Introduction
Prologue
Nature of Mundane Existence
  Miseries of Mundane Existence and Bliss of Liberation 
  Exposition of False Belief Knowledge and Conduct
  Analytical study of different religions
  Refutation of False Deity-Preceptor-Religion
  X-ray of Jaina-misbelievers
  Nature of Sermons
  Nature of Liberation Path
  Nature of Noble Peaceful Death
  Rahasyapoorna Chitthi (Spiritual Letter)
  Glossary

Analytical Study of Different Religions

 

 

Further, they say that from those three qualities, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh, these three deities are born; so how is it possible?  Because the quality is produced from the substance possessing qualities; how would the substance of qualities be produced from the quality? The anger passion will get produced from man, but how will man be produced from anger passion? Moreover, these qualities are censured; how are Brahma etc. produced from these (qualities) considered venerable? Further, these qualities are full of Maya and the same are described as to be the incarnation of Brahma; but these are proved to be the incarnation of Maya, how are these described as to be the incarnation (Vishnu Puran, chapter 22/58. Vayu Puran, chapter 7/68-69.)  of Brahma?  And those who are found having even a little of these qualities they are sermonized to give up them, but how could those who are the idols of these qualities only be treated as venerable? Is it not delusion?

 

Further, their actions also seem to be full of these traits. They indulge in the acts of sportiveness etc., sexual intercourse etc. and combating etc.; so, from those Rajas etc. qualities, only these acts are caused; therefore, you should say that the Rajas etc. traits are found in them. Treating them venerable and supreme God etc. is not befitting. They too are like other mundane beings.

 

Further, you might say that the mundane beings are under the influence of Maya, so unknowingly they indulge in those acts. But Maya is under the control of Brahma etc., so they indulge in these acts knowingly. So, this too is fallacy. Because by being under the control of Maya, sex-passion, anger-passion etc. only are created, what else is created? Only the vehemency of sex-passion, anger etc.  is found in those Brahma etc. Due to the vehemence of sex-passion, they being overpowered by women, started dancing and singing, started becoming impatient, started indulging in bad demeanor in many ways and started combating in various ways under the influence of anger, started adopting various means for exhibiting one's excellence under the influence of pride, started making lot of frauds under the pressure of deceit, started accumulating belongings (paraphernalia) being overpowered by greed and so on, - what more to describe? Thus being overpowered by passions, they started doing many censurable acts, such as the immodests' act of snatching off the cloths of the ladies, the thieves' act of looting the curd, the mads' act of wearing the wreath of human heads*, `the ghosts' act of making different forms of the body and the plebeians' act of cow- keeping (herdsmanship) etc.; what more censurable acts would have resulted on being overpowered by Maya is beyond comprehension!

 

Believing Brahma etc. who are found with censurable external acts and intense carnal desires etc. to be deceitless is similar to believing cloudy no-moon night as without darkness.

 

Further, he says that the sex-passion, anger etc. do not over power them; this also is a sportive act of supreme God. Our question is "Such passional acts which he does are done with desire or without desire?' If he does with desire then the name of desire of sexual intercourse itself is sex-passion, the name of desire of combating itself is the anger passion and so on. And if he does without desire then the act, which he himself does not want to do, is caused only on being dependent on someone; so, how is dependence possible in Brahma? Further, you regard this as to be a sportive act; so, if the God performs such sportive acts by reincarnating, then why do they preach the other Jivas forgetting liberation by detaching themselves from such acts?  The discourse of observing forbearance, contentment, chastity, continence, etc. all is proved useless.

 

Further, he says that God has no motive; just for the sake of keeping the worldly phenomena running he incarnates (Paritranraye sadhunam, vinashaye cha dushkritam; Dharm sansthapnarthaye sambhvami yugai yugai) for protecting the devotees and punishing the cruel. Then we ask him: Without any motive even an ant does not do anything, why would then God do so?" And you have also told the purpose that "He acts for the sake of keeping the worldly phenomena running". So as some man himself teaches his sons with ill intention and when they start behaving in that fashion then he beats them; how would then such a father be called good? Similarly, if Brahma etc.  by his passionate form of activity causes his own creation to indulge in untoward acts and when they do so then why he places them in the hell etc.? In the scriptures, the consequence of these dispositions is described as getting birth in hell etc.; so, how can such a God be believed to be good?

 

And you have stated that the motive of God is to protect the devotees and punish the cruel. Here we ask you that the cruel who torture the devotees were created by the desire of God, or without his desire? If they were created by God's desire then tell us as to how such a master be called good who firstly gets his own subordinates beaten by others and later on beats those beaters? Similarly, how such a God be called good who himself willingly causes his devotees to be afflicted by the cruel and then he starts killing those cruel by incarnating (into embodied form)?

 

If you will say that the cruel got created without his desire then either the God might not be having such a foresight that these cruelwill torture his devotees or earlier he might not be having such sort of power that this should not be allowed to happen. Further, we ask him- 'If God incarnated for the purpose of performing such activity, so, did he possess such power without incarnating or not? If he was possessing such power, why did then he incarnate? And if he did not possess such power then what was the cause of obtaining such power later on?'

 

Then he says- `How would the glory (importance) of God be reflected without doing so?' Then we tell him- "Protecting one's followers and punishing opponents for establishing one's glory is nothing but attachment-aversion passions (Raag & Dwesha) and Raag-Dwesha is the characteristic of the mundane being (Sansari-Jiva). If God also is found having Raag-Dwesha then why to preach the other Jivas for effectuating equanimity by quitting Raag-Dwesha?  Moreover, as he thought to act according to Raag-Dwesha, so no work is accomplished without consumption of some more or less time; then during that period God would remain restless. If the king himself undertakes to do the work which can be performed by a person of lower status then this does not glorify the king, rather it becomes a cause of his censure. Similarly, if God himself undertakes to do, through incarnation that work which can be accomplished by a king and a peripatetic deva etc., then this does not glorify God, rather it becomes a cause of his censure.

 

Further, the importance is shown to someone else if someone else be there, but you believe in one ubiquitous `Addvait Brahma' only; to whom he shows the importance? And the effect of showing the importance is to cause others to pray him; so, by whom does he want to be prayed? And you say that all Jivas function as per the will of the God, so, if the self has the desire of causing others to pray him then direct all the Jivas to pray him. Why should people engage themselves in other activities? Therefore, Gods, action for being glorified by others also does not seem to be logical.

 

Further, he says that God, even by doing all these acts remains non-doer; this cannot be ascertained. We say to him- "If you would say that this is my mother as well as is a barren lady" then how to believe your saying so? The one who does the work, how to believe him to be a non-doer? And you say that the ascertainment is not possible, so this means believing something without its ascertainment; then you should also believe that sky produces flowers and asses have horns; but such statement supporting impossible phenomenon is not logical.

 

In this way, belief in the existence of Brahma, Vishnu & Mahesh is false belief.

 

Further, they say that Brahma creates the Srishti (universe), Vishnu protects it and Mahesh destroys it; all this is also not possible, because while performing these duties someone would like to do one thing whereas the other would like to do the contrary thing; then there will arise mutual contradiction.

 

And if you will say that this also is a characteristic of God, why would there be any contradiction? Then "creating (the universe) himself and destroying it himself" - in performing such a task, what is the result? If the Srishti (creation) is harmful to the self, why did he create it then? And if it is beneficial why did he destroy it? And "if earlier he felt it beneficial so he created it, later on he felt it harmful so he destroyed it"- if it is so then either God's characteristic is wrong or the creation's characteristic is wrong. If you will favor first side of the logic then God's character is not proved to be of one nature. So tell us what is the reason of not having one nature? Why would the turning of the nature happen without the cause? And if you will favor second side of the logic then when the creation was under the control of God, why did he allow it to happen so, that it appeared harmful to himself ?

 

Further, we ask him- "Brahma creates the universe; so how does he create it?" The one way is this that as the builder of the temple makes the shape (of the building) etc. by collecting lime, (cement) stones etc. material. Similarly, Brahma creates the universe by collecting the material. Let us know that place where from he brought and collected the material and if only Brahma alone created the whole universe then either he might have made it in parts - some parts earlier and some parts later or might have made his hands etc. many?  Whatever answer you will give, it will also prove contradictory on thinking over it.

 

And the one way is this that as the work is performed as per king's order, similarly the universe is created by the order of Brahma, (If this be so) then whom did he order? And where from the persons who were ordered brought the material and how did they create the universe?

 

And the one way is this that the work gets accomplished automatically as per the desire of the person possessing supernatural powers. Similarly, the universe gets automatically created as per the wish of Brahma. If this be so, then Brahma's role remained confined to desiring only and the universe got automatically created.  Moreover, the desire arose in Parma Brahma, what was then the role of Brahma whom you advocate creator of the universe?

 

If you will say that Parma Brahma also desired and Brahma also desired then the universe got created. Then it appears that the desire of Parma Brahma alone is not efficacious. This shows lack of power in Parma Brahma.

 

Further, we ask, 'If the universe is created only by creating it then the creator will surely create it for the sake of happiness and then he will create the favorite things only. But in this universe the favorite things are found in lesser number and unfavorable things are found in greater number. Amongst the Jivas, Devas (celestial beings) etc. were created as favorite beings for the sake of enjoyment and for adoration. But what for worm, ant, dog, pig, lion, etc.  were created? Those are neither pleasing nor do they worship; rather, they are harmful in all respects. And why were such harmful objects like poor-wretched, unhappy-hellish beings, etc. created by seeing which disgust, aversion, sorrow are caused?'