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
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
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
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?'