Does God create by the caprice of His Will

allah is not great

Does God create by the caprice of His Will ?

If it is God Who feeds people and makes them observe the laws of health, there should be no disease. But we see that even the Mohammedans do suffer from disease. If it is God who cures people of disease the Mohammedans should always recover, but as they do not, it is clear that the Mohammedan God is not a skilful doctor, for if He were so, the Mohammedans would always come round. Again, if it is God Who kills people and brings them to life, then He alone should take the consequences. On the contrary if it be believed that punishment or reward is awarded according to deeds done (by the soul) in many births, He cannot be held blameworthy. If God forgives sins and dispenses justice on the last day, He will be a sinner and a promoter of sin. It he does not forgive sins, it cannot but he said that this teaching of the Qoran is false.

 “Thou art only a man like unto us: produce now some sign, if thou speakest the truth. Said, the she-camel shall be a sign unto you: she shall have her portion of water.” (26: 154, )

C. ~ Who would believe that the camel came out of stone. Those who pinned faith to it were savages. The sign of the camel was something which looks boorish, not Divine. If this book had been revealed, ti would not contain such senseless things.

“O Moses! Verily I am God, Mighty, the Wise: cast down thy rod. And when he saw it, that it moved, as though it had been a serpent, he retreated and fled. And God said O Moses, fear not, for my messengers are not disturbed with fear in my sight.” “Rise not up against me: and surrender yourself unto me.” (27: 9, 10, 27, 32.)

C. ~ Now mark! God calls Himself Might, even a good man would not indulge in self-commendation, why should God do so? He became the Lord of the savages by tempting them with a sort of jugglery. Such things cannot be written in the Word of God. If He is the Lord of the seventh heaven, He cannot be God being localized. If it is a bad thing to rebel, why did God and Mohammad write a book to extol themselves, even though the Prophet at the instigation of God killed many which was worse than rebellion. The Qoran is full of repetitions and self-contradictory statements.

“And thou shalt see the mountains, and shalt think them firmly fixed; they shall pass away, even as the clouds pass away. This will be the work of God, who rightly disposes all things: and he is well acquainted with that which ye do.” (27: 90.)

C. ~ Perhaps in the country where the author of the Qoran lived, the mountains moved on like clouds, for nowhere else it is so. The vigilance of God can be judged by the fact that He could not catch the rebel Satan and punish him. Who can be more careless than one who could not. apprehend one rebel and punish him.

“And Moses struck him with his fist and slew him: and he said, O Lord, verily I have injured my own soul, wherefore forgive me. So God forgave him; for He is ready to forgive, and Merciful. The Lord createth what He pleaseth; and chooseth freely.” 28: 14, 15, 66.)

C. ~ Now mark again! Are not God and Moses the Prophet of the Mohammedans and the Christians, both unjust because the latter killed people and God forgave him his sins. Does God create by the caprice of His Will? Was it due to mere caprice that one was born a king and anther a pauper; one a scholar, and another a fool. If it is so, the Qoran dos not inculcate truth, and the Mohammedan God being unjust is no God at all.

“We have commanded man to show kindness towards his parents: but if they endeavor to prevail with thee to associate with me that concerning which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not. We hereafter sent Noah unto his people, and he tarried among them not. We hereafter sent Noah unto his people, and he tarried among them one thousand years, save fifty years.” (29: 7, 13.)

C. ~ Of course, it is good thing to serve one’s parents and it is also right not to obey them when they ask one to believe that God shares His homage with some other being. But they should not be believed if they command one to tell lies, hence this injunction is only a half truth. If He sent only Noah and other prophets to the world who sent the other creatures? If it be said that he sent all, then why not believe that all are prophets. If formerly people lived for 950 years, why do they not attain that age now? This statement is also wrong.

“God produceth creatures, and will hereafter restore them to life: then shall ye return unto Him. And on the day whereon the hour shall come, the wicked shall be struck dumb for despair. And they who shall have believed, and wrought righteousness, shall take their pleasure in a delightful meadow: Yet if we should send a blasting wind, and they should see their corn yellow and burnt up. This hath God sealed up the hearts of those who believe not.” (30: 10, 11, 14, 50, 58.)

C. ~ If God ordains Creation twice and not thrice, He must be sitting idle before the first Creation and after the second, and will lose all vitality after creating the world twice. If the sinners are struck dumb with despair on the day of judgment, so much so good, but we hope that this verse does not mean that all except the Mohammedans will be branded as sinners and struck dumb with despair, for at many places in the Qoran by the word of sinner is meant a non-Mohammedan.

If the Mohammedan paradise consists of residence in a garden and adornment of the body, it is just lie this world. In that case it is necessary y that gardeners and goldsmiths should be there or God should do their work. Again, if some denizen of paradise gets a smaller number of ornaments, he might commit theft and be hurled down into hell. If it be so the doctrine of eternal heaven would be falsified.

If God superintends agriculture operations, He must needs have gained some experience in the agricultural art! Even if it be believed that God being Omniscient knew all this, He cannot escape from the charge of having bullied and blustered. If God sealed the hearts of men and caused them to commit sin, He must be held answerable for the offence and not men; even as the Commanders are held responsible for defeat or victory, so God must be regarded answerable for sins.

“These are the signs of the wise book. He hath created the heavens without visible pillars to sustain them, and hath thrown on the earth mountains firmly rooted, lest it should move with you. Dost thou not see that the God causeth the night to succeed the day, and causeth the day to succeed the night? Dost thou not see that the ships run in the sea, through the favor of God, that He may show you of his signs?” (31: 1, 9, 28, 30.)

C. ~ How funny! That a book like this should be regarded full of wisdom even though it teaches things opposed to science, such as the creation of the heavens without visible pillars to sustain them and the fixing of the mountains in the earth with a view to keep them immovable. Even persons who are a little bit educated cannot write such nonsense or believe in such balderdash. Again, how wise is the statement that the day is entangle with the night and night with day! Every body knows that day and night co-exist. The Qoran cannot be a book of true knowledge, for this statement is absolutely foolish. It is not opposed to true knowledge to say that the ships run into the sea through the favor of God when in reality they are propelled by machinery and by sailors? Would not the sign of God ( a ship) sink if it was made of iron or stone? Verily this book cannot have been written either by God or by a learned man.

 

Is the earth stationary

flat earth

Is the earth stationary ?

“When the earth shall be shaken with a shock, and the mountains shall crumble with a crumbling and shall become scattered dust.” (55: 4, 6.)

“Then the people of the right hand, what shall be the people of the right hand! And the people of the left hand, what shall be the people of the left hand.” (56:8,9>)

“On coaches in wrought with gold and studded with stars reclining on them face to face: aye -blooming youths go round about to them, with goblets and ewers and a cup of flowing wine, their brows ache not from it nor fails the sense: and will such fruits as shall please them best, and with flesh of such birds, as they shall long for and theirs shall be the Houris, with large dark eyes, like pearls hidden in their shell.” (56: 15 -22)

“And on lofty beds. Of a rare creation have we created the Houris and we have ever made them virgins, dear to their spouses, of equal age with them.” (56: 31, 33.)

“And fill your bellies with it. I swear by the falling stars.” (56: 54, 74.)

C. ~ Now mark the strange assertions of the author of the Qoran! As it is, the earth is always in motion and will therefore be moving also at the time referred to by Him. It proves, however, one thing, namely, that the author of the Qoran believed the earth to stationary. Will He make the mountains fly as if they were so many birds? Even if they are transformed into insects and moths, they shall retain minutest bodies. Why then deny that they may be born again? Indeed! Were not the Muslim God corporeal, how could anyone stand on His right or left (as asserted in the Qoran)? Do the inmates of paradise always keep sitting idle, reclining on their pillows, or do they ever do anything? If they keep sitting idle, they could not properly digest their food, which must produce disease and thus carry them early to their graves. But it they do any work, they must be earning their livelihood in paradise after the fashion of mortals here. What is there then to distinguish paradise from this world? Of course nothing. If those boys always live in paradise, their parents as well as their fathers – and mothers-in-law must also do the same. This means that it must be a big colony there wherein diverse kinds of disease are bound to prevail on account of the accumulation of the night soil and other kinds of filth. If (as asserted) they eat fruits, drink water out of tumblers and quaff wine out of wine-cups, why would not they be subjected to head-aches, and indulge in unbecoming expressions? If it be a fact that they surfeit themselves there with fruits and with the flesh of birds and beasts, they are sure to be afflicted with various kinds of disease and suffering. There must also be slaughter-houses as well as butchers’ shop in paradise and bones must be scattered here and there. Verily, it is hard to sufficiently praise the Muslim Paradise! It seems as if it is even superior to Arabia! Of course when they become inebriate by free indulgences in meat and wine in paradise, they must stand in need of beautiful girls and handsome youths, otherwise the potations might affect their brains, and thereby transform them into raving maniacs! It is right that there should be a sufficient number of beds to accommodate so many people in paradise. Of course it stands to reason that there should be youths in paradise when God had created virgins there. But we are told that the virgins in paradise are destined to be united to those male mortals who repair to paradise from this world. What about those male youths then who perpetually swell in paradise? God has kept reticent as regards their marriage, will they also along with the virgins be surrendered to their candidate-mortals from this world? God has thrown no light on this point, and it must be regarded as a great omission on His part. If women in paradise are united to men of the same age, it is not, since the male should always be twice as old as the female or even older. So much regarding the Mohammedan paradise, as regards the Mohammedan hell, its inmates will have to feed on (thohar) Euphorbia nereifolia [This means that there are thorny trees in hell baring thorns], and drink hot water. Such then are the sufferings they will be afflicted with in hell.

Is the Muhammad prophesied in the Vedas?

false prophet

Is the Muhammad prophesied in the Vedas?

 Now there is only one thing left (before we are done with this subject.) the Mohammedans, not often, say, write or publish that the Mohammedan religion is spoken of in the Atharva Veda. It will suffice to say that there is not a word about this faith in the Veda in question.

M. –Have you read the whole of the Atharva Veda? If you have refer to Allopanishad. It is given there in plain words. Why do you then say that nothing is said in the Atharva Veda about the Mohammedan religion? Here is a passage from the Allopanishad: –

Asmallam ille Mitra Varuna………allorasul Mohammad Akbarasya Allo Allam……..etc.

That Mohammad is here spoken of as the prophet in unequivocal terms, is a sufficient proof of the fact that the Muslim faith has its origin in the Veda.

A. ~ If you have not read the Atharva Veda, come to us and look through its pages from beginning to end, or you may go to any person who knows that book and read with him all the verses given in its twenty chapters. You will never find the name of your Prophet in it. And as regards Allopanishad it is not given in the Atharva Veda or in its ancient commentary, called the Gopath Braahama or in any of its Shaakhaas (branches). We surmise that some one wrote it in the reign of the Emperor Akbar. Its author appears to have been a man who knew a little of Sanskrit and Arabic, because in its text both Sanskrit and Arabic words occur. For example, the Arabic words Asmallam Ille and the Sanskrit words Mitra and Varuna occur in the above passage and the same is seen throughout the whole book.

If we look to its meaning, it is altogether artificial, unsound and opposed to the teachings of the Veda (while the construction of words and sentences, is quite ungrammatical). The followers of other creeds who are blinded by bigotry have also likewise forged Upanishads such as Swarop Upanishad, Narsinhatapni, Ramtapni, Gopal tapni.

M. – No one ever expounded this theory ( as regards the Allopanishad) before; how can we then believe you?

A. ~ Our statement cannot be wrong whether you believe it or not.

Your contention can be accepted as true only when you, in a manner similar to that in which we have shown it to be wrong, point it (Allopnishad) out in the Veda, the Gopath, or in any of its ancient Shakhaas and show satisfactorily that the interpretation you put upon it is in harmony with context.

M. – What a good religion is ours. By embracing it one can enjoy all the pleasures of this world as well as attain salvation hereafter.

A. ~ Other sectaries also say “Our creed is the best, all other are bad. No one can attain salvation without accepting our faith.” All that we believe is that truthfulness in speech, love, fellow-feeling and the like virtues, in whatever creed they may be found, are commendable, while wrangling, and harboring of jealousy and hatred, dissimulation and the like evil practices, advocated by whatsoever creed they may, are condemnable. If you are sincerely desirous of getting hold of truth, embrace the Vedic religion.

 

ALLAH WAS NOT OMNISCIENT

house of allah

ALLAH WAS NOT OMNISCIENT

  “And when we said unto the angels, worship Adam, they all worshiped him except Eblis (Satan), who refused, and was puffed up with pride and became of the number of the unbelievers.” 2: 32.)

C. ~ This indicates that the Mohammedan God was not Omniscient i.e., He was not cognizant of the three periods of time – the past, the present, and future. Had he been Omniscient, He would not have created Satan. Nor was God All-powerful, since when Satan deliberately refuse to obey Him he could do nothing against him. Now if only one infidel (Satan), could trouble God so much as to render Him helpless what will He and His votaries do when they will have to cope with millions (according to their own belief) of infidels? God increased infirmity in some and let others astray. He must have learnt such things from Satan and Satan from God.

 “And we said, O Adam, dwell thou and thy wife in the garden, and eat of the fruit thereof plentifully wherever ye will; but approach not this tee, lest ye become of the number of the transgressors. But Satan caused them to forfeit paradise, and turned them out of the state of happiness wherein they had been, whereupon we said, Get down, one of you shall be an enemy unto the other; and there shall be a dwelling place for you on earth, a provision for a season. And Adam learned words of prayer for His Lord and then came down to earth.” (2: 33 – 35.)

C. ~ This indicates that God was not omniscient inasmuch as He one moment blesses Adam saying “Dwell thou…. In the garden” and in the next turns them out. Had He been cognizant of the future, He would not have blessed him at all? It also appears that God was powerless to punish Satan, the tempter.

Did God plant that tree for Himself or for others? If it was for others He should not have prevented them (Adam and his wife) from tasting the fruit thereof. God could never do such things, nor could they be ever found in His book. What were the words Adam leant from God and how did Adam come down on earth? Is the paradise somewhere in the sky or on some hill? Did Adam fly sown like a bird or fall down like a stone?

It appears that there is dust in paradise since Adam was made of dust. Angels too like Adam must also have been made of dust inasmuch as bodily organs cannot be made without dust (earthly material) but the body made of dust, must perish. Hence if the angels are also subject to death, one should like to know where they go after death. On the other hand if they do not die, they could not have been born, but if they were born, they would surely die. If this be the case, the statement of the Qoran that women in paradise live for ever cannot be valid inasmuch as they must also die. It follows, therefore, that all those who go to heaven will also die.

If Allah is in every direction why Muslims face only Mecca?

“Whichever way ye turn, there is the face of God.” (2:109.)

c. ~ If this is true, why do the Mohammedans turn their face towards Qibla (i.e., the sacred Mosque at Mecca)? If it be argued that they have been commanded to do so, to answer that they have also been permitted to turn their face in whatever direction they choose. Not which of these two (contradictory statements) should be held to be true. If God has a face, it can only be in one direction and not in all directions at one and the same time.

Allah’s omniscience in doubt, keeps a memorandum.

“When they come forth from Thy presence, a party of them broods by night over other than thy words; but God writeth down what they brood over. Desire ye to guide those whom God hath led astray? But for him whom God leadeth astray, thou shalt by no means find a pathway.” (4:90.)

C. ~ Now God cannot be Omniscient, since He keeps a Daybook and a Ledger. But if He be Omniscient, why would He keep a memorandum. The Mohammedans hold that the devil is wicked, since he tempts all. One should kike to know the difference between God and the Devil considering that God Himself leads the people astray. Of course, there is this much difference that God is the greater Devil of the two, because the Mohammedans themselves aver that he that enticeth is the devil. Verily their own affirmation makes out their God a veritable Devil.

Allah is also not omnipresent.

“Your Lord is God, who in six days created the Heaven and the Earth, and then mounted the throne. Call upon your God with lowliness and in secret.” (7:52, 53.)

C. ~ Can He, who creates the world in six days and rests on His throne in heaven, ever be an Omnipotent, and Omnipresent God? Being destitute of such attributes (as Omnipresence) He cannot even be called God? Is your God deaf that He can hear you only when He is spoken to (aloud)? All these things cannot be from God. Hence the Qoran cannot be the Word of God. He must have indeed got fatigued when He had to rest on the seventh day after having created the world in six days. We wonder if He is still asleep for has awakened. If He is awake, is He there doing something or just strolling about and enjoying Himself.

“Lay not earth waste with deeds of license.” (7:52.)

C. ~ This is indeed good advice, but in other places (in the Qoran) the faithful have been directed to wage war against infidels and even to slaughter them. Does not the Qoran now contradict itself? Ti appears that Mohammad must have adopted the first course when he was weak and the second one when he had gained power. These two teachings being self-contradictory cannot be true.

“So he threw down his rod, and lo! It distinctly became a serpent.” (5. 105.)

C. ~ This goes to indicate that even God and Mohammad believed in such false things. If so, both of them were ignorant. The laws of nature can never be subverted just as no man can make the eyes and the ears do the work of other senses. This is more jugglery.

“And we sent upon them the flood and the locusts and the lice and the frog and the blood. Therefore, we took vengeance on them and drowned then in the seal and we brought the children of Israel across the sea. For the worship they practice in vain.” (7: 130, 132, 134.)

C. ~ Now behold! Is it not just like what an imposter does when he frightens a man by saying that he will send snakes to kill him? Why is not God, who is bigoted that He drowns one nation in the sea in order to help the other to cross it, a sinner?

Can there be any religion more false than one that daubs all religions (other than itself), whose followers can be counted by millions, false and calls itself the only true one, since no religion can boast that all of its followers are good. It becomes only idiots to give an exparte decree. Has the religion founded n the Old Testament become false or was it some other faith, we should like to know what it was and by which name it is mentioned in the Qoran.

“Thou shalt not* see me. And when God manifested Himself to the mountain He turned it do dust! And Moses fell in a swoon.” (7: 139.)

Is Allah all-pervading?

“They shall continue therein forever: for God is a great reward. O true believers, take not your fathers or your brethren for friends, if they love infidelity above faith. Afterwards God sent down his security upon his apostle and upon the faithful, and sent down troops of angels, which ye saw not; and he punished them who disbelieved; and this was reward of the unbelievers. Nevertheless God will hereafter be turned unto whom He pleaseth. Fight against them who believe not in God.” *: 10, 12, 24, 25, 27.)

C. ~ Now how can God be All-pervading if He lives near those who are in paradise? But if He is not All-pervading, He can neither be the Creator nor the Judge of the world. It is wrong to advise men to forsake their parents of course, one should not obey them if the advise one to do wrong, but all the same one should always serve them.

If God was kind to the Mohammedans and sent down troops of angels to help them in the past, why does He not do so now? If He punished the unbelievers and “turned unto whom He pleased,” why does He not do the same at the present time? Could not God advance His faith without commanding His votaries to fight? We say good-bye to such a God! He is more of a showman than a God.

“We await for you the infliction of a chastisement by God, from Himself, or at our hands.” (8:53.)

C. ~ Do the Mohammedans constitute God’s police that He seizes non-Muslims either with His own hands or has been seized by the hands of the Mohammedans? Are millions of other people displeasing unto God, and are Mohammedans, though they might be sinners, pleasing unto Him? If such is the case, the Mohammedan God resembles a veritable tyrant. It is strange that even sensible Mohammedans should believe in a religion which has no foundation to rest upon, and is opposed to reason.

Is Allah limited by space like man?

“He governeth all things from heaven even to the earth, hereafter they shall return unto Him, on the day whose length shall be a thousand years, of those which ye compute. This He who knoweth the future and the present; the Mighty, the Merciful. And then formed him into proper shape, and breathed of His Spirit into him; say; the angel of death, who is set over you, shall cause you to die…If we had pleased, we had certainly given unto every soul its direction: but the word which hath proceeded from me must necessarily be fulfilled, when I said, verily I will fill hell with both genii and men.” (32: 4, 5, 8,10, 12.)

C. ~ Now it is quite clear that the God of the Mohammedans is limited by space like man, for if He were Omnipresent, it could not be said of Him that He is stationed at a particular place for the purpose of carrying on administrative work and that He descends and ascends. He cannot but be regarded as limited by space if He sends down angels and Himself remains hung up in the sky, while His emissaries are sent about on errands. How could God know it, if His angels were bribed into perverting the facts of a case or sparing the life of a doomed person.

He could find out only if He were Omniscient and Omnipresent, but that He is not. If He had been so, where was the need of sending angels and testing people in any way? Again, He cannot be said to be Omnipotent, because it takes a thousand years to arrange for the return of His emissaries. If there is an angel of death, what is there that will bring about his death? If it be said that that angel is eternal, then it will have to be believe that God is not Incomparable at least so far as eternity is concerned. One angel cannot ask many people to repair to hell simultaneously, and if God looks at the fun after filling hell with innocent people who have been doomed to torture, he is unrighteous, unjust and merciless. A book teaching such things cannot be the work of God or of a learned man, while a being devoid of justice and mercy cannot be Divine.

“Say, light shall not profit you, if ye fly from death or from slaughter: O wives of the Prophet, whosever of you shall commit a manifest wickedness, the punishment thereof shall be doubled unto her twofold, and this is easy with God.” 33: 16, 30.)

C. ~ Mohammad wrote or dictated this verse to keep people from running away from the field of battle so that victory might be assured to his army, his soldiers might not dread death, his wealth might increase and his religion might spread. If the wife of the prophet is not to appear in public shamelessly (without a veil), why should the prophet do so. It is just that the wife should suffer for this offence and the prophet escape scot free.

INTOLERANCE TOWARDS NON-MUSLIMS

behead those who insult islam

INTOLERANCE TOWARDS NON-MUSLIMS

 2. Praise be to God, the Lord of all creatures, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” (1: 1, 2.)

C. ~ Had the God of the Qoran been the Lord of all creatures, and been Merciful and kind to all, He would never have commanded the Mohammedans to slaughter men of other faiths, and animals, etc. If He is Merciful, will He show mercy even to the sinners? If the answer be given in the affirmative, it cannot be true, because further on it is said in the Qoran “Put Infidels to sword,” in other words, he that does not believe in the Qoran and the Prophet Mohammad is an infidel (he should, therefore, be put to death). (Since the Qoran sanctions such cruelty to non-Mohammedans and innocent creatures such as cows) it can never be the Word of God.

STONES FOR UNBELIEVERS

8. “If ye be in doubt concerning the revelation which we have send down into our servant, produce a chapter like unto it and call your witnesses, beside God, if ye say truth. But if ye do it not, nor shall ever be able to do it, justly fear the fire whose fuel is men, and stones prepared for the unbelievers.” (2:21, 22)

C. ~ Well! Is it impossible to produce a chapter like unto it? Did not Maulvi Fiazi in the time of king Akbar compile a Qoran without making use of any dotted letters in it? What kind of fire is the hell fire? Is not the fire (of this world) to be feared? The fire of this world also consumes anything that may be put into it.

Just as it is stated in the Qoran that stones have been prepared for the non-believers, likewise it is said in the Puraanaas that Malechhas* are doomed to hell. Now, which of these two statements should be accepted as correct? According to each of these, the adherents of one sect go to hell and those of the other to heaven. Both of these statements are therefore false. The truth is that only the good and the virtuous will enjoy happiness, while the wicked will be subjected to pain and suffering which faith they may belong to.

 

Slaying non-muslims and innocent animals to be on Allah’s path.

31. “And say not of those who are slain on God’s path that they are dead, nay, they are living! But ye understand not.” (2:149)

C. ~ Where is the necessity of slaying other and of being slain on God’s path? Why do you not say plainly that all this is meant for accomplishing your selfish ends. You hold out this inducement to people that they may fight well and help you to gain victory you’re your enemies and acquire wealth and power by looting other and thereby enable you to live in luxury and enjoy sensual pleasures.

32. “God is severe in chastising. Follow not the steps of Satan, He only enjoineth upon you evil and wickedness and that ye should aver of God that which ye know not.” (2: 164, 165.)

C. ~ You’re your God punish the wicked and reward the virtuous, or does He show mercy to the Mohammedans and torture others? If the latter, He is not God. But if your God is not partial (to your), He will reward the virtuous and punish the wicked whatever religion they may profess. This being the case, the belief in the Qoran and in Mohammad (as the prophet of God) becomes unnecessary. Why did God create Satan – the enemy of the human race who has been tempting all mankind. Is He not cognizant of the future? If you say, He has created Satan just to try man, it cannot be right, because only one who is possessed of finite knowledge would do such a thing; while One who is Omniscient is already aware of the good or evil deeds of the soul. Now if Satan tempts all mankind, who tempted Satan? If it be said that Satan tempts himself, why could not others tempt themselves? Where is then the necessity of supposing Satan to be the tempter of al mankind? If God was the tempter of the Devil, He was more devilish than the Devil. But such a thing could not be said of God. Whosoever goes astray from the right path does so through evil company and ignorance.

33. “But that which dieth of itself, and blood, and swine’s flesh, and that over which any other name than that of God hath been invoked is forbidden you.” (2: 168.)

C. ~ Now one should pause to think and realize that an animal whether it dies a natural death or is put to death, is a dead body all the same; of course there is a little difference but that difference counts for nothing so far as death is concerned. Swine’s flesh is forbidden (but not human flesh), shall we then conclude that is right to eat human flesh? Can it ever be commendable to torture animals to death in God’s name? This casts a blot on the good name of God.

Why does He suffer the animals to be tortured by the Mohammedans in the absence of sins committed in their previous lives (by those animals)? Is He not Merciful to them? Does He not love them as a father loves his children? God did not forbid the slaughter of such animals as are useful to man, and by failing to do it has proved Himself to be an enemy of the human race, and brought disgrace on Him by being guilty of having sanctioned the slaughter of (useful) animals. Such things can never be true of God or of His word.

The height of prejudice.

5. “If they do not withhold their hands, seize them, and slay them, wherever you find them. A believer killeth not a believer but by mischance, and whoso killeth a believer by mischance shall be bound to free a believer from slavery; and the blood money shall be made o the family of the slain believer unless they convert it into alms. But if the slain believer be of a hostile people, let him confer freedom on a slave who is a believer. But whoever shall kill a believer of a set purpose, his recompense shall be hell, for ever shall he abide in it, God shall be wrathful with him.” (4: 94-96.)

C. ~ This is the height of prejudice. The Qoran enjoins on its believers to kill the non-Mohammedans but to spare the Mohammedans. If they dill heir co-religionists by mischance, they shall have to make aments for it by freeing a believer from slavery, but if they kill non-Mohammedans, even though it be through a mistake, they shall inherit Heaven.

Such teachings deserve to be utterly discarded. Such a book, such a Prophet and such a religion do nothing but harm. The world would be better off without them. Wise men would do well to discard a religion so absurd and accept the Vedic faith which is absolutely free from error. The Mohammedans say that one who kills a Mohammedan shall be condemned to a residence in hell; on the other hand, believers in other religions contend that a man attains to heaven by killing a Mohammedan, now which of the two should one believe to be true and which false?

The fact is that all false creeds begotten of ignorance should be renounced, the Vedic religion alone deserving the allegiance of all – a religion which directs every human being to follow in the footsteps of the righteous and shun the path of the wicked.

59. “But whosoever shall sever himself from the Prophet after that ” the guidance” has been manifested to him, shall follow any other path than that of the faithful, we will cast him into hell.” (4: 135.)

C. ~ Now mark the prejudice of God and of His Prophet! Mohammad like other men of his stamp, was well aware that if he did not stamp his religion with divine authority it would never flourish, or would he or his followers be able to obtain help and power which might help them to live a life of ease and luxury. All this goes to show that Mohammad knew only too well how to compass his selfish ends and to deprive others of their due – a fact which proves that he was no well-wisher of humanity. Such a man can never command the trust and confidence of good and enlightened men.

60. “Verily, they who believed, then become unbelievers, then believed and again became unbelievers, and then increased their unbelief – it is not God who will forgive them, or guide them into the way.” (4: 134.) “Whoever believed, not in God and His Angels and His Book and His Apostles, and the last day, he verily hath erred.” (4: 135.)

C. ~ Can you ever now assert that God is one without a second? Is it not self-contradictory to call God Incomparable and yet at the same time believe that there are others who share Divine privileges with Him? Does not God forgive sins after He has done so three times? Does not God guide men after they have denied Him and His Prophet more than three times? Even if all were to take advantage of the teachings of this verse, unbelief will multiply immensely.

 

Was one man created in the beginning of Creation or more than one?

men and women

Was one man created in the beginning of Creation or more than one?

Q- Was one man created in the beginning of Creation or more than one?

 A.~ More than one; because souls, that on account of their previous good actions deserve to be born in the Aishwari – not the result of sexual intercourse – Creation, are born in the beginning of the world. It is said in the Yajur Veda, “(In the beginning) there were born many men as well as rishis, i.e.., learned seers of nature. They were progenitors of the human race.” On the authority of this Vedic text it is certain then that in the beginning of Creation hundreds and thousands of men were born. By observing nature with the aid of reason we come to the same conclusion, viz., that men are descended from many fathers and mothers (i.e., not from one father and one mother).

Q-  In the beginning of Creation were men created as children, adults or old people or in all conditions?

A.~ They were adults, because had God created them as children they would have required adults to bring them up, and had created them as old men, they would not have been able to propagate the race, therefore He created them adults.

Q-  Does creation ever had a beginning?

A.~ No; just as the night follows the day and the day follows the night, the night precedes the day and day precedes the night, so does Creation follows Dissolution and Dissolution follows Creation, Dissolution precede Creation, and Creation precede Dissolution. This alternate process has been eternally going on. It has neither a beginning, nor an end, but just as the beginning and end of a day or of a night are seen, so do Creations and Dissolutions have beginnings as well as ends. God, the soul and prakriti – the primordial elementary matter – are eternal by nature, whilst Creation, and Dissolution are eternal by pravah -i.e., they follow each other in alternate succession – like the flow of a river which is not continuous throughout the whole year. It dries up and disappears in summer, and reappears in the rainy season. Jus as the nature, attributes, and character of God are eternal, so are His works – the Creation, Sustenance, and Dissolution (of the world).

Does not the belief of souls in lower beings impute partiality?

Q- God put some souls in human bodies, while others he clothed with bodies of ferocious animals such as tigers, others with those of cattle, such as cows, others with those of birds and insects, other still with those of plants. Does not this belief impute partiality to God?

A.~ No, it does not impute any partiality, because He put souls into the bodies they deserved according to deeds done in the previous birth. Had He done so without any consideration as to the nature of their deeds, He would have been unjust indeed.

 

Revelation of Vedas

vedas 1

Revelation of Vedas

Q. Whose hearts did God reveal the Vedas in?

A.-“In the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas, Rig, Vayu, Sama, and Atharva, to Agni, Vayu, A’ditya and Angira, respectively.” SHAPATHA BRAHMAN 11: 4,2.3.

Q.But it is written in the Shwetashwetar Upanishad, ” In the beginning God created Brahma and revealed the Vedas in his heart.”SHEWTAR UPANISHAD 6:18. Why do you say that they were revealed to Agni, and other sages?

A.- Brahma was instructed in the knowledge of the Veda through the medium of the four sages , such as Agni. Mark what Manu Says: “In the beginning after human being had been created, the Supreme Spirit made the Vedas known to Brahma through Agni, etc., i.e., Brahma learnt the four Vedas from Agni, Vayu, A’ditya and Angira.” MANU: 23

Q. Why should He have revealed the Vedas to those four men alone and not to others as well? That imputes favouritism to God.

A.- Among all men those four alone were purest in heart, therefore, God revealed the true knowledge to them only.

Q. Why did He reveal the Veda in Sanskrit instead of a language of some particular country?

A.~ Had He revealed the Veda in the language of some particular country, He would have been partial to that country, because it would have been easier for the people of that country to learn and teach the Veda than for the foreigners, therefore, it is that He did it in Sanskrit that belongs to no country, and is the mother of all other languages. Just as He has ordained the material creation such as the earth, etc., which is also the source of all the useful arts, for the equal good of all, so should the language of the Divine revelation be accessible to all countries and nations with the same amount of labour. Hence the revelation of the Veda in Sanskrit does not make God partial to any nation

Evidence that proves the the Vedas to be Divine revelation.

Q. What evidence have you to prove that the Veda in Sanskrit is of Divine origin and not the work of man?

A- The book in which God is described as He is, viz., Holy, Omniscient, Pure in nature, character and attributes, Just, Merciful, etc., and in which nothing is said that is opposed to the laws of nature reason, the evidence of direct cognizance, etc., the teachings of the highly learned altruistic teachers of humanity (A’ptas), and the intuition of pure souls, and in which the laws, nature, and properties of matter and the soul are propounded as they are to be inferred from the order of nature as fixed by God, is the book of Divine revelation. Now the Vedas alone fulfil all the above conditions, hence they are the revealed books and not books, like the Bible and the Q’uran which we shall discuss fully in the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters (of this book) respectively.

Q.There is no necessity for the Veda to be revealed by God. Men can by themselves by degrees augment their knowledge and thereafter make books as well.

A.- No, they cannot do that, because there can be no effect without a cause. Look at savages such as the Bhils. Do they ever become enlightened by themselves without being instructed by others? The same is true of men in civilized communities, they need to be taught before they become educated. Similarly, had not God instructed the primitive sages in the knowledge of the Veda and had not they in their turn taught other men, all men would have remained ignorant. If a child were kept in a sequestered place from its very birth with no other company but that of illiterate persons or animals, on attaining maturity he would be no better than one of his company.

.

Take for example the case of Egypt, Greece, or the Continent of Europe. The people of all these countries were without a trace of learning before the spread of knowledge from India. In the same way before Columbus and other Europeans went to America, the natives had been without any learning for hundreds and thousands of years. Now some of them have become enlightened after receiving education from the Europeans. Similarly, in the beginning of the world men received knowledge from God and since then there have been various learned men in different periods, Says Patanjali in his Yoga Shastra.

“As in the present time we become enlightened only after being taught by our teachers, sowerein the beginning of the world, Agni and the other three Rishis (sages), taught by the greatest of all teachers – God.” YOGA SHASTRA SAMADHI, 26. His knowledge is eternal. He is quite unlike the human soul that becomes devoid of consciousness in profound sleep and during the period of dissolution. It is certain, therefore, that no effect can be produced without a cause.

Q- The Vedas were revealed in the Sanskrit language. Those Rishis were ignorant of that language. How did they then understand the Vedas?

A.- They were made known to them by God, and whenever great Sages, who were yogis, imbued with piety, and with the desire to understand the meanings of certain mantras and whose minds possessed the power of perfect concentration, entered the superior condition, called Samaadhi, in contemplation of Deity. He made known unto them the meanings of the desired mantras. When the Vedas were thus revealed to many Rishis, they made expositions with historical illustrations of the Vedic mantras and embodied them in books called the Brahmanas which literally means an exposition of the Veda.

 

“The names of the Rishis, who were seers of certain mantras and for the first time published and taught the exposition of those mantras, are written along with those mantras as token remembrance.” Nirukta 1-20. Those who look upon those Rishis as the authors of the mantras should be considered absolutely in the wrong. They were simply seers of those mantras.

Q. Which books are called the Vedas?

A.- The book called the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda and the Atharva Veda – the Mantras Sanhitas only and no other.

Q. But the sage Katyayana says. The mantras Sanhitas together with the Brahmanas constitute the Vedas.

A.- You must have noticed that in the beginning of every Mantra Sanhita and at the end of each of its chapters it has always been the practice from time immemorial to write the word Veda, but it is never done so in the case of Brahmanas. We read in the Nirukt, “This is in the Veda, this is in the Brahmanas;” NIRUKT 5: 3 & 4 – in the same way we read in Panini, ” In the Chhanda (Veda) and Brahmanas, etc.” ASHTADHYAYI 4: 2, 66. It is clear from these quotations that the Veda is the name of books distinct from the Brahmanas. The Veda is what is called the Mantra Sanhita or a recollection of mantras, whilst the Brahmanas are the expositions of those mantras. Those who want to know more about this subject can consult our book called ” An introduction to the Exposition of the Vedas”, wherein it is proved on the authority of various kinds of evidence that the above quotation quoted as Katyayan”s could never be his. Because if we believe that, the Veda, could never be eternal, for in the Brahmanas there are to be found biographies of various Rishis and Sages, kings and princes; but since biographies of persons can only be written after their birth, the Brahmanas that contain those biographies must have been written after the birth of those Rishis and kings, etc., and therefore, cannot be eternal. The Veda does not contain the biography of any person, on the other hand in it only those words are used by which knowledge is made known. There is no mention of any proper names fo any particular event or individual in the Veda.

Q- How many Shaakhaas (branches) are there of the Veda?

A.- Eleven hundred and twenty-seven.

Q.What are Shaakhaas (branches)? A.- The expositions are called shaakhaas.

Q.We, hear of learned people speaking of the different parts of the Veda as shaakhaas. Are they wrong?

A.- If you think over it a little, you will understand that they are in the wrong, because all the Shaakhaas are attributed to Rishis such as Ashwalaayani and others, whilst the authorship of the Veda is ascribed to God. It other words, as the author of the four Vedas is believed to be God, so are Rishis held to be the authors of the shaakhaas, such as Ashwalaayani. And besides, all the shaakhaas take Veda texts and expound them, while in the Veda texts only are given. Therefore, the four Vedas – the books of Divine revelation – are like the trunk of a tree, whose branches (shaakhaas) are the books, such as Ashwalaayani, written by Rishis and not revealed by God,

As the parents are kind to their children and wish for their children and wish for their welfare, so has the Supreme Spirit, out of kindness to all men, revealed the Veda by whose study men are freed from ignorance and error, and may attain the light of true knowledge and thereby enjoy extreme happiness as well as advance knowledge and promote their welfare.

Q. Are the Vedas eternal or non-eternal?

A.- They are eternal. God being eternal, His knowledge and attributes must necessarily be eternal, because the nature, attributes and character of an eternal substance are also eternal and vice versa.

Q ~ Oh, I see. God must have given knowledge to those Rishis who afterwards composed the Vedas. Is that what you mean?

A.- There can be no ideas without words. No one but an All-knowing Being has the power to make such compositions as are full of all kinds of knowledge and require the perfect knowledge of music and poetry, meters, such chhandhaas and notes, etc. True, after having studied the Vedas, the Rishis, in order to elucidate the various branches of learning, made books on Grammar, Philology, Music and Poetry, etc. Had not God revealed the Vedas, no man would have been able to write anything. The Vedas, therefore, are revealed books. All men should conduct themselves according to their teachings, and when questioned as to his religion let everyone answer that his religion is Vedic, i.e., he believes in whatever is said in the Vedas.

 

VAIDIK PRAYERS

prayers

PRAYERS

Prayer to God is to be addressed in the following way:- “Endow us, O Lord, who art All-glorious, through thy mercy, at this very instant with that wisdom which the wise, the learned, and yogis pray for.” YAJUR VEDA32: 14.

“Thou art Light, be merciful and shed that light into my heart. Thou art Infinite energy, through Thy grace endow me with unfailing energy. Thou are Infinite strength, endow me with strength. Thou art Infinite power, endow me with great power. Thou art wrathful with the wicked, make me also wrathful.

Thou art moved neither by slander, nor by praise. Thou art forbearing towards those who offend against Thee, make me also forbearing.” YAJUR VEDA 20: 9.

“May, O Ocean of Mercy, through thy grace my mind – the mind that in the wakeful state travels long distances, and, possesses brilliant qualities, which self-same mind – light of the senses – in sleep attains to the state of profound slumber and in dreams wanders over different places – always entertain pure thoughts for the good of the self as well as for that of all other living beings. May it never desire to injure any one.” YAJUR VEDA 34:1.

“May, O Omniscient God, my mind – which is the source of all activity and which, thereby, enables men of learning, piety and courage to perform acts of great public good and heroic deeds on the field of battle and other occasions, which possess wonderful powers and admirable qualities and rules the senses – harbour only righteous desires and completely renounce sin and vice.” YAJUR VEDA 34: 2.

“May, O lord, my mind – the mind which is the repository of the highest form of knowledge, is the faculty for consciousness and judgement, is the light of the senses, and is immortal, the mind without which a man is powerless to do even the most insignificant thing – aspire for purity and shun wickedness.” YAJUR VEDA 34: 3.

“May, O Lord of the Universe, my mind – the mind which is the medium through which all yogis acquire knowledge of the past, the present and the future which becomes the means of the union of the immortal human soul with the Supreme Spirit and thereby makes it cognizant of the three periods of time (past, present and the future),

the mind which is capable of conscious exertion and is closely united with the five sense, the faculty of discernment and the soul, and is the means of the advancement of that great Yajna called yoga – be endowed with true knowledge and yoga and thereby be freed from all kinds of pain and ignorance.” YAJUR VEDA 43: 4.

“May, O Great God, Wises of the wise, through Thy grace, my mind – which like the hub of a wheel into which all the spokes are inserted, is the repository of the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, The Sama Veda and also the Atharva Veda, the mind in which Omniscient, Omnipresent conscious Being – the Witness of all – makes Himself known – be freed from all ignorance and be endowed with the love of knowledge.” YAJUR VEDA 34: 5

“May, O Lord, the Controller of the Universe, my mind – which is like a driver who can swing the horses around in all directions, sways men hither and thither, is seated in the heart, possessed of great activity and extreme energy – restrain all the senses from treading the path of wickedness and always direct them in the path of righteousness. Mayestt, Thou O Lord, of Thy kindness grant me this prayer.” YAJUR VEDA 34: 6.

“Lead us, O Bestower of all happiness, Omniscient, Supreme Spirit, into the path of rectitude and thereby inspireus withh all kinds of knowledge and wisdom, rid us of all that is false and sinful in our conduct, and make us pure. To ths end, we in all humility repeatedly praise and adore Thee.” YAJUR VEDA 40: 16.

“Mayest not, Thou, O Punisher of the wicked, destroy our young ones, nor our old ones, foetuses, mothers, and fathers, nor those who are dear to us, nor our relations, nor our bodies. Direct us to that path by following which we may not be liable to punishment by Thy Law.” YAJUR VEDA 16: 15.

“Lead us, O Supreme Spirit, Teacher of teachers, from falsehood unto rectitude, from darkness into light of knowledge, from death and disease to immortality and Eternal Happiness.” SHATPATHA 14:3,1,30.

Prayer is said to be Positive or Negative according as the Deity is looked upon as possessed of good attributes or as free from bad qualities, faults and imperfections.

A man should act in accordance with what he prays for. For example, if he prays for the attainment of highest wisdom, let him do his utmost to attain it. In other words, prayer should be addressed to God for the attainment of an object after one has strenuously endeavoured to attain it. No on should pray in the following manner, nor does God ever answer such a prayer:-

‘O lord! destroy my enemies, make me superior to all. Let me alone be honoured by all, make all other subordinate to me, etc.’ For, if both enemies were to pray for each other’s destruction, should God destroy both of them? If some one were to say that of the two let that man’s prayer be granted who bears more love to God, we answer that the enemy of the man whose love is less, should also suffer destruction in a lesser degree. If people began to address such foolish prayers, the next thing they will do, will be to pray in this manner, “O God! Cook our food for us, put it on the table for us, scrub our houses, do our washing, till our land, and do a bit of gardening a well for us.” The greatest fools are they who, trusting in God in this wise, remain slothful and indolent; because who so- ever will obey God’s commandment to work assiduously will never be happy. God commands thus:-

Let a man aspire to live by doing work for a hundred years, i.e. as long as he lives. Let him never be lazy.” Behold! all the animate and the inanimate objects in this universe perform their respective functions. The ants and other creatures are always active, the earth and other planets are always in motion, the trees are always growing or decaying. Man should take a lesson from these. As men help him who helps himself, so does God help him who works righteously, just as servants do their work only if the master himself is active and not lazy.

Only a man with eyes and with a desire to see can be made to see and not a blind man, likewise God lends his help in answer to those prayers only that aim at the good of all, and not those that are meant to injure any one. He who only keeps on saying ‘sugar is sweet, sugar is sweet’ can never taste the sweetness of sugar, nor obtain it but he, who tries for it, sooner or later is sure to get it.

Is God formless or embodied?

god formless or embodied

Is God formless or embodied?

 Q – If God be formless, this world created by Him should also be formless, just as in the case of other living beings, such as men, – children have bodies like their parents. Had they been formless, their children would have been the same. A.- What a childish question! We have already stated that God is not the material cause of the universe. He is only its efficient cause. It is prakriti and paramanus – the premordial elementary matter and atoms, – which are less subtle than God, that are the material cause of the world. They are not altogether formless but are subtler than other material objects, while less subtle as compared to God.

11. If God be formless, this world created by Him should also be formless A.-No; because that which does not exist (in any form) cannot be called into existence. It is absolutely impossible. It is as much as impossible for an effect to be produced without its cause as the story of a man, who would brag in the following way, to be true. “I saw a man and a woman being married whose mothers never bore any children. They had boys made of human horns, and wore garlands of ethereal flowers. They bathed in the water of mirage and lived in a town of angels where it rained without clouds, and cereals and vegetables grew without any soil, etc.,” or ” I had neither father nor mother and yet came into being. I have no tongue in my mouth and lo! I can speak. There was no snake in the hole and yet one came out of it. I was nowhere, nor were these people, and yet we are all here.” Only lunatics can believe and say such things.

Cannot God create an effect without cause?

Q. If there can be no effect without a cause, what is the cause of the first cause then?

A.- Whatsoever is an absolute cause, can ever be an effect of another, but that which is the cause of one and the effect of another is called a relative cause. Take an example. The earth is the cause of a house but an effect of liquids (Liquids are the causes of solids as they precede them in the order of formation. The earth is solid), but the first cause, prakriti (matter) has no other cause, viz., it is beginningless or eternal. Says the Saankhya Darshana, 1: 67 “The first having no cause is the cause of all effects.” Every effect must have three causes before it comes into existence; just as before a piece of cloth can be made, it must have three things – the weaver, the thread and machinery, in the same way the creation of the world pre-supposes the existence of God, the prakriti, the souls, time and space which are all uncreated and eternal. There would be no world if even one ot them were absent.

The various objections of atheists are answered below:

 If there can be no effect without a cause, what is the cause of the first cause then

Q-    Shoonya (nought or nothing) is the one true reality. In the beginning there was nothing but nothing, and nothing will survive in the end; because whatever now exists will cease to exist and become nothing

A.- The ether, an invisible substance (such a prakriti), the space and a point are also called nothing. It is inanimate and all things invisibly exist in it. Lines are made up of points, while circle, squares, etc., are made of lines. Thus has God, by the might of His creative power, evolved the earth, mountains and objects of all other shapes and forms out of a point or nebula – nothing. Besides, He who knows nothing cannot be nothing. [Hence shoonya (nothing) does not here mean nothing put a point or a nebula.]

Can something come out of nothing?

 Q. Something can come out of nothing , just as a seed does not germinate and send forth a sprout until it is split, but when you break a seed an look into it, you do not find any sprout in it. It is clear then that the sprout comes out of nothing.

A.- That which splits a seed before it germinates, must have already been present in the ee, otherwise what causes the see to split? Nor would it have come out had it not been there.

Do we sow what we reap?

Q. It is not true ‘As you sow so shall you reap,’ Many an act is seen that does not bear fruit; therefore it is right it infer that it entirely rest with God to punish or reward a man for his deeds. It absolutely depends upon His wish.

A.- If it were so, why does not God reward or punish a man for deeds he has never done? It follows, therefore, that God gives every man his due according to the nature of his deeds. God does not reward or punish men according to the caprice of his Will. On the other hand, He makes a man reap only what he has sown

Can effects can be produced without a cause?

Q. Effects can be produced without a cause just as the sharp thorns of Acacia Arabica spring out of the branches that are not at all sharp and pointed but are soft and smooth. It is clear from this illustration, therefore, that in the beginning of Creation all material objects and bodies of living beings come into being without (first) cause.

A.- Whatever a thing springs from, is its cause. Thorns do not come out of nothing. They come out of a thorny tree, therefore, that tree is their cause. Hence the world was not created without a cause.

Q. All things have been created and are liable to decay. They are all ephemeral. The Neo-Vedantis put forward objections like this, because they say, “Thousands of books support the doctrine that Brahma alone is the true reality., the world is a delusion and the soul is not distinct from Brahma (God). All else is unreal.”

A.- All can not be unreal if the fact of their being unreal is real.

Q. Even the fact of their being unreal is unreal. Just as fire not only burns other things and thus destroys them, but is itself destroyed after others have been destroyed.

A.- That which is perceptible by the senses cannot be unreal or nothing, nor can the extremely subtle matter – the material cause of the world – be unreal or perishable. The Neo-Vedantis hold Brahma as the (material) cause of the universe; He – the cause – being real, the world – the effect – cannot be unreal. If it were said that the material world is only a material conception and, therefore, unreal like the objects seen in a dream or life a piece of rope seen in the dark and mistaken for a snake, it cannot be true; because a conception or an idea is something abstract which cannot remain apart from the noumenon wherein it resides.

When one that conceives (viz., the soul) is real, the conception cannot be unreal, otherwise you will have to admit that the soul is also unreal. You cannot see a thing in a dream unless you have seen or heard of it in the wakeful state, in other words, when the various objects of this world come in contact without senses, they give rise to percepts called knowledge by direct cognition – which leave impressions on our souls, it is these impressions which are recalled by, and become vivid to the soul in dreams. If it be possible for a man to dream of things of which he has had no impressions in his mind, a man born blind, should dream of colours which is not the case. It follows, therefore, that in the mind are retained impressions and ideas of external things that exist in the outside world. And just as external things continue to exist even after a man ceases to have any consciousness of them as in sound sleep, so does prakriti- the material cause of the world – continue to exist ever after Dissolution.

 Why not believe that the external things seen in the wakeful state is unreal?

Q- As the external objects pass out of our consciousness in slumber and those seen in a dream in the state of profound sleep, i.e., perish as far as we are concerned, in the same way why not believe that the external things seen in the wakeful state are also unreal?

A.- No, we cannot believe that; because both in slumber and profound sleep the external objects only pass out of our consciousness. They do not cease to exist, just as different things lying behind us are simply invisible to us but are there, and have not ceased to exist. Therefore, what we have said before, that God , the soul and the prakriti – the material cause – are real entities, is alone true.

If the five states of matter is eternal why isn’t the world eternal?

Q. The five bhuts – five states of matter as Prithivi (solids), Apah (liquid) etc., – being eternal, the whole world is eternal or imperishable.

A.- No, it is not true; because if all those objects, the cause of whose formation or disintegration is seen every day, be eternal, the whole material visible world with all such perishable things as the bodies of men and animals, houses, and their furniture and the like would be eternal, which is absurd. Therefore, the effects can never be eternal.

Are all things distinct from each other?

Q. All things are distinct from each other, There is no unity in them. Whatever we see precludes another.

A.-The whole exists in its parts. Time, ether, space, God, and Order and Genus, though separate entities, are yet common to all. There is nothing that can exist separate from or without them. Hence all these are not separate from each other, though they are different by nature. Thus there is unity in variety.

Q. All things exclude each other, and are therefore non-existent, just as a cow is not a horse, nor is a horse a cow. Therefore, both the horse and the cow are non-existent. Similarly, all things are as if non-existent.

A.- Though it is true that the ‘relation of one thing excluding others does exist in all things, but a thing does not exclude itself. For example, a cow is not a horse, nor is a horse a cow; but a cow as a cow and a horse as a horse do exist. If things were non-existent how could you ever speak of this Itretaraabhaava relation i.e., ‘the relation of one thing excluding others from itself’. [Hence the world and things contained therein do exist. They are not non-existent.

There can be no creator.

Q. The world comes into being by virtue of the fact that it is in the nature of things to combine together and produce different things. Just as maggots are produced the coming together of food, moisture and by decomposition setting in; or as vegetables begin to grow when the seed, water, and soil are brought together under favourable conditions; or as the wind blowing on the sea is the cause of waves that in turn produce merchaum, which mixed with turmeric, lime and lemon juice forms what is called concrete, so does this world come into being by virtue of the natural properties of the elements. There is no Creator.

A.-If formation be the natural property of matter, there would be no dissolution or disintegration; and if you say that disintegration is also a natural property of matter, there could then be no formation. But if you say that both formation and disintegration are the natural properties of matter, there could then be neither formation nor disintegration. If you say that an efficient agent is the cause of the creation and dissolution of the world, it must be other than and distinct from the objects that are subject to formation and disintegration.

If formation and disintegration be the natural properties of matter, they may happen at any and every moment. Besides, if there is no Maker and the world came into being by virtue of the natural properties inherent in matter, why do not other earths, suns and moons come into existence near our earth? Moreover, whatever now grows or comes into being, does so by virtue of the combination of different substances – made by God. Just as plants grow wherever the water soil and the seed come in contact under favourable conditions, and not otherwise; in the same way in the manufacture of concrete its components such as turmeric, lime, lemon juice and merchaum do not come together by themselves, but are mixed up together by some one, nor dot hey produce concrete unless mixed in their right proportion. Similarly, the prakriti and atoms, until they are properly combined by God with the requisite knowledge and skill, cannot by themselves produce anything. It follows, therefore, that the world did not come into being by itself, i.e., by virtue of the natural properties of matter, but was created by God.

It was never created nor shall it ever perish.

Q. This world has had no Creator, nor is there one at present, nor, shall there ever be one. It has been eternally existing as such. It was never created nor shall it ever perish.

A.- No action or thing – which is the product of action – can ever come into existence without an agent. All objects to this world such as the earth, are subject to the processes of formation, that is, are the product of definite combination. They can never be eternal, because a thing which is the product of combination can never exist after its component parts come as under. If you do not believe it, take the hardest rock or a diamond or a piece of steel and smash it into pieces, melt or roast it and see for yourself if it is composed of separate particles, called molecules and atoms, or not. If it is, then surely a time will come when those molecules will come apart.

Can the highly exalted soul become God?

Q. There is not Eternal God, on the other hand a highly exalted soul, that by the practice of yoga attains such power as the control of atoms, etc., and omniscience, becomes God.

A.- Had there been not Eternal God, the Creator of the universe, Who would have made the bodies, the sense organs and all objects of this world, the very support and means of subsistence of the yogi, by means of which he comes to possess such wonderful powers? Without their help no one can endeavour to accomplish anything. The endeavour being impossible how could he have acquired those wonderful powers? Whatsoever efforts a man may make, whatsoever means he may employ, whatsoever powers he may acquire, he can never equal God in His natural – in contradistinction to the soul’s acquired – Everlasting or Eternal powers which are infinite and manifold; because, the knowledge of the soul, even if it were to go on improving till eternity, will still remain finite and his powers limited. Its power and knowledge can never become infinite. Mark, no yogi has ever been able to subvert the laws of nature as ordained by God, nor ever shall. God – the Eternal Seer – possessed of wonderful powers has ordained that eyes shall be the organs of sight, and ears the organs of hearing. The human soul can never become God.

In different cycles of Creation does God make the universe of a uniform or a different

Q. In different cycles of Creation does God make the universe of a uniform or a different character?

A.- Just as it is now, so was it in the past, so will it be in the future. It is said in the Veda, “Just as God created the sun, the earth, the moon , the electricity, the atmosphere in the previous cycles, so has He done in the present and so will He do in the future.” RIG VEDA 10: 190, 3. God’s works, being free from error or flaw, are always of uniform character. It is only the works of one who is finite and whose knowledge is subject to increase or decrease that can be erroneous or faulty, not those of God.

How can the punishment, that God inflicts on the soul, reform it..

punishment and god

 How can the punishment, that God inflicts on the soul, reform it..

 

Q. How can the punishment, that God inflicts on the soul, reform it..

 

… when it cannot remember its past; because the punishment could prevent it from committing any further sins only if it were to know that such and such a punishment was meted out to it for such and such a sin.

 

A.~ How many kinds of knowledge do you believe in?

 

Q. Eight kinds, such as knowledge through direct cognition, through Inference, through analogy, etc.

 

A.~ Why can you not then infer the existence of the previous life of the soul form seeing different peple born and brought up under different conditions in this world such as affluence and poverty, happiness and misery, talent and idiocy, etc. Suppose a physician and a layman are taken ill. The physician at once finds out the cause that brought on the disease on him, while the layman cannot; because the former has studied Medical Science while the latter has not. But even the layman knows this much that he must have violated some law of nature – dietetic or sanitary, etc., – to bring on the disease, such as fever. Similarly, why can you not infer the pre-existence of the soul by observing people afflicted with pain and suffering, or endowed with pleasures or joys of this world in unequal proportions – results of their actions not in the present life? If you refuse to believe in the pre-existence of the soul, how do you think it to be consistent with the justice of God to bless some with riches, power, and talent, etc., while afflict others with poverty, suffering, idiocy and the like without their having done anything – good or evil – in their previous lives to deserve them? God can be just only when He gives the soul pleasure or pain according to its good or evil deeds done in its previous lives.

 

Q. The belief in the unity of birth is not inconsistent with the justice of God. He is like a Sovereign Ruler, whatsoever he does is just. He may also be likened to a gardener who implants trees big and small in his grove, some he trims, others he cuts down, others still he protects (from wind and cattle, etc.), improves and multiples. One can do whatever one likes with one/s own. In like manner, God can do whatever He likes (with His world). There is no one above Him who could punish Him or whom He should fear.

 

A.~ God always desires justice and acts justly, therefore, it is that he is Great and worthy of our homage and adoration. He would not be God if He acted unjustly. A gardener who plants trees aimlessly or promenades or other places, cuts down trees that do not require cutting, multiplies those that are fit to be multiplied, and does not multiply those that are suitable for multiplying, is worthy of blame.

 

In like manner would God be blameworthy were He to act without a reasonable cause. It is absolutely necessary for God to act justly, because He is pure and just by nature. Should He act like a madman? He would even be beneath a good judge of this world, and would no longer be honoured. Does not a judge, in this world, who punishes the innocent and awards honour t those who have done nothing to deserve it, merit blame and forfeit his honour? God never does anything that is unjust. He, therefore, fears none.

 

God has pre-ordained all. He gives one or acts by one whatsoever He had determined before-hand to give or do.

 

A.~ His determination is always in accordance with the actions of the soul. Should it be otherwise, He would be unjust and guilty.

 

All men have the same amount of misery and happiness. .

 

The great have great cares, whilst the small have small troubles and cares. A rich merchant, for instance, has a law suit, of say 100,000 rupees, in a Court of law. He leaves his house in a palanquin (borne on the shoulders of men) for the Court on a very hot day. The ignorant, when they see him thus passing through a street, cry out “Behold the might of virtue land vice. One is comfortably sitting in the palanquin, whilst the others are bearing him on their shoulders bare-footed with a burning ground underneath and a scorching sun over head.” But the wise know that as the Court is drawing nigh, the anxiety of the merchant, his doubts and fears are increasing, while the palanquin bearers are getting easier at the prospect of being soon relieved from their burden

 

When at last they get to the court, the merchant thinks of going hither and thither. He soliloquizes thus “Shall I go to see by counsel or shall I see the clerk of the Court first? Shall I win or lose to-day? Oh! I wish I knew what was going to happen” and so on. The palanquin bearers, on the other hand, chat together, smoke, feel happy, and enjoy their siesta. If the merchant wins, he feels a bit happy, if he loses, he sinks into the depths of misery, whilst the palanquin bearers are affected neither one way nor the other.

 

They remain just as they were before the case was decided. Similarly, when a king lays himself down on his beautiful and soft bed, he does not go to sleep quicker than a labourer who falls asleep as soon as he stretches himself on uneven earth covered with stones and pebbles. The same is true of all other conditions seemingly unequal.

 

A.~ Only the ignorant can believe that all are equally happy or miserable. If a rich merchant and apalanquin bearer were asked to change their places with one another, the merchant would never like to become a palanquin bearer, while the latter would simply jump at the offer. Had they been equally happy or miserable, the merchant would never have refused to change his place with the palanquiin bearer, nor, would the latter have liked to become a rich merchant.

 

Behold the difference between the happiness and misery of the different people! One soul comes into the womb of the queen of a great righteous and learned king, whilst another in that of the wife of a poor miserable grass-cutter. One is happy and well-cared for in every way since the day of its conception, whilst the other suffers in a hundred different ways. When one is born, he is bathed with pure fragrant water, and his cord is carefully cut. He is properly fed and cared for. When he is hungry, he is given milk mixed with sugar and other necessary ingredients in proper proportions. There are servants to wait upon him, toys for him to play with, conveyances to take him out to pretty and healthy places. He is well-loved, and is happy. The other is born in a jungle, where not even water is to be had to wash him. When he is hungry and wants milk, he slapped on the face instead, cries most pitifully, but no one attends to him and so on.

 

The infliction of suffering or the awarding of happiness to souls, without their having previously done acts – sinful or virtuous – to deserve it, would disgrace God. Besides, if we suffer or enjoy here in this world without having previously done anything – sinful or virtuous – our going to Hell or Heaven after d4ath ought not to be dependent on our deeds done in this life, because just as God has given us pleasure or pain her without our having previously done sinful or virtuous deeds, so would He send some of us to Hell, others to Heaven just according to His pleasure.

 

Why should men then practice virtue. (If this logic be accepted) all would become wicked and lead sinful lives; because it is doubtful if virtue will bear any fruit. It all rests with God. He would do just as it would please Him. No one will thus fear sin which will consequently multiply, whilst virtue will decay. It follows therefore that the present birth of the soul is in accordance with its deeds – sinful and virtuous – in the past, whilst the future will be determined by its present and past modes of life – righteous or unrighteous.