Category Archives: English

Vedic Religion

Vedas For Beginners 5 : Is Idol worship justified?

Leave a comment

K: When God is formless how to meditate on Him?

V: Meditation is of two kinds. One is about worldly things and living beings and other one is about God who is beyond senses and All-controlling. We meditate about worldly things when we see them or get parted from them. For ex, I saw a woman in Calcutta. We became friendly. Next, I saw her in Bombay after five years. Immediately I remember her as the woman I met at Calcutta. Secondly, when we part ourselves. For ex, my friend left for tour. Frequently, I would remember where she could be now? When we are together the question of meditation does not arise. Because how could we meditate when she is already before me? But when she parted she is remembered. These are all about worldly things. But the meditation about God is different. To meditate means is to keep mind away from materials and subjects. In other words, zeroing on Soul whose strength is spread over mind and senses. So long the mind and senses are preoccupied with worldly things the soul cannot meditate on God. It is necessary therefore before undertaking meditation that the mind and senses are not allowed by habit to be drawn towards materials and subjects. Meditation is also called as Dhyana, is the seventh step in Yoga. First, yama Niyama Asana, pranayama, pratyahara, Dharana, are to be tackled first. Then the man becomes qualified for undertaking Dhyana. As per rules, meditation is mastered after the six steps are overcome. When there is a distance of seven steps before mastering Dhyana how is it that it could be achieved through Idols first?

K: The mind is fickle. How it can stay on the formless? Idols are required for staying of mind. Mind cannot become steady without a formless object?

V: You are innocent. Mind could stay put only in formless. It cannot become steady in form. This is because, the object with which a form is made of elements of sound, form, touch and liquid etc, Hence mind becomes unsteady after getting stuck in these things. If mind could become steady because of form then the entire world which is having a form and logically the minds of all should have become steady. But this is not the case. The more the minds getting entangled in worldly objects the more unsteady the mind becomes. If you examine still more carefully, mind does not become steady at all. The moment the mind becomes still, death follows. Frankly speaking, mind getting inwards from outside transactions could be stated as the steadiness of mind. So long man lives, his mind would be always in momentum.

K: Are you of the opinion that people who meditate thru Idols are under illusion? Through Idols the unsteadiness of mind is kept away. Hence people worship idols of Ram, Krishna, etc.

V: I have already told that meditation of God is not possible thru Idols. Dhyana means mind being away from subjects. All Idols have all the five subjects in a disorganized way. Looking at them roughly, they have FORMS. Fruits, flowers, milk etc are offered to them and hence there is a juice present. Fruits have scent or smell. Blowing of Bells or conches has an element of sound. The Idols are made of five elements, like, sound, smell, touch, form, and liquid. Then how the Idols can keep away the unsteadiness of mind? People, who worship Krishna’s idol for steadiness of mind, should

Ponder over the fact, that it was Krishna who was present in full life before Arjuna and still the mind of Arjuna was wavering. He tells Krishna,

Chanchalam manah krshna pramadhi balavadrudam|
tasyaham nigrahm manye vayoriva sudhushkam|| [Geetha]

Meaning: The mind is fickle, agitated and strong. I find it is as difficult as to control the air.

Krishna replies.
Asamshayam mahabaho mano durvigraham chalam|
Abhyasena tu kaunteya vairagyena cha gruhyate|| {Geetha}

Meaning: Arjuna! It is not doubted that the mind is very fickle and obdurate. But it is controlled by regular practice and detachment.

Given the fact that when Arjuna was seeing Krishna day in and day out and in spite of his mind was still restless, how the imaginary images of Krishna could instill steadiness of mind?

K: Then should we not worship Idols at all?

V: We should do Idol worship [Murthy puja] i.e. the inanimate Idols should be worshipped in the manner deserving for an inanimate matter. Similarly, the live i.e. Conscious entities should also be worshipped in a manner befitting for living beings.

K: I did not catch your point. How worshiping of the inanimate [Jada] should be done as deserving to a Jada matter and Conscious [Chetan] beings in appropriate manner as deserving to Chetan entities?

V: The term Pooja [worship] has many meaning as per its root verb and also in common parlance. For, ex, the meaning of the term Pooja is to do honor whereas with reference to a jada matter it means to use the inanimate matter judiciously or wisely and to safeguard it from destruction. Now think over the meaning attached to worship of a Jada matter. It means to keep them in order, to safeguard them, to ensure that they are not broken and do not get soiled. This is the intended meaning here. Bowing before all things, offering fruits and flowers is not thought of here. When it is said that a noble man is to be worshipped the intention here is that he should be honored with food and gifts and does not mean flinging of fruits, flowers, water etc at him. Further in the context of fraudulent, the worship of him conveys the meaning that he should be thrashed soundly and not otherwise. So here in one context, Pooja means altruism and in other context punishment. Likewise in respect of jada matter i.e. Idol-worship what is intended here is that these Idols are to be kept safely and offering of light, prostrating before them is not at all the desired intention. This is because that these Idols being inanimate cannot grasp the reverence of a doer nor in a position to receive what is offered to them in the form of flowers and sweets. Conscious beings in the form Father, mother, teacher, Sanyasi, advisor, and scores of men similar to them should be done Pooja i.e. They are to be honored with fruits, flowers, food etc. In other words Pooja here is to be understood as doing an honor or respect.

K: God is said to be everywhere. He is also found to be in Idols. In that case why Idols should not be worshipped? What is worshipped is not stone. The all pervading God is worshipped therein,
.

V: It is true that since god is found to be everywhere he is found to be in Idols also. But it is not necessary that He should be worshipped everywhere and in all things. It is the soul that offers Pooja and the object being to meet with God. Meeting between the two is possible only where they could have a chance to meet. God is no doubt is in Idols. But the soul which desires meet with God is not there in Idols. Then how could there be a Meet? Yes. God and Soul are both present in the hearts of every human being. Meet between these two could take place here only i.e. hearts. Hence the man who wants to meet God is required ensure that Pooja is done in his heart after controlling the mind and senses. Now look! Can we drink water everywhere presuming that God is there in water? God is present in Lions and Snakes. Is it okay to go nearby them? Hence it is clear ignorance and superstition to believe that God is in Idols and hence He should be worshipped there. God is in poison. Then should we eat it? No. Only such things that are eatable are to eaten. Idol worshippers think that they are doing Pooja to the all pervading God in Idols. But frankly speaking, there can be no Pooja of the all pervading God in Idols. You may ask how? God is present also in those Pooja items that are placed on Idols. For ex, sky [void] is present in a pot. It is present in brick also. Could he hit the Void by throwing the brick at the pot? Since the void is pervading everywhere the brick cannot hit the void rather the pot gets broken. Not the Void. Because the void is present both in the pot and brick. Similar is the case of Pooja things that are placed on the Idol. These Pooja items are deposited over Idols and not on God for the reason God is pervading in Pooja items also.

V: It is not necessary that we need to put fruits and flowers on God. But looking at Idols reverentially we become aware of the grace and glory of all pervading God.

K: This is talk in the extreme. How could we get the knowledge of all pervading God, his grace and glory? Just think. There is oil in til seed. But what is seen? Is it til or oil? Apparently only the til seed is seen. You don’t see the oil in it even when seen with utmost reverence. When the oil is seen? Only when the til seed is grinded the oil is seen. Similarly what is seen in Idol are the bare Idol only and not the all pervading God. Only when you cut the bond with Idol and start searching God in the heart then only God is perceived. Now about the knowledge of glory of God while looking at Idols. How the glory of God is seen in the man made Idols? In fact the greatness of man who has carved the lovely Idols will alone be seen when looking at Idols. If you want to see the grace and glory of God observe the entire Creation with a rational attitude. You will observe the beauty and greatness even in small things. What mark of God’s greatness is there in the man made inanimate Idols?

K: Sister! We get the results as we believe. Even you don’t agree that Idols are not God you can get the results by thinking God in them. Secondly, before we ascend to the heights, we cannot do it so instantly and we require steps. I consider Murthy Pooja as the first stepping stone for the realization of God. Hence, if anybody were to make the imaginary pieces of God and worship them there is no fault in it

V: You should know that faith does not alter the truth of an object. If somebody due to ignorance thinks or believes that lime water is milk can he churn butter out of it? Will the stomach gets it’s full by visualizing a stone as a Roti? If by mere thinking could get the desired things then the people

would not have been found to be so sorrowful. We would not have witnessed the people laboring hard to get things they desire. A belief becomes a belief only when it stands on Truth. Otherwise it is a non-belief. Supposing if a person were to consume laxative pills believing them as medicinal
Tablets can he not get the purging? Hence it is sheer ignorance to say that we can get the results by mere believing contrary to the hard facts.

Look! The priests of Somnath temple had a belief that the inanimate Idol was a veritable lord Mahadev himself. Hence, when Mohamed Gazni came in aggression the priests were sitting idle. They started advising the people, to do Somnath Jap and there was no need to fight as the Lord himself would vanquish the enemy forces. What terrible consequences followed because of this belief and trust are well known to the students of history. Why Somnath temple? Other temples also were destroyed and the Idols broken and tons of money was looted and taken away all because of this belief and trust. Still people did not get rid of their superstitions. The irony is, People believed in powers of the Idols which were incapable of doing anything but reposed no faith in the Conscious entities[ people] who were capable of achieving anything. What a shame? This is the main reason for the downfall of our country and community. Now you would have understood how sorrowful the outcome of belief borne out of ignorance is. Your statement that Murthy pooja as the stepping stone for realization of God is totally erroneous. Yes. Worship of Conscious bodies could of course be treated as the stepping stone of God’s realization in a limited manner but the same cannot be accepted in the context of worship of inanimate Idols. The inanimate objects could be pavements for climbing Himalayas but how they could be stepping stone in God’s realization when they [pavements] are void of any knowledge? The alphabets A, B, C, D are the basic steps to learn English. But if anyone believes this as basic steps for learning Hindi or Sanskrit how could he learn these languages? Hence he could climb to the target thru things which is considered as its steps. The steps for God’s realization are selfless service, Satsang, the eight paths of Yoga [Yama, Niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana, and Samadhi]. Only the regular practice of these steps faithfully can ensure the God’s realization.

You asked me what are the faults involved in worshipping the imaginary Idols of God. The faults are many. They are as under.

1. Man deceives himself by assuming certain real things in imaginary or artificial objects. Even Animals, Birds, insects know that artificial things cannot accomplish the functions of the Real. Throw a mouse made of mud or rubber before a cat. The cat never pounces upon the artificially made mouse. A bee never stops on a flower made of paper. Similarly the animals never aspire on artificial things. But a man who claims to be very intelligent creature among all animals longs to obtain the maximum of good things out of artificial things. Can there be a bigger paradox than this?
2. Man imagines his requirements are also due to this imaginary man made Idols. Since man needs food he also feels that God also requires food and therefore presents eatables. He dresses them as he himself dresses. He bathes the god as he takes bath. He puts God to sleep and awakens him. He puts on ornaments on God as he tries to put on himself. When man is of the belief that God also is in need of formers requirements then what sort of upliftment that could be expected of this God? When

God is himself is the subject of many requirements how he could fulfill the requirements of others? Can the blind lead the blind? No, Never.
3. God is one. But the Idols are many. Each group bound by their own tradition has carved out gods as per their belief. Consequently, there are inter-group clashes destroying national unity. There are other hundreds of faults.

K: Then is it your opinion that we should neither carve out Idols nor worship them? When we see the peaceful, serene and detached Idols of great men we get peace; further they make impact on us.

V: It is not my opinion that we should not carve out Idols at all. Yes we should make Idols that is what I say. By keeping the photos of great men or making their Idols, we can perpetuate their memories. However it does not mean that these replicas should be worshipped like Conscious beings or they should be prayed for grant of favors treating them as either Gods or Gods representatives. How can these grant favors as done by Conscious beings or God? Can a father who is dead shower as much love as he did while being alive to his son? Is the body of the father which fed his son so lovingly while being alive is of any use after death? What difference is there between carved out Idols and the dead body? The Idols do not putrefy whereas the dead body starts putrefying soon after death. This is all the difference and in respect of others matters there is no difference. Pooja means proper use. If goods are not put to use properly then they get ruined causing harm to the man. How you may ask? Listen! There is a devotee of river Ganga.He worships it day in and day out. He offers flowers and Sweets to the River. He sings praises of Ganga always. But he does not know how to swim. One day he gets into the deep river. Will not he get drowned? However great devotee of the river he might be, since he does not know swimming he is sure to get drowned. Then there is other person who does not treat Ganga as mother. He has killed somebody. His clothes have become bloody. He jumps into the river and Swims across the river. How this happened? The reason is simple. He knows how to make use of the river. The first one was doing a wrong Pooja. Hence the river drowned him and saved the other. There would be a section of worshippers of Ganga. Taking bath in the river, offering flowers etc is treated as worship. Every year they shell out hundreds of rupees to Railways. They also get killed in stampede.

Then there is other section of Ganga worshippers. They make canals. Through irrigation they produce abundant crops, and produce power in the form of Electricity. They never did take bath in the river. They got Ganga in their taps at home. Since they knew the correct usage of the river [a Jada matter] how could they keep idle? Any number of examples could be given about the unconscious matter [jada] similar to Ganga. Now about the impact on seeing some Idols. Good or bad influence is not got by seeing the Idols. It is so because of the inherent Sanskars. A Hindu goes to a Ram or Krishna temple. He automatically bows before the Idols. This is because he would have imbibed the history of these personages and also learnt the way they vanquished evil persons like Ravan and Kans. These sanskars could be either through Books or by being heard. But before the same Hindu if you place a statue of Confucius of China, he does not get influenced, nor does it induce any faith in him, the reason being he does not know anything about Confucius. Hence he does not bow before this statue. A Muslim does not bow before any Hindu deities. Why? Because that Muslim has no Sanskars. On the other hand he finds an awful looking Muslim in a photo more pleasing for the reason that Sanskars that the Muslim appearing in that photo is looked as “momin” [Help to Islam] is strongly embedded in his mind. Hence, it is the Sanskars that makes an impact on

Mind while seeing some Idols. If Idols were to make impact it should have done it so to all the viewers of Idols and got peace. But this does not happen.

V: Don’t they show Maps in Schools? They disclose the knowledge of the entire world thru the medium of small Maps. Likewise, the small Idol could disclose the knowledge of God? Is it not?

V: Dear Sister! The Map is made of the world which has a shape. Hence we get knowledge of rivers, mountains, sea, cities, Railways etc. God is omnipresent and formless. Hence it is not possible to make an Idol of Him. Hence the Knowledge of God is not obtained.

K: Syllables and sound are formless. But we make a sign of it and students are taught. If we don’t design the shape of syllables and sound how could else the students learn knowledge?

V: Syllables and sound are not seen by the eyes. But they are heard of course. The eyes choose the subject matter of its concern in order to make the subject known to ears. But how could it receive as its subject matter as it’s when the relevant subject matter is not theirs? This is understood by experience only. It is also not correct to say only when imaginary sign is accompanied by sound, Education could be imparted. If this were to be correct, we would not have seen learned blind men at all. They would not have seen how A, B, C, D alphabets looked like. However we see many blind men well versed in English, Hindi, etc. Secondly the imaginary signs are known as Varna [Letters]. Not syallables.What is written is letter. It has a form. That which is spelt is syllable and this is formless.

It is also not correct that thru the signs [which have a form] one could get the knowledge of formless. This is because the formless sound is first spelt and then sign is written and told to recognize the sound with a particular sign. If your logic is accepted then it amounts to driving the knowledge of formless God first and then asking the student to recognize God in a particular form! When the knowledge of formless God is obtained already then why worships the Idols? Is not the God realization an object of worship? When God is realized why worship without a reason?

K: Good! Time is formless. But people get their jobs done thru the Clock.

V: Clock is not the form of time. Just as we become aware of the time with the movement of Sun, similar work is done through a Clock. The entire functioning of Clock is dependent on Sun.

K: How to meditate on Formless? When an Idol is present before, we keep on meditating. Now we sit for meditation of Formless and closed the eyes. Nothing is before us. Then how the mind can remain steady?

V: There are two types of world; one is spiritual and another physical. The Soul is related to the spiritual. Physical is related to elements like Earth, water, Fire etc. Let us remember that God related subjects are spiritual in nature. Where is the scope of spiritual thinking when your mind keeps roaming here and there while doing Meditation? What are remembered are physical things only? Spiritual meditation could take place when the thinking of worldly objects having form is set aside and the Soul is thought of being pervaded by God. There is no bar of space and time between God and Soul. What is far away is Knowledge. Once the obstacle of Knowledge gets removed God is beginning to be felt. It stays put when the minds desires. The mind stops on those things that are practiced. All works in the world is successfully got through practice only. We would have seen women carrying many water filled pots over their heads negotiating the uneven roads taking care to see that a not a drop of water is spilled over. Many boys and girls carefully walk on the wired thread while doing acrobatics. In circus, dogs and cats even fire bullets. This is all due to practice only. Many weaklings take cold bath in the biting winter but which is dreaded by musclemen. Like wise those who are habituated of thinking God and by practicing the Yama and Niyama they keep meditating on God for hours together near rivers and mountains. Those who have attained Samadhi keep meditating for days together. Do they meditate on any Idols? Not at all. If you think bit deeply, the mind does not rest on Idols at all. The minds keep wandering on the eyes, nose, and limbs of the Idols. When the Idols are not present, the transactions are drawn towards the Soul.

Sister! Kindly remember. Even if the mind were to rest on Idols, it rests on Idols only and not on God. Really speaking, God is formless and omnipresent. Hence close your eyes and start meditating on the meaning of OM with a feeling” that God is present everywhere and I am present in Him and He is also present in me” Keep repeating OM. Recite Gayathri Mantra or any other Vedic mantra and think deeply of its meaning. See how the mind is not brought to control.

K: If we buy sweets from sweet meat shop for a Rupee and eaten, it causes happiness. The Sweet is having a form. The taste we derive is formless. If we were to ask the vendor to provide one rupee taste how could he give that formless taste? This goes to show it is only through the material representation we could get the God’s Bliss.

V: That which is the taste of a matter is enjoyed when it is eaten. If Khova is eaten we get the taste of Khova. If a Laddu is eaten then we get the taste of Laddu only. There is a link of subject and its effect between Khova and its taste, and the link between them is not that of be pervaded and pervade. Khova is a subject and taste is its effect. However, the Idol and God are two different subjects. You know Khova through its taste. When God is not the quality of Idol how could God is felt thru the Idol? Further only when Khova is eaten then only its taste is derived. How a person could derive the taste of khova when it is artificially made of mud? Not possible. Similarly, only when god is experienced the God’s Bliss is obtained. Instead, if material representation is made of metal and mud in place of God how then the God’s bliss is obtained?

K: A currency Note with a King’s photo thereon is more comfortable for circulation. In a similar manner Murthy Pooja is also more comfortable.

V: First of all a King is a person with a body. Hence his photo can find a place in a currency Note. Whereas God is formless and his Photo cannot be made. Further, the Notes printed under the king’s authority are legal and can be easily being traded upon. Whosoever prints Notes against King’s authority could be jailed. Hence the proper and correct usage of forms and objects made by God is more rewarding. Making photos and stating that they are the material representation of God amounts to flouting the order of God which attempts to land the doer in darkness for several births.

K: We have heard in Mahabharata that Ekalavya learnt Archery by making the Idol of Dronacharya?

V: There was a person Dronacharya and his photo was possible. What Ekalavya did was to make the prototype of the master. He did not worship it in place of God. Secondly, the prototype did not

teach him archery. If that is the case why he should have practiced? He learnt the entire Archery thru his efforts and practice. Dronacharya was completely unaware of this development. When he came to know about his prototype he gave punishment. If photos or prototype were capable of imparting education then Vedas could be learnt by just putting up of the photo of Vedavyas. One should be able to get riches by just putting up the photo of Kubera. Do we learn anything other than inertness from the lifeless objects? A butler from his association with an Englishman learns to talk in English. A labour learns to make sweet dishes by working with a Sweet maker. By sitting near fire, the heat is felt. We get the quality of things that we are associated with. By associating with inert, lifeless idols people also got inertness and lost vitality. They were beaten. Temples were destroyed. Country was thrown to slavery and poverty. Because of this inertness the qualities of self-confidence and Action were lost.

K: Good! We have discussed the matter enough. Now tell me whether God is just and merciful? If yes, how both attributes could remain together? If mercy is shown justice gets affected. If Justice is shown then the mercy is lost.

V: Let us discuss this tomorrow.

Vedic Religion

Vedas For Beginners – 4 : WHY GOD HAS NO FORM?

Leave a comment

K:  Sister! Please give reply to yesterday’s question

 

V:   Your question was what was wrong in assuming God had a form? Okay. There are many faults that are involved in treating God as having a form. Firstly, God is known as Sachitananda.   This has three words.viz, “Sat”  “Chit” and “Anand”. The term “Sat” means being present uniformly at all times, present, past and future. In the other words, that which does not undergo change is called as “Sat”.  That which is Knowledge is known as “Chit” The term “Anand” indicates free from sorrow at all times which is known as Bliss. God is called Satchitananda because He is changeless, His knowledge is never destroyed, and who never experiences any sorrow.

 

It is in this context we should see how the objects in the world fare. All the things that have a form in the world are all subject to change and therefore they are not “Sat”. Only formless God and soul could be called under “Chit” Whoever is having a form or body cannot be away from sorrows. He does not enjoy happiness at all the times. He is afflicted with the feeling of hot and cold, hunger and thirst, fear and sorrow, sickness-ageing-death. God is distinct from these two.

 

The first fault in assuming God as having a Form, is with a form, he ceases to be Satchitananda and changeless. This is because all bodies have inbuilt qualities of birth- growth-decay and death. God is above these characteristics.

The second fault is God with a body becomes finite; Whereas God is infinite in nature. He is omnipresent.

The third fault with god having a form is He begins to cease “Beginning less and endless” This is because every thing with a form has an origin and therefore it has a beginning. It cannot be called as beginning less and endless. The thing which has an origin must have an end. That which is created is destroyed in the end.

The fourth fault is God with a body cannot be “All-Knowing” for the reason a body is limited by space and time and therefore it cannot have knowledge of all things. Because of this God cannot become “Antaryami” He cannot understand the mind of everybody.

The fifth fault is God ceases to be eternal. That which remains and has no reason for being remainant is called “Nitya” He being Nitya is not a combination of things. Whereas the things that have a form is the combination of certain elements.

The sixth fault is God instead of being supporter of all He himself becomes dependent on others. The entire world is dependent on God and He is supporter of all. He has assumed the entire world. Whereas if God is treated as having a body He is required to be dependent on some other material. Precisely, for this reason, the traditionalists have set apart places treating God with a body. Some have placed God in seventh heaven, others at Kailas, golok, etc. It is funny that God who is a supporter of the entire world have made himself dependent. If God were to remain dependent on world then how the world could support itself?  Similarly there are so many faults in treating the god with a form or body.

 

K: God is no doubt formless. However, Scholars are of the opinion that God takes shape and reincarnates from time to time. For ex, vapor is formless but when required by time it takes a gross form. We can multiply such examples. When physical things could be formless and yet could assume shape why not God who is formless, could not take a form?

 

V:  The example of water vapor and fire pointed out does not appear to be correct. Water and fire are not basic elements. Many atoms make for water vapor and this take gross shape in the form of cloud and again become water. If water vapor were to be made of one atom then it would not have taken gross form. So is the case of Fire. Many atoms make a fire ball and assume a gross form. To say that fire is all pervading and formless is totally wrong notion. Fire is subtler than earth and water elements. Hence it could be said that fire is pervading in Earth and water. But it is not pervading in air and ether. But it is true that both water and air is pervading in fire for the reason these are more subtle than fire. The subtle pervades the gross. In all things where fire is pervading they have shape and form. All the things in the world which have a form are caused because of all pervading fire. Because the quality of fire is form. Physical things become gross from subtle by the association of many atoms. God is omnipresent, and all alone. He cannot therefore assume shape and take a form. Now, about the god descending from time to time. This is only assumption and nothing else. The term Avatar means to descend and ascend. Only a finite bodies can do this and not applicable to infinite entity like God. The act of ascending, descending, Avatar, coming and going is unthinkable about an entity which is omnipresent. Wherefrom He can come and go when He is found to be everywhere?

 

K: Does not God take Avatar to vanquish Ravan, Kans, Hiranyakashipu etc? I have heard that God takes Avatar whenever Dharma is threatened?

 

V: God has not taken Avatar ever nor He will ever do so in future. From time to time great men are born who have vanquished the wicked, showed the right path and therefore people have called them with some honorific titles. Some people have named them as Nabi or son of God. Still some other has described such great men as Avatar or God personified. But the fact remains that great men remained as such. Why you don’t talk rationally? Can God not capable of destroying by remaining formless?  Hundreds of living beings are born every second and does God goes on destroying them? With one earth quake lakhs of men are killed. Epidemics wipe out hundreds of living beings. Is it sensible to believe that God takes Avatar just to kill wretched beings? Do men like Ravan, Kans ever count? Is it not ludicrous and insulting to God to assume god taking avatar to kill the wicked when He is capable of Creating, Sustaining and destroying the world? It is also not free from blame to say that God takes Avatar when Dharma is threatened. Probably those people who believe in Avatars believe this to be true. But they stand condemned by their own statement. Look! The people having belief in Avatar agree on Ten Avatars and also four Yugas. These Yugas are viz, Satyayuga, Threthayuga, Dwaparyuga and Kaliyuga. In Satyayuga, Dharma stands on four steps. In Threthayuga it stands on three steps, in Dwapara Dharma and Adharma stands equally on two steps each. In other words in Dwapara the elements of Punya [Virtue] and Papa {Non-Virtue] share equal honors. In Kaliyug it is believed that   Non-virtue {Papa} rests on three steps and Virtue [Punya] rests only on one step. Now think of the order of Avatars in all the yugas. It is said four Avatars took place in Satyayuga, three Avatars in Threthayuga and two in Dwaparayuga. And they believe one Avatar taking place at the end of Kaliyuga. Now what is to be pondered over here, why four Avatars took place in Satyayuga when Dharma was resting on all four steps and no Adharma was present. In Threthayuga when Dharma was resting on three steps why three Avatars? Why one less? When in Dwapar when both Dharma and Adharma was present in the proportion of 50:50 why only two Avatars? In Kaliyug when Dharma and Adharma is in the ratio of 25:75 why only one Avatar is outstanding and that too at the end of the Yug? Logically speaking, the number of Avatars should be more with the increase in the proportion of Non-virtue. Whereas the number of Avatars went of decreasing with the rise in the proportion of Non-Virtue. Now tell me what is the relationship between Avatars with the loss of Dharma?

 

K:  The Avatar men have shown amazing things not capable of being done by ordinary men. For ex, lifting of Govardhan Mountain with little finger, etc. Because of this we are compelled to believe that they are all Avatars of God.

 

V: First of all it is wrong to say that someone lifted a mountain with a finger. Even if we accept this could be true, this does not demonstrate anyway the greatness of God or God’s avatar. You may ask why? Before God, who has upheld Sun, planets and countless stars the lifting of Govardhan Mountain appears to be too trifle. There are hundreds of Mountains big and small in the world you live. God has upheld the world and what greatness is involved in upholding a Govardhan Mountain? What heroism is there in upholding a Govardhan Mountain? This is like a student of M.A answering a paper set for 3 rd standard. Yes. If a 3rd standard boy were to answer a paper for M.A then it deserves full praise. This is because it is unbelievable. If God’s Avatar were to lift a mountain there is nothing great or amazing here.

 

K: If God were not to take Avatar then how to believe that God is All-Powerful?  Where is his   omniscientness of God if He could not take an Avatar? He is All-Powerful who could do anything.

 

V: You are irrational. If God were to take Avatar he ceases to be All-Powerful and gets reduced to an entity with limited strength. You may wonder how? He who was doing things earlier without a body and limbs will now start doing the work with limbs. Earlier he was seeing things without eyes. Now he sees with his physical eyes. Earlier he was listening without ears. Now he listens with physical ears. The import of this is, earlier to taking Avatar he was doing everything without a body and now he is dependent on body. Where is His omniscient ness when he becomes dependent? Like the man with finite knowledge depending on Body God also becomes dependent on body. Now where is the difference between man and god? God also becomes subject to hunger and thirst, cold and hot that torment a man. Hate, Love, fever that man experience will also be felt by God. The extraordinary thing is God becomes subservient and not at all remain Independent. He requires food, water, clothes and shelter. How could you say that he is all powerful when he starts depending on his body for execution of jobs when earlier he was doing everything with no support from any side?   A person with just a blink of an eye makes a person unconscious and yet another make him unconscious with the help of a drug. Who is powerful among these two? Definitely the person who renders unconscious with a blink of an eye for the reason he does not dependent on drugs for this job.

 

Now, you would have understood that God is powerful without taking Avatar. It is totally wrong notion to believe that being All- Powerful means that He is capable of doing everything. All-Powerful means that all powers are with him. He can join subtle things and could disintegrate them. He would award the human beings based on their Karma. He could create, sustain and dissolve the world and run it as per laws. He requires nobody’s help in the execution of his jobs. That is the meaning of being all-powerful or omniscient. Rendering impossible things as possible is not the meaning of being All-Powerful.

 

 

K: Does God not make impossible the possible?  He is no God who cannot make impossible things possible.

 

V: Not making impossible things possible, not undoing the Rule [i.e. making or mending the rules] is God’s divinity. If you were to believe that God could turn impossible to possible then I would ask “can God kill himself? Or can God create another God? Please reply.

 

K: God may not kill himself. But since he is All-Powerful He could create another God as equal to himself.

 

V:  No Sister! God cannot create another God of equal standing. You may ask why? Listen. Now imagine that God has created another God. Now is this created god could be equal to the creator? No. This is because one is old God and another is Created God. One is Visible God and another is invincible God and thus there are two Gods. One is ageless because he is eternal. The age of other God has just begun for he is created. The first God is all-pervading and other is pervaded. Both cannot become all-pervading.  If you were of opinion that both are pervading 50:50 then none are omniscient and omnipresent. Hence all-Pervading does not mean that He could do everything and anything. God could do which could be done by him.

 

K: What is wrong in accepting that god could take Avatar? What is the risk here?

 

V: When God could not Avatar at all, the acceptance of God taking Avatar, would amount to twisting and killing the truth. This is the first danger. Secondly God himself gets entangled in decadence. Narayan becomes Nara. Nara becoming Narayan could be treated as growth, but the reverse is definitely a sign of downfall. If a poor becomes rich then it is his real improvement but if a rich becomes poor it is definitely a sign of retrograde progress.  Thirdly, a fraudulent declares himself as an Avatar and misleads the followers. He makes money out of them and leads a sinful life. There are umpteen examples in Bharath where some fraudulent men have declared themselves as Avatars and totally cheated the people. Fourthly, people start tolerating the injustice and fraud. People begin watching loot, murder rape and destruction of property by hooligans and don’t protest against them. They feel it is not in their hands to prevent the injustice and of the opinion that only when God takes Avatar he would put down effectively all the cases of injustice. Then only that Dharma reins and evil is vanquished. This sort of wishful thinking is due to the belief in the concept of Avatar. Communities or group of people who don’t believe in the concept of God taking Avatar stand firm against assaults  and resist firmly the cases of injustice and destruction bravely. They firmly believe that God has given those hands to protect themselves and never tolerate Adharma. They don’t look towards God for jobs that could be done by them. To be frank, the theory of Avatarvad has ruined the Aryan community and destroyed their self-confidence. This has caused untold hardships for Aryans and contributed to their prolonged slavery. Our history is a witness to this tragedy.

 

K: Your logic is fine, convincing and effective. Now tell me how to meditate on God who is said to be formless.

 

V: It is really God’s kindness that the effect of true principles have made impression on you. I will reply to your question tomorrow.

 

=====================================================================

This is the translated version of the original Hindi  “Do bahinonke bathe” written by late Pt. Siddagopal”Kavirathna”

Translated by : Vasudev Rao.

English, Social Reform, Uncategorized

FROM VEDIC TO CLASSICAL SANSKRIT (DEVELOPMENT OR DECAY)

2 Comments

language change

FROM VEDIC TO CLASSICAL SANSKRIT (DEVELOPMENT OR DECAY)

Three is a word of difference between the Vedic language and the Classical Sanskrit of the epics, sastras, kavyas….. At times the meaning of a word may undergo a sea change !

IN TERMS OF WORDS

The word sachí for instance, is used in the classical Sanskrit for ‘lndra`s wife’, whereas in the Vedic Lexicon Nighantu, it is en-joined for ‘speech, wisdom, action’ (vide Nigh.)-

shachi

The words vrtra, asum are used in Sanskrit as the name of a Raksasa (and for ‘raksasa‘ in general), but in Vedic they are two epithets, usually, of ‘cloud’-

vrutra

The word ‘ahí‘ is used in Sanskrit for serpent, while in Vedic, it stands for cloud again. ahi

The word adri, parvata, giri are used in Sanskrit for mountain, but in Vedic they again denote cloud- adri

The word ghrta is used in Sanskrit for clarified butter, in Vedic for water-

ghrutam

 

In Sanskrit, the word visa is used for poison but, according to the Vedic Nighantu, it is one of the many names ofwater-

vish

ln Sanskrit, the Word varaha is used for ‘boar’, but in Vedic it is given for cloud-

varah

In Sankrit asman and gravan are used for stone, but in Vedic they are shown as denoting cloud-

ashma

The word dhara is used in Sanskrit for flow or current but in Vedic it is used for speech-

dhara

The word ghrtací is used in Sanskrit for dancing girl, but in Vedic it denotes night-

ghrut

The word gaya is used in Sanskrit for a particular place where oblations are offered, but in the Vedic Nighantu, gaya means progency, wealth, home.

gaya

IN TERMS OF GRAMMAR

On the score of grammar, Vedic naturally differs from Classical Sanskrit in extension as well as in depth. Panini’s Astadhyayi refers to this vedic freedom of scope through aphorisms like.

bahulam

 

bahulam 1

Quite a few among Western linguists and philosophers hold that there has always been a growth, a development and an evolution in language :

T. Burrow, for instance, says in Sanskrit Language, “Many [of the changes of meaning] occured in the natural growth of the language.”

F. Bopp, in Comparative Grammar 0f Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and Other Languages, vol. l, has used the word ‘development’, in this connection; “[Of] language in its Stages of being and march of development.

” A.B. Keith has also opted for the view ‘development’, saying: “From the language of the Rigveda one can trace a steady development to Classical Sanskrit.” (History of Sanskrit Literature.)

Some Indian philologists, too, who have followed Western Writers, have held the same view. For instance : “From the cry and onomatopoeia with their various combinations, by means of association and metaphor, we arrive at a Vocabulary, sufficient for the purpose of the primitive man”…”The small original stock is improved upon and added to by manipulation of various kinds, based upon the association of various kinds, and on metaphor”.

But, when we compare the most ancient Vedic language with the modem Classical Sanskrit, we find that, instead of ‘growth’ or ‘development’, there has been ‘decay’.

For instance : (1) in the Vedic Lexicon Nighantu, at 1.2 we find 57 synonyms of vac (speech) like-

shlok 1

 

shlok 2

Very few of them have survived in classical Sanskrit : Amara Kosa, for instance, gives only the following-

brahmi

lt is growth or decay ? Let the reader on his own decide.

To give yet another illustration, in Vedic 101 names are listed for ‘water’, including-

jambh

But in the Amara Kosa only 27 remain ;

aapah

There are 37 names of megha (cloud) in Nighantu, in the Amara Kosa only 15-

grava

Among the 26 names of karma (action, work), including-

ambh

-only 2 (karma and karyam) are found in the Amara Kosa.

 

Many more examples could be given to show how, down the centuries, it has not been a case of growth or development, but rather one of decay in language.

lt is gratifying to note that some distinguished western linguists also are opposed to this theory of growth or evolution in language. We cite four of them :

V. VENDRYES in his book Language observes : ‘Certainly, modern languages, such as English and French, rejoice in an extreme suppleness, ease and flexibility; but [accordingly] can we maintain that the classical tongues, like Greek or Latin, are inferior to [any of these] ? It [Greek] is a language whose very essence is godlike.. If we have once acquired the taste for it, all other languages seem harsh after it… The outward form of the Greek language is itself a delight to the soul. Never was a more beautiful instrument fashioned to express human thought.

WILLIAM JONES : ‘The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure-more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely refined than French or Spanish.’

MAX MULLER : says they have reduced the rich and powerful idiom of the poets of Veda to the meagre and impure jargon of the modem sepoy’.

He adds : “We are accustomed to call these changes ‘growth’ of language, but it would be more appropriate to call this a process of phonetic change or decay. ”

‘On the whole, the history of all the Aryan languages is nothing but a gradual process of decay.

‘ ‘Lecures on the Science of Language, vol.l

And GRAY, lastly, has to say this (Foundations of Language) :

‘In lndo-European, we find 8 distinct case-forms in Sanskrit; Greek and Lithuanian have 7, Hittite and Old Church Slavic 5, Old French and Modem English only 2, Albanian 4. And American and Old English 3. This reduction in the number of case-forms-with  the result that some of them take over the functions of one or more others-gives rise to the linguistic phrase now known as syncretism. The reason for this seems to be phonetic decay of the characteristic case-endings.’

‘the mother of languages’

VEDIC-THE MOTHER OF ALL LANGUAGES

From the study of many of the historical languages of the world we have been driven to the inevitable conclusion that it is not Classical Sanskrit (which of course is the first daughter of the mother), but Vedic, that is the mother of all languages of the world. A FEW EXAMPLES

1. Vasra-in Vedic and, in its slightly different or corrupt forms, in different languages of the world : The word [vasra] has been used in the Rigveda on the following occasions-vasra 1O.119.4; vasra’iva 1.33.2, 1.28.8; 2.34.15; 7.149.4; 1.37.11, 1.96.6; 6.7.7, 9.1.37, 10.75.4.

In the other Vedas also the word is used frequently. All commentators of Veda are unanimous in holding that the word is derived from V vasr ‘sabde‘ and stands for cow (lowing, ‘making sound’.

vashra

Now, it is to be noted that there is no mention of this word in the Amara Kosa, or in any other lexicon of Sanskrit; nor do we find it generally used in the classical literature. Withal, the word is used for `cow’ in the French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian languages in slightly different (corrupt) forms.

ln French it is vache; in Spanish vaen : in Portugese vaca ; and in Italian la vaces. [Also, likewise, in the languages of Europe the words derived from go are used for English cow : Swedish ko ; Danish ko ; Dutch koe ; German kuh].

2. To take another example, we may examine Vedic ‘irman ‘ for ‘arm’.

lt is from this (irman) alone that the word ‘arm’ is derived. With its Swedish, Danish, Dutch and German variants in COD, for Apisali states in his Siksa (as also Bharate in his Natyasatra) that ‘sarva-mukha-sthaniyan a-varnam’ ! agni : ignis (Lat.).

3. Another very common word, which may be mentioned in this connection, is dama. According to Nighantu 3.4, it is a grhanama (home)-

jaaya

But in Sanskrit literature and in classical lexicons, like the Amarakosa, dama occurs nowhere in the sense of ‘home’ or ‘wife.’ And so we should not be surprised to find the word, with slight changes, used in several languages of Europe-English, Swedish, Danish, Dutch, German in the sense of ‘lady’ : dame, dane, dem. 4. mira (ocean) ‘submarine fire’ and also vadavagni ! ; German meer ; French la mer ; Spanish and Portugese mar. 5. apa’ ítí-‘karma’-nama (Nighantu. 2.1) ; opus (Latin), operation (English). These five exmples should suffice to show that Vedic is the most ancient-and accordingly, the mother-of all languages.   MULTIPLICATION OF LANGUAGES lf, Vedic is the universal mother (or foster-mother as some would like to call it), the question naturally arises : how these hundreds and thousands of languages and dialects have sprung up from that one source. How to explain their multifurcation ? The answer may be briefly given as follows (taking into consideration what native and foreign scholars have written on the subject) Some probable causes suggested are :   PROBABLE CAUSES (l) Physiological causes– when some people cannot pronounce some difficult sounds on account of some defect in the anatomy; (2) Geographical surroundings-sometimes making it difficult to pronounce words correctly (due to severe cold.); (3) Communication and Correspondence (difficulties)- people of distant lands also sometimes cause pidgin-like change(s) in the language and its pronunciation ; (4) Change of model-e.g., a new king may ascend the throne and his subjects begin copying his style ;   (5) Association-also causes change, Examples     (6) Analogy-is defined (by Vendryes) as “the power of other words in a languages to exempt any special word from the operation of phonetic laws or to compensate it for changes which those laws may press or produce.” 0ne clear instance of this change by analogy is cows. ln Old English it was spelt (inflected) as kine ; but, as table, book, boy and other words are formed by just adding an “s” at the end, so the plural of cow also became cows-(though foot did not become foots such as. (7) Economy of effort-with regular vagaries- (a) varna-viparyaya or ‘metathesis’ :     (b) varna-lopa (dropping out of a letter, usually owing to inadvertence) :       (c) samikarana-(assimilation) :     cf. Edward Sturtivant (Introduction to linguistic Science : “Of great linguistic importance is the assimilation of contiguous consonants” (d) viprakasa-(dissimilation) :     (e) svara-bhakti (hiatus) :     (f) agro’pajana-(prothesis)     (g) sthana-viparyaya-(interchange) :     The following verse, quoted by Durgacarya in his ‘gloss’ on the Nirukta(Ch. 1), gives in brief most of these ‘rules’ :     (1)    pro/epen/post-thesis ; (2) interchange ; (3) distortion ; (1)(4) elision; (5) ‘sense suggesting = engendering another sound!’. (1)In various fonns of P/’akrta and in English, Greek, Latin,Russian and other languages ‘changes’ have taken place according to the above ‘rules’. It is thus that words actually become corrupt and new languages spring up. Defective and imperfect scripts also have helped in the distortion of a ‘pure` language no less : (1)In Tamil (script) there are only k and n ; c and n ; t and n ; t and (1)n ; p and m. [In Arabic script there is no p.] (1)In English there is no provision for t, th, d dh, n ; (1)In French there is no room for t, th, d, dh, n. (1) PASTO & SANSKRIT Pashto is the language spoken by Pathans and allied tribals of the North-Western Frontier. The author learnt from a letter, received from the Vice-Chancellor of Peshawar University, some years back, that “here Sanskrit is compulsory for all students of languages, as it is thought here, said the letter that, abounding in Sanskrit Vocabulary as it is, Pashto cannot be mastered without a good grounding in Sanskrit.” Following is the list of some Sanskrit words, with their Pasto variants, to stress the point :                     Also, for ‘grandfather’ the Pashto is Nikoh-derived from ‘niskrodha’-free from anger and, therefore., loving ; likewise, for grandmother anniya ‘anna-datri“,? But, we are just suggesting ; nothing more.   SANSKRIT & SOUTH INDIAN LANGUAGES There are some words in the South Indian languages, which have their origin in Sanskrit. On studying Kasakrtsna-Dhatupatha-Vrtti with the gloss of Channa-Vira Kavi, we have come to know of these ‘suspected origins’ ever more clearly-ever more surely. It should be borne in mind that Kasakrtsna had been a South-Indian grammarian centuries before Panini, recording some 800 more roots, i.e., in addition to the 2000 found in Panini ! (1) amma / avva, tayi-mother : These are the words used for ‘mother’ in different parts of the country. Of these amma-(1) is considered by some a corruption of ‘amba’ ; but according to Kasakrtsna’s Dhatupathavrtti, it is derived from V amm ‘gatau’ (1.224) ; avva (2) from V avv-bandha-ne-palane (1-226) ;t’yt (3) from V tayr, ‘santana-palanayon’(1.493). [In Tamil the word used for mother, tadar, too appears to have come from the same root] In Marathi, the word used for ‘mother’ is dyt V ay gat au (1.485) (2) appa = pitar (in Kannada, Tulgu and some other South Indian languages) from V app palane ! (3) ammi-putrí from V amm gatau (Kannada). (4) akka ‘elder sister’ (Kan.) from V akk bandane + palane. (5) atta, mother-in-law ; attika, sister-in-law (Kan.) from V at gatau. (6) appa-‘elder brother’ (Kan.) from V ap sabde (1.206). (7) nathi, dog (Kan., Tam.) from V nin ‘prapane’. (8) dana, animal (Kan.) from V dhan ‘calane’. (9) hana = wealth, woman (Kan.) from V han sabde. (niskasya dasamo bhagah.) (10) duddu, money (Kan.) from V duddu dharane. (11) gíni, parrot (Kan.) from V gin sabde. (12) gande, wall (Kan.) from V gadi bandhane. (13) vayí, mouth (K. and Ta.) from V vay gatau. (14) ane, hand (K., Ta.) from V an prapane. (15) avu, cow (Tel.) from V av palane. cf. ava-ni=’gau’ (earth)! (16) nalla, good (Tam.) from V nall palane. (17) ganda-pati, husband (Kan.) from V gadí vadaníkadese (sahayyam karoti)-cheek-by-j owl. (18) guli, bull (Kan.) from V gul bhaksane. (19) gulle, bubble, foam (Kan.) from V gull bhavane(vivarte). (20) hammu, pride (Kan.) from V hammu gatau (brain-wave) (21) pandu, fruit (Tel.) from V padí gatau. (22) jenu, honey (moon face ?), Kan. from V jin sambhaktau ! (23) channa, honey, fair lady (Kan. et al) from V cann sambhaktau! (24) havu, serpent from V havva (ghost) Kan. (25) hedi, coward (Kan) from V hedr calane ?   VEDIC AND THE REST   Comparative lists of words of different European languages clearly establish the affinity of these languages to Sanskrit. The question remains to be answered is : what relationship Sanskrit bears   to the different languages of the world ? Is it Sister/aunt/mother of them? It is here that scholars widely differ. Max Muller : “Sanskrit, no doubt, has an immense advantage over all the other ancient languages of the East. lt is so attractive and has been so widely admired that it almost seems at times to excite a certain amount of feminine jealousy.. We are ourselves lndo-Europeans. In a certain sense we are still speaking and thinking Sanskrit ; or, more correctly, Sanskrit is like a dear aunt to us and [vasudhaiva kutumbakam] she [responsibly] takes the place of a mother who   is no more. [Chips from a German Workshop] vol. 5.   It (Sanskrit) is the most regular language known, and is especially remarkable-as containing the roots of the various languages of Europe-Greek, Latin, German, Slavonic, says Baron Cuvier in Lectures on the Natural Sciences.”   And here is what Adelung has to say in “Sanskrit Language”. “The great number of languages, which are said to owe their origin – or bear a close affinity-to Sanskrit, is truly astonishing and-is yet another proof of the latter’s high antiquity. Rudiger avers it to be the parent of upwards of a hundred languages and dialects among which he enumerates l2 Indian, 7 Median Persic, 2 Austric   Albanian, 7 Greek, 18 Latin, 14 Slavonic, and 6 Celtic Gallic. The various vocabularies, which we now possess as a result of laborious and learned investigations, render it pretty evident that Sanskrit has not only furnished words for all the languages of Europe, but forms a main feature in almost all those of the East. A host of writers have made it the immediate parent of the Greek and Latin and German families of languages [no less]   Bopp in Edinburgh Review, vol. 33, expresses his opinion that “At one time, Sanskrit was the one languages spoken all over the world.”   And lastly, to quote from W.C. Taylor’s “India in Greece” :   It was an astounding discovery that Hindustan possessed a language of unrivalled richness and variety, a language the parent of all those dialects that Europe has fondly called classical-the source alike of the Greek flexibility and the Roman strength, a philosophy compared with which lessons of Pythagoras are but of yesterday [in point of age, in point of enduring speculation], Plato’s boldest efforts [sound] tame and commonplace…a poetry more purely intellectual than any of which we had before any conception, and a system of science whose antiquity baffles all powers of astronomical calculations. This literature, with all its colossal proportions, which can scarcely be described with-out [a] semblance of bombast and exaggeration, claims of course, a place for itself-it stands alone, [has been] able to stand alone. Its literature seems exhaustless. The utmost [of] stretch-of-imagination can scarce comprehend its boundless mythology. Its philosophy, far from shunning, has touched upon every metaphysical difficulty [and has much to contribute on each and every issue].   lt is, thus, clear that many impartial linguists and philologists of the West also admit that Sanskrit is the mother (not sister or aunt) of all the important languages of the world. It is unfortunate that, even in India, not much attention is being paid to the study and spread of Sanskrit either by the people or by the Government. It is high time the study of Sanskrit is made compulsory at schools and in colleges, throughout the country.

Vedic Religion

Vedas For Beginners : Why be devoted to God?

Leave a comment

K:  Sister! Please reply to yesterday’s question.

 

V:  Why to remain devoted to God? And why should we praise and pray Him was your yesterday’s question.

Well.  All things in the world aspire to get drawn towards its Primary source or centre of Power. This is applicable equally to both Conscious [chetan] and non-conscious or inert [Jada] bodies. Fire moves up and up for the reason that the Sun is the primary source of heat or Fire. Now consider another example. Throw a mud ball towards the Sky and however high it is thrown up ultimately it lands on the earth because Earth is the prime source of mud. Water gets evaporated from sea, because of Sun and the water so evaporated becomes a cloud. It starts raining and the water enters the rivers which ultimately join the sea, because sea is the prime source of water. So is the case of other materials also. Every material has its prime source.

Ocean is the Prime centre of water

Sun is the treasure house/ source of Fire

Sky is the Prime centre of Wind

Earth is the source of soil

 

Similarly Knowledge also has its prime source in the world. That is god. All the knowledge that man has acquired has been got from God. If a man could acquire the knowledge by himself without others assistance there was no necessity for schools, colleges, universities etc. Teachers were also found then not necessary. But this is not the case. Parents teach their children to talk and make them aware of so many things that surround them. They teach their children, how to eat, drink, dress etc. Behavior, etiquettes, inter-personal relationships etc are also taught. When these children enter schools they learn many other things. Here it should be also noted that what the teachers teach is also not theirs but what they would have learnt while at home, Schools and colleges before becoming teachers. Here a question arises. When the knowledge the men acquire is thru others who taught the human beings or the primary man at the time of Creation when there were no people before them? The answer is they got the knowledge from God only. Then how the Knowledge was given? How he taught them since He had no body? Here it may be clarified, that there exists a difference between revealing the knowledge and imparting them.  Teaching is done through sound and knowledge is revealed in heart. Since God is all pervading He is present in the human beings created at the time of Creation. Accordingly, God reveals the Knowledge in the souls of chosen Rishis Viz, Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angira. These Rishis in turn teach the knowledge for others through the medium of Sound. Then starts the mechanism of teaching, i.e. reading and hear them reading, reciting etc.

If God had not given the knowledge, the tradition of transmission of knowledge would not have come off. It is therefore clear that whatever knowledge that man has acquired is thru the process of transmission only and whatever enlightenment he has obtained has become possible thru god given intelligence and by observing the nature of world created by god. Man can enhance the boundaries of knowledge but so long he is not administered knowledge he cannot obtain himself. In the beginning of Creation God has revealed the knowledge in the hearts and minds of Rishis in seed form. Subsequent growth of knowledge in expanded form [Tree form] is rendered possible thru the efforts of Rishis   and intelligent men. This is the rule from time immemorial and the same will continue in future also. When all things in the world are aspiring to get drawn to its prime source and still at it, why the soul with finite knowledge would not wish to move towards God who is the repository and source of infinite knowledge? This is because his evolution is not at all possible sans God. Conscious bodies evolve with conscious bodies and unconscious [inert] bodies with inert bodies.

 

The welfare of conscious soul is not possible by any inert things in the world. It is true however, that by intelligently utilizing the inert matters the well being of body is definitely ensured. The soul however, bound as it is by limited knowledge [i.e. remaining Alpagna] seeks improvement in the worldly things but fails.  Hence he remains restless. Ignorance is the reason for unhappiness in the world. If soul were to understand the true nature of materials obtaining in the world, he will not experience unhappiness or sorrow. The soul becomes enmeshed in sorrow and shackles so long it keeps equating untruth to truth, ignorance to knowledge and conscious to inanimate. God who is the source of knowledge is the real source of happiness. Removed from God happiness does not lie in worldly things. If happiness could be found in worldly things then the entire world should have looked happy and cheerful. But the actual position is different. Every conscious being in the world seeks happiness, because it is not with him.  Why he should seek happiness if he already had?  He becomes  liberated with worldly sorrows and bondages and attains eternal happiness called Bliss[Ananda] in the end when while remaining devoted  keeps on doing praise[ Stuti] prayer[ Prarthana]and communion[ Upaasana]

 

K: It is wrong to say that there is no pleasure or happiness in the worldly things. If there were to be no happiness in them, then why they should be much sought after by men? If money were not to bring happiness why people would have struggled to accumulate it? If food were not cause happiness why they would have consumed it? Why wear clothes if they were not to cause happiness? Why construct Homes if they were not to bring in pleasure and happiness?  All this indicate that there is happiness in worldly things. Hence, people desire to have them and do not want to give them up. He finds happiness in their acquisition and feels unhappy at its loss. Then how to believe that happiness is not found in material things?

 

V:  Sister! What you find happiness in worldly objects is not real happiness but illusion of it. Happiness is in the minds of men. When a man makes use of things he feels comforted and comes to believe that happiness is obtained from them only. But frankly speaking, happiness is not obtained from a particular thing. He feels happy so because of

mind’s concentration. When a dog bites a dry bone, its gums starts bleeding and the dog [unaware of the fact that dry bone cannot have a blood] keeps on sucking the blood oozing from its own gums! Similarly where is the happiness in the worldly things outside? Happiness lies inside. This is known. If money were to spell happiness, then no rich man would have been unhappy. But the extent of worries that the rich man has is not there with the poor man. A rich man down with diseases could buy medicines but not health. That rich man   could employ teachers, workers, buy books but can he earn knowledge? No. He can earn knowledge and wisdom only thru hard intensified study. Likewise he may buy food but cannot buy hunger.

 

There are millionaires in the world who are unable to digest even one meal a day. Now tell me whether there is happiness inherent in money. If food were to bring happiness the quantum of happiness one derives by eating four chapattis should be four times by eating 16 chapattis. This is because happiness should be proportionate to the quantum of food eaten. But does this happen? By eating more than that satisfies his hunger he becomes sick requiring medication. Dry, tasteless food tastes like nectar when one is hungry, whereas, nectar tastes bitter when not hungry. Similar is the position about clothes. If clothes were to cause comfort, the same cloths that are comfortable  in winter should continue to be so in summer also and vice versa. If causing comfort were to be the nature of clothes then it should cause comfort in all seasons. Why warm clothes are not suited in summer and winter clothes are not suited for winter? The nature and character of a thing should remain constant under all circumstances. For ex, to burn a thing is the nature of Fire. This nature will not undergo change. Sweetness is the quality of sugar. Eat sugar at any time. You taste sweet only. Likewise, if causing happiness is the nature of worldly things, then people would not have sought happiness even after their possession. They should be feeling happy every second. Now be clear!  Will the problem of a person running high temperature could be overcome by putting him on a soft, silky bed? Never. Hence I tell you, that happiness does not lie in the worldly things. God is the source of Happiness and that is obtained by being nearer to Him.

 

K: If happiness were to be within, and real joy does not rest with the worldly things, then why a person derives happiness in eating sweets? Why he does not derive happiness by eating Mud? There is joy in eating Rotis but not sand. Sugar tastes but not grass. What is the reason for this?

 

V:  The feeling of happiness which we derive in eating sugar candy etc is because of the character of the latter and this does not constitute real happiness. The sweetness is felt when this is concentrated in mind. Then only he experiences joy in it. If sugar candy were to cause happiness then it should cause same happiness during fever also whereas sugar tastes bitter during fever. Similar is the case of chillies. Persons not habituated to taking chillies find it as poison. So is the case of other worldly things. Now about person not finding happiness in eating mud. If mind is concentrated in it then eating mud also becomes enjoyable. We might have seen some women eating mud balls. Some animals eat sand stones also. Leave this matter aside. We find people taking liquor which is awfully smelling, astringent and bitter. Opium is highly bitter but some people consume

it. People find happiness in these things. Does joy lie in these things? No. Man derives happiness in these things as long as his mind gets concentrated in them. A question may arise as to how the mind gets concentrated in an object. When a man becomes used to a thing he starts concentrating therein albeit temporarily is the answer. Because of habit, the inherent culture or the sanskars of that object leaves a strong impression on the mind. The sanskars of a particular thing instigates a person to use them often and often. Similar is the case of beautiful scenario. Man in order to see his mind gets relaxed goes to forests, Sea, Parks, mountains etc. But when he is entangled in a criminal case he does not derive joy in these places of interest. Strikingly good places appear to be drab, worthless places for him for the reason his mind is restless resulting in lack of concentration. A person goes to a music concert, Film show etc to enjoy. But if he finds his son being sick he does enjoy the show even though present. This is because the sickness of son has disturbed him. At times when our mind is busy roaming elsewhere, we are unaware of taste of food being eaten. Hence it is clear that happiness rests with when accompanied by concentrated mind and not in objects.

 

K: First you said that God is a prime source of all Happiness and now you are telling that happiness lie in concentrated mind. Why this dichotomy?

 

V: Only in the concentrated mind the blissful God is felt. The ignorant finds that happiness lie in the external things. This is not dichotomy. What is important to be known here is, because of habit man obtains   transient concentration in worldly things. Hence transient happiness is obtained. We may ultimately realize God if we start concentrating mind in comprehensive form in worship. This is the ultimate aim of life. Precisely for this reason, praise [Stuti] prayer [Prathana] and communion [Upaasana] is necessary, the object being let mind gets concentrated and thereby derive more and more happiness.

 

K: What is the proof that the more the mind is concentrated, the more happiness is derived?

 

V: I give a proof based on state of being while in wakeful {Jagrit] state and in deep slumber [Sushupthi] state. During wakeful position man’s transactions [vrithis] are spread over towards worldly things. Hence concentration is not attained. The mind rushes to one object or the other. But in sleep condition his mind’s activities are in concentrated, restful mode, and he feels happy after a good sleep. Getting up in the morning he says that he is happy because he got a good sleep overnight. The happiness he got in sleep was due to the mind’s concentration. The soul is relieved off the connection with worldly objects and rapprochement is done with God. The soul is attached either to worldly things or with God. The more he is attached to worldly things the more sorrow he experiences. The more he cultivates relationship with God he derives more happiness. This becomes clearer from the example. A person is in jail. He is ailing. He is pained at the loss of his wife and children. He is having lot of other worries.  He is disturbed but till when? These things drag him to restlessness as long he is in wakeful state.  Once he manages to get sleep all the troubles disappear and he enjoys the same amount of happiness that a king

enjoys. Even animals enjoy happiness in sleep. This is because that in Sleep his mind’s transactions are not scattered over, but remain concentrated. Control of mind’s transactions is called “YOGA” i.e. communion with God. When an intelligent communion is established with God thru Stuti, Prarthana, and Upaasana it is said that there is spiritual elevation. This spiritual upliftment reaches its zenith thru Samadhi where Soul becomes immersed with God. This is the ultimate aim of life.

 

K:  Which is called Stuthi, Prathana and Upaasana?

 

V:  Praising the God with full devotion and faith is called Stuthi. Seeking God’s help for the removal of his foibles or weaknesses from those Godly qualities is called Prarthana. Keeping away from the worldly things that involves his pride in self called Ahankar and strongly invoking a feeling that he is nearer to God is called Upaasana.

 

K: You believe that God has no Form. But large number of people in the world thinks otherwise and offer prayer to the Form. What is wrong in understanding that God has a Form or having a Body?

 

V: You will get answer to this question tomorrow.

 

Vedic Religion

Vedas For Beginners : Is the God the Creator?

Leave a comment

K:  Sister!  Give reply to yesterday’s question

 

V:  Your yesterday’s question was how God could protect the world when he was devoid of body for the reason that there could be no activity without body being present. But  I say that  your understanding of the matter is wrong. Conscious being can do functions any where it resides. It can give momentum. Where it is not there, then only the requirement of body is needed. For ex, now I have lifted this book. From which?

K: By hands of course.

 

V: If hands were not to be there would it be possible to lift the books?

 

K: Not possible.

 

V: Good!  The hands have lifted the book.  Now tell me which lifted the hands?

 

K: You have lifted the Books with your strength.

 

V: Look! I am shaking my entire body. From which the body is being shaken?

 

K: From your strength. It is obvious.

 

V: You were just telling that no activity was possible without Body. Now how the body got its activity without a Body?  The answer to this question is wherever the conscious entity and its strength is present there remains no necessity for the agency like the body. The Soul that resides inside the body gives mobility for the entire body, and for those things that reside outside the mobility is given thru the body. This is because He [Soul] is not found outside. God resides both inside and outside and he is omnipresent. Hence He does not require a body. Since he is present in the entire universe he gives momentum for the entire universe.

 

K:  I see, Pot makers, Cooks etc, who are having a Form, alone could create objects having Form. Then how formless God could create this world having a Form?

 

V: Creators who have a visible Form could create things that are external to their bodies. They cannot create things within their bodies. For the creation of things that are external to their bodies the help of limbs like hands and legs are necessary. However these are not necessary for creation of things that are inside. There are no materials which are external to god. He pervades all.  He is omnipresent. Hence no body is necessary for Him to create. A cook prepares food that is outside his body. Supposing if he prepares the food inside his body then who would eat the food? In such case why hands and legs are needed? The blood, bone, and marrow are formed inside the body without the help of hands and legs. Now think over. Sense organs create and watch external things. In case they were to watch what goes inside the body the life becomes miserable. How things will be if one were to smell inside body things, were to watch the flesh, blood, stools etc present inside the body? It is awful experience indeed! It is god’s grace that we see things that are external to the body.

 

K: Does the Creator pervade the created? Clock maker makes the clock. Clock is different from that of clock maker. The sweet maker makes the sweet. The sweet and sweet maker is different from each other. It is a universal principle that the maker is different from what is made. How it is possible that the God creates all and pervades all? Secondly it is not understood how things are created without the aid of hands and legs.

 

V:  The clock makers, sweet maker, are all creative men with finite abilities further bound by the limitation of space and time. They are together with the object created to the extent of action involved for creation.  If they were not to be there the corresponding action would not have taken place. When we say that clock-maker made the watch it would mean that he assembled the machine parts. A clock-maker makes the watch but does not create it. The machine parts maker is with the clock when the machine parts are being assembled. If he was not present, the machine parts would not have joined together to become a clock. Similarly the machine maker is present with machine parts with action. If that was not the case the machine parts would not have been made. Similarly, the people who made steel [out of iron ore] used to make machine parts were with the steel and this would not have come off had they not been with steel. This goes to prove that behind making a clock many hands of creation are involved. The Creator is present with the every corresponding action. Similar is the case of Goldsmith, and others. They are the creators of their action. Many hands are involved before making a final product.

 

So it is clear that while making an object, apart from the maker, the help of many people are involved. Then only an object could be created. Why this is so?  This is so because man has limited knowledge and limited abilities and he could create things with the coordinated efforts of others. Those Creators are with the created by their action. When they could associate with gross objects as such,why god is not present in the subtlest of the subtle, grossest of the gross Creation? Think for yourself. Creation does not mean just Sun, Moon, Stars, Mountains, Tress, Rivers, Human beings, Animals, Birds etc, There are many things which are endless subtle and beyond imagination. The Creation includes or a combination of all these things.

 

          Creation is made by an intelligent combination of atoms. Five gross elements, five principles of subtle entities called Panchatanmatras [speech, touch, vision, taste, and smell] five great elements called Panch-Mahabhootas [ether, air, water, fire and earth] are all created out of these atoms. The creation is made of out of these things. If the assembler of atoms is not with them how they can take shapes? There is no machinery in the world which can hold atoms together and bring out things out of them. The elements which are indivisible are called Atoms. God is immanent in all the atoms. Hence is able to form the grossest and subtlest things in the world. The atoms are the subtlest things in insensate [Jada] matters and God is more subtle than them. Hence he could pervade them. If this was not the case, he had to seek the help of outside agency similar to man taking the help of others for creating things. Hence it is clear that everyone is present to the extent of action involved for creation. Now the question how could things be created without hands and legs? Granting that these parts are necessary, a question that arises here as to who could have created these limbs? Here it should be understood, Hands and legs are the product of creation. When hands and legs could be created without the help of the latter is it not then possible for other parts of Creation to be had without the assistance of hands and legs?  Are the hands and legs of a child in mother’s view being formed with any hands or legs? Seeds grow into plants and trees. And are they so made with hands and legs? It should be made clear here, that hands and legs could manufacture things that are related it.  Is it possible to create mosquitoes and other minute creatures out of legs and hands? The circumference of the Earth where human beings reside is about 25000miles. There are planets like Mars, Uranus and stars like Sun in the Universe which are million times bigger than the Earth. Is it possible to create these objects with hands and legs? Only the omnipresent and omnipotent God has created these bodies in a purposeful manner.

 

K:  Sister!  Some how you initiate new subjects for discussion.  Where is the Rule being observed here? Are the things created as per Rule? Where is the method here?  We see tall mountains, deep valleys, on the one side! And on the other side there exist dense forests, deserts, bushes, shrubs etc. Where is the method/order here? Like wise the world is formed haphazardly. Normally a system is followed. When a man builds a house, he provides for a living room, well, lavatory etc so as to make it hospitable. An agriculturist builds an agricultural farm, provides for a farm house, canals, varieties of plants and trees etc in a methodical manner. A shopkeeper arranges goods in order in the shop. So a Rule or method is followed by man, whereas I find Creation to be reckless and bizarre. As per my assessment no Rule or method is found to be in Creation.

 

V: It is utter foolish to say that no Rule or method is found in Creation. Why Sun should rise in East and set in west? Why not the other way round? Is there no Rule here? Even the best made human watch shows slight variation in being either fast or slow. But do you find a variation by a second in the movement of Sun and the Moon? How perfect are their movements? Based on the movements of Sun and Moon the eclipses occurring at a distant future could be predicted accurately. Similar is the state of things in respect of other cosmic bodies also. Now tell me why mango seed is obtained from Mango tree only. Why we cannot get oranges from Mango tree? Why man is born a baby, grows into adult and gets old. Why not he gets old first, youth later and baby there afterwards?  Why see with eyes only and not heard from them? Why nose smells only but cannot taste?  Are these not indicative of the presence of Rule here?

 

Mountains are found to be somewhere and so the rivers. Oceans, bushes, Forests are found to be at some other place. And to say that there is no Rule in creation because of this diversity is reflective of your ignorance. With what petty yardstick you are measuring the Creation? Normally people find fault in things they do not understand. This is universal phenomenon. This sort of reasoning could be likened to an ant which started climbing the body of man and telling that the head is like a forest, eyebrows as thorny fences, nose as a hillock with nostrils as tunnels, moustaches to bushy forests, etc and felt that man indeed  should be awful creature. The ant bound by its limited intelligence assumes that body has been formed haphazardly.

 

Supposing, for the convenience of ant, if the eyes, face, nose and other parts are removed and body is made flat then the ant might feel that the body had been constructed in orderly fashion. Now my point is body shaped to the requirement of an ant could satisfy the whims and fancies of an ant and it might even say that the human body was in order. But the body shaped to the ant’s requirement could ever remain human?  Will the aesthetic intelligent transaction between the organs of perception and action occur there?  Not at all. Take another example. An Engineer constructs a machine having hundreds of parts inside it. The shape and size of each part might be round, curved, square, big or small. The parts are made to the requirement of the machine. An ignorant person not aware of the importance of machine might think that the parts are too big or curved and he may even say that the parts have been assembled haphazardly.  It is natural for an ignorant to think this way. But the machine maker knows well and he has assembled the parts as ought to have been done for the machine to work satisfactorily. If the machinery parts had been made either round or straight only the Machine would not have worked at all.

 

Similar is the position of Creation effected by God. The machinery called Creation has many parts. It has mountains, rivers, ocean, valleys, forests etc, etc. The Creation has a purpose and an object, i.e. welfare of human beings. For the ignorant, the parts of Creation appear as uncouth, useless and lacking in order, the reason being they are unaware of purpose of Creation. The usefulness of parts of Creation i.e., oceans, rivers, mountains etc is not understood. The examples of shopkeeper, agriculturist, etc that were given are too small and could be understood easily, whereas the laws of Creation are too subtle and complex to be understood. Just think over of the Brain thru which man makes laws. Even this brain is made by god who has formulated innumerable laws of Creation. If no laws were to be there who would have believed God? The existence of immutable laws provides the proof of existence of God.

 

K: O.K. God has made the Creation. Who has created the God?

 

V:  Created matter is the effect. It [created matter] requires a material cause [base material] and the Maker is called Efficient cause. God is not a created-matter. He is Eternal and has No origin. Hence, the question, as to who created God does not therefore arise. Who could be creator for who is self-created? If the Creator were to have a creator then he cannot be called a Creator. He becomes a Cause then. He is alone a Creator who is self-independent. The matter- created, cannot be termed as Creator. The human bodies deemed as Creators are not Creators in the real sense. They are instruments or agencies that bring about Creation. The Soul is the Creator. 

 

K: O.K.  Granting, that Creator has no Creator as such, then please tell me as to why should we accept the God? Why should we praise [stuthi] pray [prarthana] and communion [Upaasana] Him?  How is He related to our lives?

 

————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Note : This is the the translated version of the original  ” Do bahinonke bathe” written by  late Siddagopal “kaviratna”.

Translated by Vasudev Rao.

Vedic Religion

Vedas For Beginners : IS GOD IS THERE OR NOT?

1 Comment

K; Sister! You have been telling me to pray daily. I am asking you to whom we should pray? And where is that God?

 

V: God is everywhere. There is no place which is free from God.

 

K: You have told the wonderful. If god were to be everywhere then where are other things? All space  are occupied by God and if there is no place free from God then there is no place for other things. Were the other things  remaining  without a space ?

 

V: It is not that way sister! When it is said that there is no place free from God, it means that God is everywhere. This is my opinion and that is how it is told in a common language. God being there  is not dependent on space. It is the   physical  elements that occupy the space.

Earth, water, air, fire and their atoms, are those things that occupy space. But God pervades them all. Hence it is said that God is everywhere.

 

K: O.K. If God were to everywhere  why He is not seen? When  not seen, where is the proof of  his presence?

 

V: Are there are no objects present which are not seen? There are so many things in the world which are not seen. cold, hot,  happiness, sorrow, time, direction, hunger, thirst, itching, pain, etc are there which are not seen. There may be many reasons for a thing not to be seen.  Like far off places say, like  Europe, America etc, many things are not seen. Are we able to see the kite or a bird flying at  a far off distance? Because of closeness of proximity also, eye is not able to see a thing. There are hundred of subtle things like atoms. Some like  bacteria or virus could be seen only thru microscope. Water being covered with  algae is not seen because of algae  and like wise there are so many unseen because separated by cover.  Because of dirt, a mirror is not seen and because of presence of a wall the man sitting across the wall is also not seen. Milk and water are both liquids and because of this water in milk is not seen. If there were to be trouble in the eye many things are not seen. A man affected with jaundice cannot see white objects. Hence it is not correct to say that  things are not present  just  because they are un seen.

 

K:  For me, I don’t believe in anything without seeing.

 

V: This shows your obduracy. I have already said that there are many things which are not seen and yet   we have to believe them.  Good! Now,  are you listening to  what I am telling?

 

K: Yes listening.

 

V: By which?

 

K: By ears of course

 

V: Are you sure that what I am telling?

 

K: Yes. Why not?

 

V:Are you seeing my words thru your eyes? Okay. Look here, I am having a flower in my hands. Which is that flower?

 

K: It is Rose.

 

V: Does  the flower has a fragrance  or not?

 

K: Yes. It has a fragrance.

 

V: How did you come to  know about  this?

 

K:  Through my nose.

 

V:  Tell me one thing. Did sugar was there in the milk that  you drank overnight?

 

K:  Yes. It was there.

 

V:  How did you come to know about  it?

 

K: Thru My tongue.

 

V:  Now I point out, that the sound was perceived thru ears,  fragrance thru nose, and sugar thru tongue. Why this way? Why not did eyes perceive sound,  ears the fragrance and nose the sugar?  Even though the smell and fragrance was present why not the same was seen by eyes?

 

K;  The senses perceive its subjects only and grasp knowledge. God is not perceivable by any sense organs. How could we believe that He  is present at all?

 

V: God is not seen and therefore he is not present  was your initial argument. Now you have turned over.  You have agreed that there could be things not seen. It is separate  issue that the knowledge of such unseen things  could be had by  other sense  organs. Now, you are asking how the presence of   God could be accepted when he is not perceivable by any sense organ. If you believe that God could not  exist as He is not understood by senses, then how you understand these senses? If you believe that sense organs are understood by sense  organs only then it constitutes what is known as Atmashrya Dosha. This is because thru what is seen is not seen by itself. When their subjects are different by themselves how sense organs could understand the  sense  organs? The subject matter of eye is sight; ears sound;  nose smell; tongue taste; skin touch. Nose cannot understand the eyes nor the  tongue can understand the ears.

 

 

 

K:  How it cannot be  understood? When I hold mirror before me,  the eyes, ears, nose , tongue etc are forthcoming. The eyes are more forthcoming about knowledge of other organs.

 

V:  Sister! This is your wrong understanding. What you see from your eyes is only a form or sight not the subjects. Will you see the subjects of other sense organs in the mirror? The eyeballs can see places of  sense organs which have a form. The strength of these senses are present in that places.  Can eyes disclose  the entire knowledge about other sense organs? Eyes cannot see by itself. You are of the opinion that  eyes are seen in a mirror. Now, I put a question. Tell me  what is in my hand?

 

K:  Mirror.

 

V:  How did you see that there is a mirror in my hand?

 

K; Thru eyes of course.

 

V: When you said  that you saw mirror thru eyes , it means before seeing a mirror eyes  had a knowledge. In other words it means to say that without eyes mirror would not have seen. Now tell me, whether thru  eyes mirror is understood or vice versa?  If eyes are understood thru mirror, even when eyes are dried up, the mirror should have caused  the knowledge of the dried up eyes. When eyes are dried up , let alone causing the knowledge of eyes, mirror  cannot cause the knowledge of itself. If you think deeply, even eyes see the others with the help of other aids and not independently. It is however  true that sight cannot be seen without eyes  but the knowledge of  sight  cannot be made  by eyes themselves.

 

K; What other  aids are required for eyes? Eyes sees the Forms independently. The subject matter of eyes are sight. How do you say that eyes don’t see independently?

 

V: Yes.  Now I am seeing all objects. But  if there  is a thick darkness surrounding can I see things?

 

K:  No, It cannot be seen.

 

V: Hence it is clear that eyes are not just enough to see. It requires light. If there were to be no light  eyes are helpless. And even if both light and eyes were to remain present  and the object is not stationary then also we cannot see. If you place the book too close to your eyes you cannot read. Similarly also we cannot read letters in a book held at a distance. Therefore to read letters  book is to be held at a definite distance and place. Further, even the object at a place and light were to be there and  if eyes were removed from the mind, in that event also we cannot see. There are many occasions where mind is involved in some work, the objects are not seen by the eyes even though they  may pass thru our front. In such circumstances, if you were to ask a person whether he observed certain things he would say “ no, I did not watch”. Now you would have understood what are the aids that are required to see a particular object.

 

K:  What do you mean by all this?

 

V: Have you not understood as yet?  If you cannot perceive God thru sense organs, you cannot understand sense organs thru sense organs. But even then we have to accept the sense organs. Then why doubt about  the  acceptance of existence of God.

 

K: How we can understand the senses?

 

V: Sense organs are understood by the Soul thru experience. When he perceives sound, smell, Form,etc he understands  “ That there are aids within me and I am getting the benefit thru them”

 

K: And how we could understand the God?

 

V: God could be understood by experience.

 

K: How the experience is got?

 

V: God is felt thru Soul.

 

K: When  this feeling is felt?

 

V: When mind is got rid of three faults.

 

K: What are these faults?

 

V:  Mala,  Vikshepa, and Avarana

 

K: What are its characteristics?

 

V: The thinking of doing bad to others and  the effects of  Sins fallen on Soul [sanskars] is called Mala.  Constantly thinking over  the worldly objects[materialism] and lack of firmness in mind is referred to as Vikshepa. The impact formed on mind about the pride of temporary worldly things is referred to as Avarana.

 

K: How can we overcome the above three faults?

 

V:  There are three ways thru which we can overcome these three hurdles.

 

K: What are they?

 

V: Knowledge, [Jnana]  Action[Karma] and Communion [ Upaasana]

 

K: What you mean by Knowledge, Action and worship?

 

V:  Understanding the matter as it is,  i.e. to treat inert matter  as inert[Jada] Conscious entities [ Chetan] as Conscious[Chetan] and transitory things  as transitory  things marks the  Knowledge.  To work for the welfare of  Soul, Body and  Society and to try for the acquisition of ennobling things  is referred to as Action. To approach  a material  and  overcoming his shortcomings based on the strength of that  material   is referred to as Communion.  Consider for a while, that  a person is down with cold. If he approaches water for the removal of cold it betrays  his ignorance, not knowledge. If he is aware of fire and  tries to obtain fire thru Action and approaches fire for the removal of cold then  only he gets rid of cold. From Knowledge, the Mala is overcome, from Action, Vikshepa, is got rid of and finally thru Communion  the effect of Avarana is kept away. Then only God is felt.

 

K: Make this point more clear. How the faults of Mala, Vikshepa, and Avarana are removed respectively by Knowledge, Action, andCommunion respectively?

 

V: With the help of  Knowledge, it should be understood that all worldly things, all living beings are not permanent. For this reason, not entertaining the  feeling of  snatching away  the rights of others is a step in the direction of removal of evil  of Mala. By  thinking that worldly things are the end all and be all  and appropriating them with that spirit  would cause infirmity of mind  or Vikshepa. It is true that materials in the world are means to an end. But they are not end by themselves nor they could be life ideals. According to this principle, the action of man should be dispassionate, like a lotus in a water pond. This is type of  Karma which drives away Vikshepa. Looking upon the God gifted things as something his own is the thing that makes a deep imprint on the mind of man and this prompts him to treat money, women, land as his own which   causes self-pride and this cast spell over his  mind. Further with the strength of these material possessions  he starts tormenting  the others. He thinks there are no superior to him. But instead, when  he does Action with full Knowledge then he withdraws all forces inside  and with concentration thinks that “ God is with me and I am with God” in his heart  then he gets away from the evil ofAvarana. Hence by constant efforts and resorting to Knowledge, Action and Communion he is able to drive away the three evils Mala, Vikshepa and Avarana. Then only he can the feel the presence of God.

 

K; Sister, you are very clever and good at logic. Now tell me why God is necessary to this world at all?

 

V: Why God is  necessary to the world? Very good question. If God were not to be there then how is the world is created?. Who can create Sun, Moon, mountains, rivers, Air, water, ether, stars, forests, Trees, fruits, Milk, honey animals, birds, water creatures, snakes, etc. Who else can create these things and species?

 

K: Why God is necessary for the creation of these things? They are self-formed and has been there always.

 

V: If  things in the world could form themselves without the help of creator, then food should  have there without a cook, pot without a potter, ornaments without a goldsmith, sweet without sweet maker, dress without a tailor etc.  Secondly any thing in the world does not remain permanently. Every thing in the world has a origin, growth, decay, and ultimately destruction. All big to very big things have been created and gets destroyed in the end..

 

K:  I don’t see that God creates things. It does not appear as such. All things are formed by themselves and this order is there from time immemorial. Earth, water, Air, Fire, and their atoms are in existence in the world. These elements keep on joining  themselves in the creation of new and newer things and getting destroyed separately. Where is the work of God involved  here?

 

V:  Your opinion does not stand  to facts. The Earth and the other elements  and their atoms are inert matters. They don’t join themselves without joining them and do not disintegrate without getting disintegrated. Joining and Unjoining  are mutually hostile qualities. These qualities do not stay together. There may any number of qualities in a matter but not mutually  hostile qualities. If the nature of a thing  is to associate they keep on associating. and on the other hand disintegrating is their quality they keep on disintegrating. They do not join with mutually hostile qualities. If you were to say that joining and disintegrating  are the nature of a matter,  those qualities which are  predominant will have a say over the other. For ex, if joining is the  predominant quality, it never allows the world to disintegrate. If disintegrating is the nature of a matter and remains predominant it never allows the world  to stay together. If both qualities are held to be  equal then no object can be formed in the world. But we are seeing where an object is formed, remains for a while and gets destroyed. You may imagine any number of qualities in physical matters, but without God, Creation, sustenance, and dissolution is not possible in the matter called Prakrithi. There is difference in Conscious[ Chetan] and Non-Conscious[ Jada}forces. The Non-Conscious cannot do anything on their own. It keeps working with the help of Conscious forces only. The Conscious being  is capable of doing, not doing or undoing anything. This is the natural qualities of  Conscious beings.

 

K: The person who creates a thing in the world is directly  visible. The goldsmith, potter, the sweet maker,  the bird which builds the nests are  all seen. If God were to be creator of this world he would have been visible.

 

V: Believe me. The maker in the world is not at all visible. It is totally false to say that the goldsmith, Sweet maker, potter are visible. You may ask how? Listen. People like Potter, Goldsmith etc are creators who are made of twin elements, Body and Soul, The body to a soul is an instrument to do a function. Only when soul uses the  instrument called body a material  is formed. Without the instrument called body a material cannot come off. The goldsmith, potter etc are  physical bodies which are visible and are made of five elements called earth, water, fire, air and sky. But the soul who makes use of this body is not at all visible. The body without the soul cannot create things. Likewise without body, a soul cannot do anything either. His strength is of limited character. Hence God grants him a body which is visible. But God is of  limitless potentialities, omnipresent and omniscient. He does things without a body. The soul is also a creator like God, albeit with a limited strength and abilities . God is a creator of all. Both God and Soul  are not visible.

 

K: If God  is without Body then how is that  He can create the world. No function is ever possible without an instrument called  body.

 

V: Now the time is over. Tomorrow morning answer to this question will be given.

 

K: Okay. Let it be on tomorrow.
————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Note : This is the the translated version of the original  ” Do bahinonke bathe” written by  late Siddagopal “kaviratna”.

Translated by Vasudev Rao.

English, Myth Busters

The origin of the Vedas: Dr. Vidhu Mayor

Leave a comment

Veda 1

The idea that ‘the Rig Veda is the oldest book of mankind’ was first stated by Max Muller in the late 19th century.  Sadly, such statements have since been accepted uncritically, even within some Arya Samaj circles. It is sad because this contradicts the age-old theist Indian conviction that all four of the Vedas were revealed to mankind when humans were first created by God.  Each one of the four ‘books’ were revealed to four different humans.

The founder of the Arya Samaj movement, Svami Dayanand Sarsavati, expounds on the origin of the Vedas in his book Rigvedadibhashyabhumika, at the beginning of which he explains that God did not, however, produce the Vedas in the form of books in the beginning, but that ‘He revealed them to the consciousness of Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angirasa’.  Amongst the first humans, these were four rishis of such great merit that they were the most worthy of this honour. The author further cites the Shatapatha Brahamana XI. 5-8-3: that from them, when they meditated, were produced the three Vedas, viz., from Agni was produced the Rigveda, from Vayu, the Yajurveda, and from Surya the Samaveda. God inspired their consciousness and produced the Vedas through them….God gave them knowledge in the shape of the Vedas. Dayanand stresses this point to emphasize that these four did not compose the Vedas; he further writes:

The Samhitas are called Veda because all men know all true sciences in or through them, or because all true sciences exist in them, or because all true sciences exist in them, or because men become learned by studying them. The Samhitas are called
‘Shruti’ because from the beginning of creation to the present day Brahma and others have heard all true sciences read out of them. The Vedas, having been revealed by God who has no bodily organs, were never composed by a being having a corporeal body. God used Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angirasa as His instruments only for revealing the Vedas….The Vedas are not the products of their minds. God, being possessed of perfect knowledge, the relations between the Vedic words and their meanings also were established by Him.

Dayanand then goes on to rationalise his assertion that this act of revelation took place over 1.96 billion years ago.  So, in this sense it would be partially true to say that ‘the Rig Veda is the oldest book of mankind’.  Two errors in this statement, however, are that (i) it suggests that the Rig preceded the other three Vedas which – as has been explained above – is not true, for all four Vedas were revealed simultaneously and (ii) the false notion that these four samhitas began life in the form of ‘books’ of paper with ink-pen writing.  Obviously, at some point in history later on, this knowledge was written down into the form of books instead of it remaining solely imprinted in the memories of humans with unimaginably powerful intellects (even today wecan find men in India who are able to recite all 20000 mantras of the Vedas orally).

A third error implicit in Max Muller’s contention is that these books were written a few thousand years ago during the so-called Vedic era of India’s history. The case for debunking this as a myth now follows.

Textbooks of history used in schools in India even today teach that the people of India originate, racially, from an invasion of ‘Aryans’ into India over 3500 years ago – this version of history being a legacy left behind by the British rule over India for over two centuries.  The evidence for this theory is based mainly on the work done by European archaeologists and linguists during the time of Britain’s domination of India as its colony. The theory of Indo-Aryan migration was proposed in mid-19th century by German linguist and Sanskrit scholar Max Muller who proposed that these invaders introduced the ‘Indo-European languages’ and the caste system into India.

It is admittedly biased to summarily and contemptuously dismiss, here, these theories (which are predicated on proffering fossils of chariot technology as evidence, amongst other, of such an invasion) as being totally false. However, an author as eminent as GK Chesterton penned the following indictment of archaeology not being an exact science: the case in the 1920’s in the USA when the finding of a fossilised tooth was heralded – with much media excitement – as more proof that man had descended from apes because the tooth had characteristics of both man and ape.  However, in 1927 other parts of the skeleton were found – to reveal that this tooth was not that of `Nebraska Man’ but that of a pig!

Max Muller’s work will be critiqued later.  Firstly, however, Svami Dayanand’s powerful objection in his 1883 book ‘Light of Truth’ must be reiterated: In no Sanskrit book – historical or otherwise – is it recorded that the Aryas emigrated here from Iran, fought with and conquered the aborigines, drove them out, and became the rulers of the country. How can then these statements of the foreigners be true?  Why, indeed, did the Aryan invaders go to such lengths as to conceal or destroy all evidence of their origin in Central Asia? An analogy would be of there being, in three thousand years time, no surviving documentary evidence whatsoever, of the people of America today having emigrated there from Europe, in both those continents! Further, such a scenario would also require no evidence to survive of the virtual genocide of the indigenous American Indians by the European invaders. Why has no evidence emanated from Central Asian countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan of such a migration?  Would one not expect them to present such evidence – of their exporting to India of its rich Vedic civilisation – with justifiable nationalistic pride?

Modern – Western – historians are notably silent in addressing or rebutting these objections; this silence is positively deafening in light of the allegations, by the likes of De Riencourt, of disingenuity on Dayanand’s part. Two discrepancies that become clear are (i) why is there such an enormous difference in the interpretation of the Rig Veda between today’s historians and Dayanand and (ii) why are there similar differences in the account of Indian history by Dayanand, an Indian, and the version – accepted as true today – proposed by ‘visiting’ western historians and archaeologists?

A brief digression is warranted here. The explanation offered by the Occident for the paucity of historical documents to be found in India is that, somehow, a peculiar characteristic of the Indian psyche is to have no need or interest in history!  Max Muller was not the first German to suggest this. One far more eminent, none other than the great German philosopher Hegel, remarked: ‘Its strikes everyone in beginning to form an acquaintance with the treasures of Indian literature, that a land so rich in intellectual products and those of the profoundest order of thought, has no History; and in this respect contrasts most strongly with China….’ [The fascinating fascination that Germany discovered for India 200 years ago is another story that Indians of today must reflect upon].  Amaury de Riencourt, in his 1960 book The Soul of India further develops this – quite preposterous – notion as elaborated on page 9 of that book – ‘With the arrival of the Aryan war bands, all historical evidence vanishes; script disappeared, and the wooden structures of the Aryans rotted away in time without leaving any traces. From the very first, the invaders manifested the most remarkable trait of Indian psychology: a complete, instinctive indifference to history and the preservation of historical records. The Aryans in India had no memory.  And instead of historical treatises such as the Chinese have left to posterity , the Aryans left us myths – the transmutation of time-bound historical events into timeless tales in which fact and fancy are almost inextricably mixed.’

So, there we have it: Indians not only have a peculiarity in their make-up that precludes them from having a penchant for their own – or anyone else’s – history but are also asked to accept that it is necessary for foreigners to teach it to them.

Why, then, did Svami Dayanand devote well over a hundred pages in Chapter XI of the Light of Truth, a book primarily devoted Vedic theology and philosophy, to an examination of the history of India?  Why were as many as six of the 50-odd lectures he delivered in Pune in 1875 devoted to history? One of these began: ‘Today’s topic is history.  I shall talk about history in an orderly sequence.  Itihaasa means itihaaso naama vrittam, that is, it is a narration of past events. It started since the creation and it continues today.’  What were the sources he used – or is it inferred that a man revered for his colossal integrity fabricated his version?

De Riencourt finds it necessary to disparage Dayanand’s book as a ‘bird’s-eye view of world history’ and describes his interpretation of the Vedas as ‘his narrow-minded superficial metaphysics’.  Not mentioned at all is Dayanand’s simple explanation as to why the historical records in India have been decimated, that is, that they were destroyed by successive hostile ‘colonisers’ of India over a period of two millenia – beginning with the Buddhists and ending with the Islamic Mughals (and as is well-known today the British also seized literary records, amongst other things).

In debating which translation (Dayanand’s or Max Muller’s) of the Vedas should be believed, the starting point is that the Western world – and thus Indian text-books of history – accepts Max Muller’s contention that the compilation of the Vedas was started during the invasion of India by the Aryans circa 1500 BC and that their hymns, in the words of De Riencourt, ‘undoubtedly reflect the feelings of victorious and warlike barbarians.’

Dayanand translated (i) Rig Veda’s mantra 5:82.5 (Aum vishvaani deva savitur….) and (ii) God’s injunction in Rigveda 8-49-2 as follows:

(i)                  O, Omnipresent and benevolent Creator, disabuse us of our vices.  Secure in us that which is for our betterment [God, O all-pervading kindest Creator, take away our evils (and) inculcate goodness in us].

(ii)                 Acquire duly the Dharma preached by me, which is quintessentially devoid of bias and partiality, and is truthful by definition.

Come together to give up all conflict, so that the best of your happiness may increase and all suffering may be destroyed.

Having met together, hold discussions; ask questions and answer them, lovingly.  Avoid perverse reasoning such as sophistry, prejudiced and untrue arguments, so that noble qualities and true knowledge may forever increase amongst you.

Acquire wisdom to enable your minds to become replete with knowledge and always be filled with joy. Always follow Dharma and never practice Adharma. You should follow the same Dharma as has always been followed by learned, wise and impartial men -whether of past times or of the present age, that is, whether dead or living – maintaining a love for the preaching of the Divine Dharma.

They worshipped me as the Almighty and adorable God and followed the Dharma laid down by me. You also must do the same, so that you may know the Dharma inculcated by the Vedas and have no doubts about it.

Can these examples, indeed, be the work of Aryan savages?  Is the quality of this wisdom not, at least, on a par with the highest echelons of European metaphysics? Alternatively, is it not far more plausible that  Dayanand was correct in, echoing the message of India’s great ancient sages such as Patanjli, that God revealed the Vedas to the first humans He created?

An affirmative answer to that question, that is that the Vedas are of Divine Authorship and not the work of Aryan ‘bards’ imagined by the European colonist-missionary axis of the 18th and 19th centuries ,requires the presentation of further evidence to expose the notion of an Aryan invasion of India as being a fiction.

 

Vidhu Mayor, August 2014, Birmingham, UK.

Christianity, English, Myth Busters

Unmasking Mother Teresa :RAKESH KRISHNAN

1 Comment

teresa

You think Mother Teresa was a saint, right? Perhaps you also believe she lifted millions of poor people around the world out of poverty. Think again.

Teresa was no saint. She was no friend of the poor either. On the contrary, the Albanian nun celebrated poverty and suffering, and refused to give medicines to the inmates under her care, in the process allowing them to die painful deaths.

A new study by Canadian researchers backs up what rationalists and neutral observers – like Britain’s Christopher Hitchens – have long held: Teresa only cared about poverty and not the poor. Researchers Serge Larivee and Genevieve Chenard from the University of Montreal and Carole Senechal of the University of Ottawa argue that Teresa was a saint of the media, not the gutters.

The Canadians analysed over 500 published writings about Teresa and conclude that her hallowed image, “which does not stand up to analysis of the facts, was constructed, and that her beatification was orchestrated by an effective media campaign”. Over 50 per cent of the books and articles were hagiographies, they say. The controversial study, to be published this month in the journal of studies in religion and sciences called Religieuses, says Teresa actually felt it was beautiful to see the poor suffer. According to the study, the Vatican overlooked the crucial human side of Teresa – her dubious way of caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it.

Most people will find this hard to believe all this because the media has painted this lovely picture of a caring mother who dedicated her life to charity. But where she went wrong was in believing suffering was good for the people. She believed in her cause but she had no idea what effect it had on the poor and sick people under her care. A fawning media, idiotic politicians and countless donors have overlooked these aspects. But facts are humbling so let’s look at Teresa’s history – the uncensored bits, that is.

Tainted donations

Remember Charles Keating? An investment fraud artist, he was the chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a federal investigation after the 1989 savings and loans collapse, which wiped out $160 billion in savings. Many of those affected were ordinary Americans, mostly retirees.

Keating it was discovered, had given more than US$1 million to Teresa and flew her around in his jet. During his trial for fraud, Teresa wrote to the judge, telling him what a good guy Keating was and asked for leniency in sentencing. She advised him to do what Jesus would do.

What Jesus would have done is debatable, but the judge gave Keating 10 years for fraud.

The scene now gets murkier. According to Dr Don Boys, author and former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, ”Teresa received a letter from the Deputy District Attorney telling her that the money Keating had given her was stolen from hard working people and suggested that she return the money. I would have suggested, after all, that is what Jesus would have you do. The good nun never answered his letter (nor returned the stolen money). After all, it was for the ‘poor’.”

Seedy connections

Dr Boys says Teresa or her handlers were very astute in using the media for her own end, raising money for her cause of adding members to the church. ”Some of the sugar daddies she fawned over were disreputable, unscrupulous people such as the bloody Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier (who plundered Haiti), the Communist Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha, Charles Keating, and other scoundrels,” he says. Taking money from Duvalier, one of the most vicious tyrants to walk the earth, would have been enough to subpoena Teresa. But she didn’t stop there.

One of the characters in her inner circle was Jim Towey, who became her legal counsel in the late 1980s. In February 2002, President George W. Bush violated both the letter and the spirit of the American constitution by setting up the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to further the cause of fundamentalist churches and religious conversions. Towey was appointed director of this office.

Anti-reformist

Teresa was a faithful servant of the Vatican. In an article on Slate.com, author Christopher Hitchens says, ”During the deliberations over the Second Vatican Council, under the stewardship of Pope John XXIII, (Teresa) was to the fore in opposing all suggestions of reform. Her position was ultra-reactionary and fundamentalist even in orthodox Catholic terms.” In fact, while receiving the Nobel Peace Prize she told a dumbfounded audience that abortion is “the greatest destroyer of peace.”

(Nobel Prize winning economist and author Steven Levitt has demonstrated in his brilliantly written book, Freakonomics, how the legalisation of abortion contributed to the sharp – and unexpected – drop in crime in the United States. Abortions prevented the birth of unwanted children in precisely those families that might have raised them as criminals.)

Insider reveals

One of the most compelling accounts of the macabre world of Teresa’s order, the Missionaries of Charity, is by the Australian, Collete Livermore. A nun who worked in Teresa’s order for 11 years, she ended up sick and disillusioned. In 1984 she quit and wrote the book Hope Endures, where she talks about a little known but disturbing side of Teresa, which she says hurt the truly needy.

Livermore explains how the nuns were not provided with medical advice, the use of mosquito repellents, or information about malaria and vaccinations because Teresa believed “God” would look after the nuns. Livermore got into trouble with the order for helping a man with dysentery who was in danger of dying.

“The order cared more about obedience than doing the right thing,” she writes. Teresa quoted Peter 2:18-23, which orders slaves to obey their masters even if they are abusive and difficult, and used this text to urge her nuns to obey superiors without question.

In Manila, Teresa wouldn’t let the nuns have a washing machine, which forced them to wash the underwear of the incontinent with brushes. Livermore felt the order was more concerned about inflicting hardship on the nuns than on helping the sick. More angst was in store for Livermore when she was forbidden to help a sick boy named Alex. That’s when Livermore decided to leave the order because she didn’t like the way she was expected to let the poor suffer.

Pain is beautiful

Before she died, Teresa had opened over 600 missions in 123 countries. Some of these missions have been described as “homes for the dying” by visiting doctors. The doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food and no painkillers. ”There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ’s passion. The world gains much from their suffering,” was her reply to criticism, cites Hitchens.

It would be pertinent to mention here that each time Teresa herself fell sick she sought the finest medical care. Despite the fact that medical tourists from the West travel to India for treatment, Teresa reckoned India wasn’t good enough for her. She was admitted to California’s Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation.

Canonisation capers

In 1997, a year after her death, the pope nominated Teresa for beatification, the first step towards sainthood. However, by doing this the pope violated a Vatican tradition that allowed a cooling off period of five years to guard against dubious characters.

Writes Hitchens: “As for the ‘miracle’ that had to be attested, what can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of (Teresa), which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn’t have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican’s investigators? No.”

Poverty hugger

What did Teresa and her charity achieve in the last six decades? I have argued in the past that aid never works. Not even a dent has been made in the sum total of suffering because of Teresa. Take Calcutta. Virtually nothing has changed there, except that Teresa has given that unfortunate metropolis a rank bad name.

Today, large swathes of India are entering the First World thanks to employment generated by free enterprise. On the other hand, Calcutta, virtually alone among India’s cities, seems stuck in LDC (Least Developed Country) mode. While its long association with Marxism, another vile import, may have something to do with the lack of progress, the presence of the poverty mongers ensures the city finds it impossible to shake off its Third World image. Teresa’s fundraising sermons have drilled into people’s mind that it is a city of lepers and beggars. As Hitchens said, “On one instance the nuns claimed, untruthfully of course, that Calcutta had 450,000 lepers, knowing that the rich have a poor conscience and would promptly despatch their dollars.”

Making of a myth

Despite these disturbing facts, how did Mother Teresa succeed in building an image of holiness and infinite goodness? According to the three Canadian researchers, her meeting in London in 1968 with the BBC’s Malcom Muggeridge, an anti-abortion journalist, was what catapulted her to superstardom.

In 1969, Muggeridge made a eulogistic film about the missionary. During filming, the interiors of Teresa’s mission in Calcutta were too dark, and he thought the scene wouldn’t come out well. But when the film was developed it turned out to be amazingly bright. Muggeridge trumpeted it as the ”first photographic miracle” when it should have been attributed to the new film stock being marketed by Kodak.

Teresa discovered the power of mass media; she travelled the world and received numerous awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize.

No accountability

Today, around the world Teresa’s charities have attained untouchable status, which helps them fend off any attempts by the authorities to stop their morbid experiments on sick and poor people.

There is also the question of the missing millions. Millions of dollars were transferred to the charity’s many bank accounts, but most of the accounts are secret, says Larivee. ”Given the parsimonious management of (Teresa’s) works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone?” he asks.

According to the researchers, Teresa raised almost $100 million before 1980. A good chunk was used for building houses for the missionaries. Just 5 per cent went to the cause. Let’s hear that again – just 5 per cent of that went to the poor.

The legacy

In India where Teresa did her ‘charity’ work for more than half a century, the ruling party flagged off a train named Mother Express to commemorate her birth centenary in 2010. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that the party, and therefore, the country, is headed by the Italian Sonia Maino, a.k.a. Sonia Gandhi.

Teresa has been known to be stingy even during national emergencies. During numerous floods in India she offered numerous prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid, the Canadian researchers say.

It’s noteworthy that all the abandoned children who are taken in Teresa’s missions are brought up as Christians. I’m for conversion if it’s voluntary but these children were never offered a choice in the matter of religion.

In India, for instance, Teresa was (and her mission continues to be) actively engaged in proselytising work, which is not only illegal but will negatively impact India’s complex social hierarchy. In effect, the Indian government is allowing the long-term balkanisation of the country, because wherever Hindus have become a minority in India, separatist movements have cropped up.

Gandhi roots for Teresa

I don’t get invited to luxury car launches. Or to wine festivals. But this landed in my inbox not too long ago: ”…invites you to an official interfaith gathering to honour Nobel Laureate, the late Mother Teresa of Kolkata India (sic) and pay tribute to her selfless service to the poor.” Boldly underlined was the name of the guest speaker: Gopalkrishna Gandhi, the grandson of the deranged M.K. Gandhi. The meeting was held in a central Auckland church.

Curiously, the person who sent me the invite asked me not to write about the meeting. I can’t figure why. Can you?

Source : http://i.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/local-blogs/dark-matter/8408272/Unmasking-Mother-Teresa

Myth Busters, वैदिक धर्म

सृष्टि रचना पर प्रश्न करने वाले नास्तिक मित्र को आर्य मित्र का उत्तर

4 Comments
नास्तिक मित्र
द्वारा अपने आक्रोशित मन से सृष्टि की पूर्णता पर प्रश्नचिन्ह लगाने का असफल प्रयास किया गया । उनके प्रश्नों की समीक्षा देखते है ।
दावा –
जैसे हम जानते हैं की प्रथ्वी आग का गोला थी और ठंढे होने पर इसपर जीवन आरम्भ हुआ । यदि हम यह माने की पृथ्वी ईश्वर द्वारा बनाया हुआ घर है तो जिसपर हम निवास करते हैं ,तो ईश्वर ने सीधा सीधा पृथ्वी को आज जैसा ही क्यों न बना दिया? आग का गोला बना के लाखो साल बाद इंसान को क्यों बनाया? ईश्वर ने सीधा सीधा रहने लायक बना के इंसान की उत्पत्ति क्यों नहीं की?
—–——————-
समीक्षा – वाह क्या मुर्खता की पराकाष्ठा दिखाई है ? इन महाशय का कहना है की ईश्वर ने इतना समय लिए बिना सीधा पृथ्वी और मनुष्य को उत्पन्न क्यूँ नही किया ?? मैं पूछता हु की हालांकि यह विग्यांविरुद्ध , सृष्टिं नियम विरुद्ध है फिर भी अगर इश्वर ऐसा कर भी दे तो ये नास्तिक फिर भी कहेंगे की ईश्वर ने जब सीधा पृथ्वी को ही बना दिया तो हम इंसानों के लिए आवश्यक सामग्री भी बना देता जैसे की विज्ञान के आविष्कार यथा car , skooter , mobile , train इत्यादि । पुनः यदि ऐसा संभव है तो सीधा प्रलय भी क्योंकर न हो ?
नियमबद्धता का ही नाम विज्ञान है , पुनः आधुनिक विज्ञानं को ही सब कुछ मानने वाले नास्तिक इसी विज्ञानं को ही नहीं जानते । यदि ईश्वर सीधा पृथ्वी को बना दे तो जो वैज्ञानिक सृष्टि निर्माण की प्रक्रिया खोज रहे है वो कभी सफल हो पायेंगे जब पृथ्वी बिना नियमबद्धता के ही अस्तित्व में आ गयी हो ? पुनः उन महान वैज्ञानिकों के पुरुषार्थ का कोई फल ना मिलने पर ये नास्तिक इस अन्याय का दोष भी ईश्वर पर थोपने से बाज नहीं आयेंगे ।
लगता है नास्तिक  जी ने ईश्वर को कुरान का अल्ला समझ रखा है ।
—————————
दावा –
पृथ्वी 100% परफेक्ट नहीं है यंहा कंही समुन्द्र ही समुन्द्र है, तो कंही रेत ही रेत तो कंही जंगल ही जंगल। जापान में जंहा रोज भूकंप आते हैं तो अरब जैसे देशो में पानी ही नहीं जबकि चेरापुंजी में वर्षा ही वर्षा होती है । कंही लोग सूखे से मर रहे हैं तो कंही लोग बाढ़ से , कंही ज्वालामुखी फटते रहते हैं । कंही हजारो फिट खाइयाँ हैं तो कंही हजारो फिट पहाड़ जंहा रहना संभव नहीं। कंही बिजली गिरने से लोग मारे जाते हैं,क्या मारे जाने वाले लोग ईश्वर के बच्चे नहीं हैं?
—————————–
समीक्षा –
इनका कथन है की पृथ्वी 100 % perfect नही है कहीं समुन्द्र ही समुन्द्र तो कही मरुस्थल व् कही खाई
ऐसा होना ये imperfection मानते है मैं पूछना चाहता हु की आप के अनुसार क्या होना चाहिए ? कैसे पृथ्वी को design करना चाहिए था ??
चलिए ईश्वर की रचना के विपरीत कल्पना करके देखते है क्या होगा ?
समुद्र की स्थिति की कितनी सम्भावनाए हो सकती है
सम्पूर्ण पृथ्वी पर समुद्र ही होता तो सिर्फ जलीय जीव ही रह पाते पुनः मनुष्य व अन्य जानवरों को आप कहाँ रखते केशव जी अरे इन जीवो व मनुष्यों की छोडिये आप खुद कहाँ रहते?
एक सम्भावना यह भी है सिर्फ थोड़े ही मात्र में बहुत जगहों पर जल हो
लेकिन यहाँ प्रश्न फिर से होगा की बड़े या छोटे अनेकों समुद्री जीवों का थोड़े ही जल में रहना कैसे सम्भव होता ? पुनः थोड़े ही जल में रहना उन जीवों के लिए बंधन रूप होगा स्वतंत्रता नहीं होगी जो की उनके लिए अन्याय होगा ।
समुद्र ही नही होता बल्कि थल ही होता तो भी जलीय जीवों को कैसे रखते ?
इसीलिए समुद्र व थल दोनों की अवश्यकता रहेगी । किसी निश्चित मात्र में ही समुद्र होगा ।
पुनः उपरी वर्णित बातें थल व् रेगिस्तान के बारे में भी समझ लीजियेगा ।
रेगिस्तान में भी जीव रहते है ।
ज्वालामुखी से ही पहाड़ बनते है और सब जानते ह की पहाड़ कितने उपयोगी है खनिज पदार्थ प्राप्त होते है , हमरे घर बनाने में उपयोगी है , सड़कें बनाने में और मुख्यतः नदियाँ पहाड़ों से बहकर समुद्र में मिलती है व् नदियों का पानी पीने के लिए उपयोग होता है अगर केशव जी के अनुसार ईश्वर पहाड़ नहीं बनता तो नदियों को बहाव देने के लिए क्या आपके तथाकथित महात्मा बुद्ध को बुलाना पड़ता ??
इस से पता चला कहीं समुद्र ,कहीं पहाड़ कही थल ऐसी व्यवस्था ही सही होगी ।
आपने प्रश्न करने से पहले यह भी न सोचा की ये सभी समुद्र व् पहाड़ एक दुसरे से किस प्रकार सम्बन्ध रखते है ।आपकी बुद्धि की क्या दाद दें ?
प्रत्येक विज्ञानं व् सामान्य ज्ञान का विद्यार्थी भी जानता है की पर्यावरण विज्ञानं के अनुसार इन बाढ़ , भूकंप , सूखे के लिए हम इंसान ही उत्तरदायी है प्रकृति का अत्यधिक दोहन करने के कारण ।
नास्तिक जी कृपया पुनः पर्यावरण विज्ञानं पढने की कोशिश करें ।
नास्तिक  जी आपको हर जगह रहने की ही फ़िक्र सता रही है ??
हर जगह सिर्फ रहने के लिए ही नही होती ।
यहाँ पर एक और बात है केशव जी हर जगह सुरक्षा पर अपनी चिंता जता रहे है अब इनको बताते है की पूर्ण सृष्टि में आपकी किस प्रकार सुरक्षा भी की गयी है ।
पृथ्वी की सुरक्षा के लिए सूर्य , चन्द्रमा व् बृहस्पति गृह का भी भूमिका है
जब भी कोई उल्कापिंड आता है तो पहले उसे बृहस्पति गृह अपने गुरुत्व बल से खिंच लेता यदि वह पृथ्वी की सीमा में आ भी जाये तो उसे चन्द्रमा के गुरुत्व बल से सामना करना पड़ता है व् कुछ उल्कापिंड सूर्य में समा जाते है । अब यदि पृथ्वी पर भी गिरे तो अधिकतर भाग समुद्र , रेगिस्तान , खाई आदि है व् अधिकतर उल्का पिंड भी यही गिरते है । अब देखिये ईश्वर की व्यवस्था में इनका कितना उपयोग है ? यही नही पृथ्वी की सीमा में प्रवेश करते ही वायुमंडल के अत्यधिक घर्षण से बड़ा उल्का पिंड ध्वस्त होकर कई भागों में विभक्त हो जाता है ।
कहिये नास्तिक  जी कैसी लगी सृष्टि की पूर्णता ।
दावा -आस्तिको का तर्क है की सभी चीजो का रचियेता ईशश्वर है और उसकी प्रत्येक रचना का कुछ उद्देश्य होता है ,तो हैजे, एड्स, केंसर आदि के सूक्ष्म जीवाणु को किस उद्देश्य से बनाया है ईश्वर ने?
मरे हुए बच्चो को किस उदेश्य से पैदा करता है ईश्वर?
जैसा की सभी जानते हैं की मानव शरीर में लगभग 200 रचनाये ऐसी हैं जिनका मनुष्य के लिए कोई उपयोग नहीं जैसे अपेंडिक्स , अब यदि हमें ईश्वर ने बनाया तो ईश्वर कैसे यह मुर्खता बार बार करता जा रहा है और अनुपयोगी चीजो को बनता जा रहा है?
कैसा परफेक्ट ईश्वर है?
——————————-
समीक्षा –
यह सवाल पूछ कर आपने बहुत अच्छा किया ताकि इस के उत्तर में नास्तिकों के कुकृत्य के बारे में भी बता दिया जाये ।
aids का virus एक चिम्पांजी और मनुष्य के यौन सम्बन्ध से पैदा हुआ था
इस बारे में यह धारणा भी ह की चिम्पांजी का मांस खाने पर यह वायरस mutation से बढ़ कर aids का virus बन गया था
व एक और धरना है की us america में सबसे पहले समलैंगिक पुरुषों में यह पाया गया
अब उपरोक्त तीनो कारणों से स्पष्ट हुआ की aids का virus सृष्टि नियम विरुद्ध मुर्खता के कार्यों का परिणाम था लेकिन यह स्वार्थी मनुष्य चार्वाक के अनुयायी जिन्हें यौन ही सब कुछ दिखे वो ईश्वर पर इसका दोष लगाने में कैसे पीछे हटेंगे ??
बाकी जीवाणु भी इसी प्रकार सृष्टि नियमविरुद्ध कार्यों का ही परिणाम है ।
नास्तिक  जी मरे हुए बच्चों का विषय तो कर्मफल का है यह विषयांतर प्रश्न उठाकर भागने का असफल प्रयास न करियेगा ।
apandix का अवश्य कोई कार्य है ही वर्ना अधिक वजन उठाने पर ये ख़राब क्यूँ होती ?
यदि madical science शरीर विज्ञानं पूरा जानती तब तो यह प्रश्न उठ सकता था लेकिन अभी तो विज्ञानं को और भी बातें खोजनी है इसलिए आपका यह तथ्य बालू की रेत से बनाये महलों के सामान ध्वस्त होता है ।
अब आप ये निर्णय कर लें की मुर्खता किसने की है ?
दावा -आस्तिक कहते हैं सूरज समय पर उगता है, प्रथ्वी अपनी धुरी पर घूमती है, 24 घंटे में अपना चक्कर पूरा करती है,ग्रहों का अपने परिक्रमापथ पर एक निर्धारति गति से घूमना आदि ईश्वर के नियम हैं।
पर, यह तर्क भी तर्कहीन है और आस्तिको के अल्पज्ञान का परिचारक है ।
गंभीरता से सोचने पर हम पाते हैं की प्रतिदिन सूर्य के उगने और अस्त होने में एक आध मिनट का फर्क रहता है ,फर्क इतना है की सर्दियों में राते 13 घंटे की तक की हो जाती है और इतने ही समय का दिन हो जाता है गर्मियों में ।
इसी प्रकार पृथ्वी कभी भी 365 दिन में सूर्य की परिक्रमा नहीं पूरी कर पाती है , समय घटता बढ़ता रहता है।
तो फिर यह कहना की सृष्टि ईश्वर के नियम से चल रही है सरासर मुर्खता है। एक प्रश्न और उठता है यंहा की यदि ईश्वर ने सृष्टि को नियमों से बाँधा हुआ है तो ईश्वर के लिए कौन नियम निर्धारित करता है?
————————-
समीक्षा- पहली बात कि जो आस्तिक यह बात कहते है वह अपने सामान्य ज्ञान के अनुसार नियमबद्धता को जानकर ऐसा कहते है इस हिसाब उनका कहना सही भी है ।
लेकिन यहाँ जो तथ्य दिखाए गए है उनसे नियमबद्धता टूटती नही देखते है कैसे ?
हम आधुनिक विज्ञान के कारण जानकर पता करते है की ऐसा क्यूँ होता है तो हमारा विश्वाश ईश्वर के प्रति और दृढ होता है ।
नास्तिक  जी ने गंभीरता से सोचकर यह आक्षेप लगाया है की प्रतिदिन व् हर साल सूर्योदय व सुर्यस्त में फर्क आता है लेकिन यदि नास्तिक  जी थोडा और गंभीरता की गहराई में जाते तब तो सत्य का पता चलता लेकिन इन्हें ईश्वर पर दोष लगाने का बहाना मिल गया तो और गहराई में क्यों जाये भला ??
जिस परिवर्तन की बात यहाँ की गयी है वह पृथ्वी का अपने अक्ष पर झुकाव के कारण होता है । अब इस झुकाव के कारण पृथ्वी से सूर्य की स्थिति बदलती रहती है एक वर्ष तक । अब इस स्थिति के बदलने से जो पथ बनता है वह लगभग 8 अंक जैसी होती है । और यह पथ हर वर्ष वैसा ही बनता है बदलता नही । केशव जी इसे कहते है नियमबद्धता और इसे कहते है पूर्णता ।
पृथ्वी अपने अक्ष पर घूर्णन करते हुए उसी अक्ष के सापेक्ष साथ ही वृत्ताकार आकृति का अनुसरण करती है यह वृत्ताकार आकृति का पथ 26000 साल में एक बार ख़त्म होता है व् 26000 सालों के हर प्रवाह के अंत में पृथ्वी का अक्ष एक तारे की और इंगित होता है अर्थात 26000 साल खत्म होने के अगले 26000 साल के प्रवाह में भी अंत में पृथ्वी का अक्ष उसी तारे की और इंगित होता है ।
और उस तारे की और इंगित होने पर पृथ्वी की ice age पर effect पड़ता है ।
नास्तिक  जी इसे कहते ह पूर्णता ।
अभी कहानी ख़त्म नहीं हुयी है पृथ्वी सूर्य के चारों और elliptical orbit में घुमती है ।अब यह elliptical orbit का पथ भी सूर्य के केंद्र के सापेक्ष ऊपर निचे गति करता है यह गति भी कई सालों में संपन्न होती है ।
अब इतने सरे complication के बाद भी नियमबद्धता बनी हुयी है यहाँ तक सूर्य भी आकाशगंगा के केंद्र के चरों घूमता है और वह तारा जिस की और पृथ्वी का अक्ष इंगित होता है वह भी सूर्य की तरह इस प्रकार के complications से घिरा हुआ है अब इतने complication के बाद भी पृथ्वी का प्रत्येक 26000 साल के चरण में उस तारे की और इंगित करना व सूर्य का हर साल अपने पथ पर पुनः अनुगमन करना सृष्टि की पूर्णता को ही साबित करता है ।
अब सामान्य आस्तिक बंधु इन complications को न जानकर भी इस नियमबद्धता के सिद्धांत को अपने सामान्य ज्ञान से बतलाते है तो उसमे कुछ गलत नही ।
नास्तिक  जी आप भी अपने पूर्वाग्रह को छोड़कर सूर्य की तरह सत्य पथ के अनुगामी बनिए ।
अतः हमें अंत में पता चला कि सृष्टि में अनेक रहस्य भरे पड़े है जिन्हें इन्सान पूर्ण रूप से नही जानता इसलिए सृष्टि को बिना जाने ईश्वर पर आक्षेप लगाना मुर्खता है ।
इसीलिए वेद में आया
की इस सृष्टि की उत्पत्ति कैसे हुयी यह कोई नही जानता क्यूँ कि यह रहस्य जानने वाले विद्वानों की उत्पत्ति भी बाद में हुयी ।
नास्तिक  जी आपने यह मन्त्र दिया था व् आक्षेप लगाया लेकिन यही मन्त्र आपकी पोस्ट का उत्तर बना ।
नास्तिक  जी यहाँ सृष्टि की पूर्णता सिद्ध हुयी अतः पूर्णता सिद्ध होने पर ईश्वर की भी सिद्धि मेरी पिछली पोस्ट के अनुसार जिसमे आपने ईश्वर के कारण पर प्रश्न उठाया था ।
इसलिए अब आपको सत्य को ग्रहण करने से पीछे नही हटना चाहिए , व सत्य से भागने का असफल प्रयास नही करना चाहिए ।
English, Myth Busters

A critique of the beliefs of the Hare Krishna movement (ISKCON) : Dr. Vibhu

117 Comments

iskon

The Hare Krishna Movement, which has re-named itself The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), considers itself to be the modern core of Hinduism.  Although Krishna lived over 5000 years ago, ISKCON today follows the teachings of Chaitanya who was born in Bengal in 1486 and who popularized the movement all over India. He is part of a lineage of successive disciples who, variously, taught the worship of Krishna, or the goddess Lakshmi or Rudra (referring to the god Shiva).  Its principal scriptures were The Bhagavad-Geeta (The Song of God) and the Shrimad Bhagavatam (the story of the Personality of Godhead Shri Krishna Bhagavan).

Interestingly, ISKCON teaches that Absolute Truth is contained in the Vedas, the oldest scriptures in the world. Other key ISKCON beliefs are: (i) belief in one God. (ii) the doctrine of Advaita (non-dualism) – that our souls are part and parcel of God (iii) The love of God should be practised by chanting the holy names of the Lord, most easily done by chanting the Hare Krishna mantra: “Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare”. (iv) the essence of the Vedas is found in the Bhagavad-gita, a literal record of Krishna’s words which was first put into writing about 5000 years ago.

Evidently implicit in the synopsis of the ISKCON beliefs summarised above is the notion that God reincarnates into human form (the belief that God came to earth 5000 years ago in the personage of Krishna).   Svami Dayanand Sarasvati tests this idea: Does God incarnate or not?, in his book Satyarth Prakash (‘Light of Truth’).  In Chapter VII of this great book, titled God and the Vedas, his answer is an unqualified No because:

It is stated in the Yajur Veda: “He is unborn.”…. He overspreads all…. He is pure, is never born and never takes on a human form.” It is clear from these quotations from the Vedas that God was, and never is, born.

He then addresses the question: ‘But Krishna says in the Gita, “Whenever there is decay of virtue, I take on a human form.” GEETA (4: 7) What is your answer to that? “

Dayanand response is: Being opposed to the Veda, the Geeta cannot be held to be authoritative (ISKCON seems to agree with Dayanand on this view of the Vedas because one of its core principles is the statement “the Absolute Truth is contained in the Vedas, the oldest scriptures in the world”).

Dayanand goes on to suggest:“ It is possible that Krishna, being very virtuous and keen to further the cause of righteousness, might have wished to be born again and again, at different times, to protect the good and punish the wicked. If such was the case then it was harmless because whatever the good and the great possess – their wealth, their bodies and even their heart is at the service of humanity. Nevertheless, Krishna could never be God.

Dayanand, further, answers the question “Why do people then believe in the twenty-four incarnations of God?” with the following reasons: (i) a lack of knowledge of the Vedas (ii) such people have been led astray by sectarian ideologies and (iii) uneducated people are susceptible to ignorance, which is why they hold and propagate such false beliefs.

He then goes on to reject the objection that `God reincarnates into human form to destroy the wicked (as Raama did with Raavana)’ by asserting: “God – without being incarnated – not only has created this world, but is sustaining it and can dissolve it into its component elements. By being Omnipresent, God also pervaded the bodies of men like Kansa and Raavana and could have, at His will, cut off their vital life energy so instantly killing them. Only a fool would argue that the Supreme Spirit – possessed of Infinite Power, attributes and activity – needs to take on human form, to become subject to births and deaths, to kill an insignificant creature.”

Next Dayanand addresses another theoretical objection: “That God incarnates for the salvation of his devotees cannot be true, for, if those devotees conduct themselves according to His Law, He has the power to save them. Is the destruction of a Kansa or a Raavana…. even more difficult than the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the sun, the moon and the earth and other planets? Whoever reflects upon such acts of God cannot deny that there is no one like Him, nor shall ever be.”….”The reincarnation of God based on the idea that space entered a womb can never be true, because both space and God – being Infinite and Omnipresent – can neither enter nor exit. God’s leaving or entering could be possible only if it was the case that places exist where He is not present. But God was already present in (such a) womb as well as being outwith of it, so how can it be held that He went into and then came out of it?!  It defies intelligent reasoning to believe in and say such things about God?”  Dayanand concludes:  it should so be understood that Christ and others also were not incarnations of God; they were all men.

How did God reveal the Vedas, and who to? Dayanand cites the SHATHAPATHA BRAHMAN 11: 4,2.3 for an answer: In the beginning, God revealed the four Vedas, Rig, Yajur, Saama and Atharva, to Agni, Vayu, Aaditya and Angira, respectively.”

He proffers the reason that at the beginning of the creation of humanity, ‘those four alone were the purest of all and so, God revealed the Vedas into their souls.

Q.What evidence proves that the Veda in Sanskrit is of Divine origin and not the work of man?

The scripture in which God is described as Holy, Omniscient, Pure in nature, character and attributes, Just, Merciful etc.; which in no way opposes the laws of nature, reason, the evidence of direct cognition, etc. nor the teachings of the highly learned altruistic teachers of humanity (A’ptas), and the intuition of pure souls, and in which the laws of science, attributes 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.  Only the Vedas fulfil all the above conditions, hence they are the revealed books and not books, like the Bible and the Q’uran.

[i)Dayanand critiques the Bible and Koran in chapters 13 and 14 of his book.  (ii) It will also be seen from the preceding paragraph that the Geeta does not fulfil these criteria either – though it undoubtedly contains much wisdom of great beauty its brevity – in contrast to the 20,000 mantras in the Vedas – is clear proof that it is signally not a comprehensive and complete scripture of God’s Word or Law.]

Dayanand then discusses another objection, namely: “There is no necessity for the Veda to be revealed by God because mankind ca, over time, incrementally deduce all knowledge.”  [Built into this query is the notion that Krishna – an incredibly wise and learned man – intuited all Vedic knowledge and summarised it into the Geeta.”].  Dayanand rejects this as follows:

“No, man cannot do that, because there can be no effect without a cause. For example, do uncivilised tribes ever become enlightened autonomously without being instructed by others? That is also true of men in civilized communities; they also need to be taught in order to become educated. Similarly, had God communicated the knowledge of the Veda to the earliest sages, and had they not, in turn, taught other men all mankind would have remained ignorant.  If a newborn child is removed from his parents and kept in isolation and cared for by illiterate people or animals, he would develop into an ignorant and illiterate adult. [The tale of Tarzan vindicates this reasoning.]

Dayanand goes on to assert that “the people of Egypt, Greece, or the Continent of Europe were devoid of learning before knowledge spread to them from India. In the same way, before Columbus and other Europeans went to America, the natives there had been without any learning for hundreds and thousands of years.  However, some of them have now become enlightened after receiving education from the Europeans.” Dayanand then quote the classical work of philosophy – Yoga Shastra written by Patanjli – that, analogously: “Just, as today we have become enlightened only after being taught by our teachers, likewise were – at the beginning of the world – Agni and the other three Rishis (sages) taught by the greatest of all teachers – God.” YOGA SHASTRA SAMADHI, 26.

 

Conclusion

This article exposes the reasons why certain ISKCON’s beliefs are erroneous, contradictory or false, particularly as reiterated below:

  • Monotheism is incompatible with a belief in deities such as Rudra, Laxmi, Rudra, Shiva and Krishna.
  • The fallacies in one of its main books – the Bhaghavad Puraana which also greatly traduced Krishna, the man.
  • The Geeta cannot be the Word of God – it is a book written by Krishna’s disciples to quote a great rallying speech he gave in the heat of battle to motivate Arjuna.  It defies belief that 20000 mantras of the four books of the Vedas could have been compressed into one motivational speech during a lull in a war; clearly the original words of the great man that Krishna was have since been edited by poetic licence – that such a great practitioner of the Vedic Dharma would have suffered a fit of megalomania to the extent of usurping God is surely nonsensical?
  • Krishna undoubtedly was probably the greatest man to come out of India since the Mahabharata period 5000 years ago. However, over time his admirers seem to have not only elevated him to the status of God but also have replaced the conventional key names of God (as derived from the Vedas such as Eeshvar, Bhagvaan, Brahma and Aum in particular) with his name!  Each Veda mantra, conventionally, begins with His name Aum e.g. Aum, bhuur, bhuvaha, svaha…Fortunately, ISCKON does not seen to have gone as far as using the word Krishna instead of Aum in this context (because such a step would, in one fell swoop, destroy the exact scientific prosody of the verses of the Veda).
  • Elsewhere in his book, Dayanand asserts that “the account of the life of Krishna, as given in the Mahabharata, is true; that Krishna’s nature, attributes, character and conduct are all those of an apta (an altruistic, wide and saintly leader); there is no mention in that epic stating that he committed any sinful act during his whole life. But the author of the Bhagavatam has falsely attributed numerous vices and sinful practices, such as: the theft of milk, curd, and butter, adultery with a female servant called Kubja, flirtation with other people’s wives in the Ras mandal and so on. On the basis of this (false) account of Krishna’s life, the followers of other religions criticise him; had there been no Bhagvat, great men like Krishna would not have been wrongly lowered in the estimation of the world.
  • It must be asked of ISKCON, somewhat rhetorically, why Lord Rama’s position, nowadays, seems to have been relegated to insignificance?