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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

GOD AND THE VEDA

 

They are atheists and of weak intellect, ad continually remain sunk in the depths of misery and pain who do not believe in, know, and commune with, Him who is Resplendent, All-glorious, All-Holy, All-knowledge, sustainer of the sun, the earth and other planets, Who pervades all like ether, is the Lord of all and is above all devatas. It is by the knowledge and contemplation of God alone that all men attain true happiness.” RIG VEDA: I, 164, 39.

 

Q- There are more Gods than one mentioned in the Vedas. Do you believe this or not?

 

A.~ No, we do not; as nowhere in all the four Vedas there is written anything that could go to show that there are more gods than one. On the other hand, it is clearly said in many places that there is only one God.

 

Q. What is meant by the mention of various devatas (Gods) in the Vedas then?

 

A.~Whatsoever or whosoever possesses useful and brilliant qualities is called a devata, as the earth for instance; but it is nowhere said that it is God or is the object of our adoration. Even in the above mantra it is said that He, who is the sustainer of all devatas, is the adorable God, and is worthy of of being sought after, They are greatly mistaken who take the word “devata” to mean God.

 

He is called devata of devatas – the greatest of all devatas, – because He aloneis the author of Creation, Sustenance and Dissolution of the Universe, the Great Judge and Lord of all. The Vedic text “The Lord of all of all, the Ruler of the universe, the Sustainer of all holds all things by means of thiry-three devatas” has been explained as follows in the fourteenth chapter of the Shatpatha Brahman:-

 

1. Heated cosmic bodies

 

2. Planets

 

3. Atmosphere

 

4. Super-terrestial space

 

5. Suns

 

6. Says of ethereal space

 

7. Satellities

 

8. Stars

 

 

 

These eight are called Vasus, because they are abode of all that lives, moves or exists. The eleven Rudras are the ten pranas – nervauric forces – enlivening the human body and the eleventh is the human spirit.

 

These are called Rudras because when they desert the body, it becomes dead and the relations of the deceased, consequently, begin to weep. The twelve months of a year are called Adityas, as they cause the lapse of the term of existence of each object or being. The (all-pervading) electricity is called Indra, as it is productive of great force. Yajna (assembly for the purposes of teaching and learning) is called Prajapati because it benefits mankind by the purification of air, water, rain and vegetables and because it aids the development of various arts, and because in it the honour is accorded to the learned and the wise.

 

These thirty-three aforesaid entities are called devatas by birtue of posssessing useful properties and qualities. Being Lord of all and greater than all, the Supreme Being is called the thirty-fourth Devata who alone is to be worshipped. The same thing is written on the other Shastras. Had people consulted these books, they would not have fallen into this error, viz., the believe that there are more gods than one mentioned in the Vedas.

 

“By One Supreme Ruler is this universe pervaded, eve every world in the whole circle of nature, He is the true God. Know Him, O man! and covet not unjustly the wealth of any creature existing. Renounce all that is unjust and enjoy pure delight – true spiritual happiness – by the practice of justice and righteousness which is another name for true religion.YAJUR VEDA 40:1

 

“God teaches in the Veda “I, O men, lived before the whole universe came into being, I am Lord of all, I am the eternal cause of the whole creation. I am the source and giver of all wealth. Let all men look up to me alone as children do to their parents. I have appointed different foods and drinks for all creatures to give them sustenance so that they may live in happiness.” RIG VEDA 10: 48, 5.

 

” I am God Almighty, I am the Light of the world like the sun. Neither defeat, nor death, can ever approach me. I am the controller of the universe, know me alone as the Creator of all. Strive ye diligently for the acquisition of power and wealth such ( as true knowledge). Ask ye of me. May ye never lose my friendship. I give true knowledge, which is real wealth, unto men who are truthful. I am the revealer of Vedas which declare my true nature. It is through the Vedas that I advance the knowledge of all. I am the prompter of the good and true. I reward those who devote themselves to the good of humanity. I am the cause, I am the support of all that exists in this universe. May ye never turn away from me. May ye never accept another God in my place, nor worship him.” RIG VEDA, 10:48, 5.

 

“God, O men existed in the beginning of the Creation. He is the Creator, Support and Sustainer of the sun and other luminous worlds, He was the Lord of the past Creation. He is the Lord of the present. He will be the Lord of the unborn universe. He created the whole world, and he sustains it. He is Eternal Bliss. May ye all praise and adore Him as we do.” YAJUR VEDA, 13:4

 

Q. How can you prove His existence?

 

A.~ By the evidences of direct cognition, Inference, Testimony and History.

 

Q. But there can be no evidence of direct cognition, with regard to God?

 

A.~ “The knowledge which is the result of the direct contact of the five senses – optic, auditory, olfactory, gustatory and tactile – and of the mind, with light, sound , smell, taste and touch; with feelings of pleasure and pain truth and untruth is called direct cognition But this knowledge must  be free from error and doubt”. Niyaya Shastra 1,4.

 

On reflection it will be clear that it is only attributes that can be known through the senses and the mind, not substances, in which those qualities inhere. As for example, we are cognizant of a solid substance when it gives rise to the sensations of touch, smell, etc., by coming in contact without four senses, such as the tactile sense, and the senses with the mind, and the latter with the soul; similarly we are cognizant of the existence of God by observing such qualities as design and intelligence in this world.

 

Besides, instantly the soul directs the mind and the latter directs the senses to the pursuit of a certain object either good – such as acts that promote public welfare – or bad such as theft, they all incline to the desired object and at that very moment, feelings of fear, shame , and distrust arise in the self consciousness if the action be sinful, and those of fearlessness, courage, and satisfaction of felicity, if it be good; these feelings are prompted not by the human soul, but by the Divine Spirit.

 

Lastly when the soul, freed from all impurities, devotes itself to the contemplation and realization of God through Yoga, it becomes cognizant of both – itself and the Divine Spirit. When we can be directly cognizant of the existence of God how can there be any doubt. His existence by inference and other evidence, because the cause is inferred from its effects.

 

Q. Is God All-pervading or does He reside in some particular locality?

 

A.- He is All-pervading. If He were localized to some particular place, He could never be Omniscient, Inward Regular of all, Universal Controller, Creator of all, Sustainer of all and the Cause fo resolution of all things into their elements, as it is impossible for the doer to do anything in place where he is not.

 

Q. Is God Just as well as Merciful

 

A.~ Yes, he is both.

 

Q. These two attributes are opposed to each other, since Justice consists in giving a person the just amount of pleasure or pain – neither more nor less – according to the nature of his deeds, while mercy consisted in letting the offender go unpunished. How could He be both merciful and just at the same time?

 

A.- Justice and mercy differ only in name. The object served by justice is the same as accomplished by mercy. Now the object of infliction punishment through justice is to prevent people from committing crimes and thereby enable them to be freed from pain and misery. What is the object of mercy but to rid people of misery? Your definitions of justice and mercy are not correct, because the infliction of just punishment in exact accordance with the amount of crime is called justice.

 

If the offender be not punished, mercy will be destroyed, for suffering one such criminal, a a robber, to go unpunished amounts to giving pain to thousands of righteous and law-abiding people. What mercy can ther be, the, in allowing one man to go unpunished and making others suffer? It will be an act of mercy indeed to that robber to keep him in prison and thereby prevent him from further commission of crimes. It will also be an act of mercy to thousands of other people to rid them of that robber or dacoit by putting him to death of keeping him in prison.

 

 

 

Does God incarnate or not?

 

 

 

Q- Does God incarnate or not?

 

A.- No; because it is said in the Yajur Veda. “He is unborn.” Again “He overspreads all.” He is pure, is never born and never takes on a human form.” It is clear from these quotations that God is never born.

 

Q. But Krishna says in the Gita, “Whenever there is decay of virtue, I take on a human form.” GITA 4: 7. What is your answer to this?

 

Being opposed to the Veda, it cannot be held to be an authority. Though it is possible that Krishna, being very virtuous and being extremely anxious to further the cause of righteousness, might have wished that he would like to be born again and again at different times to protect the good and punish the wicked. if such was the case, there is no harm in it; because ‘whatever the good and the great possess – their wealth, their bodies, aye eve their hearts – is at the service of humanity? In spite of all this Krishna could never be God.

 

Q. Why do people then believe in the twenty-four incarnations of God?

 

If this be the case, why do people then believe in the twenty-four incarnations of God?

 

A.- From want of knowledge of the Vedas, from being led astray by the sectarians and being themselves uneducated, people are involved in ignorance and, therefore, no wonder, believe in and say such false things.

 

Q. How could such wicked men as Raavana and Kansa be destroyed if God did not incarnate?

 

A- Firstly, whosoever is born, is sure to die. Secondly, what are Kansa and Raavana, when compared with the Almighty God, who without being incarnated has created this world, is sustaining it and can resolve it into its component elements? He being Omnipresent also pervaded the bodies of Kansa and Raavana and could at His will cut their vitals and instantaneously kill them. What shall we then call such a man but a fool who says that the Supreme Spirit possessed of Infinite Power, attributes and activity takes on a human form and becomes subject to births and deaths in order to kill an insignificant creature.

 

Were anyone to say that God incarnates for the salvation of his devotees, then too it could not be true, for, if the devotees conduct themselves according to the Will of God, He is powerful enough to save them. What! Is the destruction of a Kansa or a Raavana or the lifting of a mountain, such as Govardhan, even more difficult that the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the sun, the moon and the earth and other planets? Whosoever ponders over the great things that God has done in this universe, cannot but come to the conclusion that “There is no one like Him, nor shall ever be.”

 

Nor can the incarnation of God be demonstrated by reason, just as as the saying of a man, that space entered a womb or was put in a closed hand, can never be true, for space being Infinite and Omnipresent can neither go in, nor come out; similarly, God, being Infinite and All-pervading, it can never be predicated of him that He can go in or come out. Coming and going can be possible only if it be believed that there are places where He is not. Then was not God already present in the womb and was not He already present outside that He is said to have gone into and come out of it? Who but men devoid of intelligence, can believe in and say such things about God? Therefore, it should be understood that Christ and other were also not incarnations of the Deity, fear and grief, births and deaths, they were all men.

 

 

 

Do you believe God to be Formless or embodied?

 

 

 

Q. Do you believe God to be Formless or embodied?

 

A.- Formless

 

Q.Being formless how could He reveal the Veda without the use of the organs of speech, as in the pronunciation of words the use of such organs as the palate and of a certain amount of effort with the tongue are indispensable.

 

 

 

A.- Being Omnipresent, and Omnipresent, He does not stand in need of the organs of speech in order to reveal the Veda to the human souls; because the organs of speech , such as the mouth, the tongue, etc., are needed in pronouncing words only when you want to speak to another person, and not when you are speaking to yourself. It is our daily experience that various kinds of mental processes and the formation of words are continually going on in our mind without the use of the organs of speech.

 

Even on shutting your ears with the fingers you can notice that many different varieties of sound are audible that are not produced by the use of the organs of speech. In the same way, God instructed human souls by virtue of His Omniscience and Omnipresence without the use of the organs of speech. After the Incorporeal God has revealed the perfect knowledge of the Veda in the heart of a human being by virtue of His presence within it, he teaches it to others through speech. Hence, this objection does not hold good in the case of God.

 

DIET – PERMISSIBLE and FORBIDDEN

 

 

Permissibility or prohibition in diet is based on two factors – one determined by the Science of morals and religion, and the other by the Science of Health.

 

“The twice-born –Braahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas – must not eat such vegetables, fruits and roots as are raised in night soil and other kinds of refuse.” MANU 5:5

 

“They should abstain from flesh diet and intoxicants”, MANU 2: 177, such as wine, Ganja, Cannabis Indica, and opium, etc.

 

“Let them never use those articles that are prejudicial to the growth of the intellect.” SHARANGDHAR 4:21.

 

They should also avoid the use of all those articles of food that are decomposed, fermented, unclean or foul smelling, etc., and those that are not properly cooked as well as those prepared and handled by such men as live on flesh – diet and intoxicating drinks whose very bodies are saturated with the fine particles of meat and alcohol.

 

The Aryas should neither themselves kill such useful animals as cows, nor let other do the same. One cow in one generation benefits 475,000 people through her milk, butter and offspring – male and female. Thus, some cows give thirty-two pints of milk, other not more than three pints daily, say for twelve months ( some give mild for eighteen months, other for six, hence we have taken the mean of the two). Calculating on this basis, we find that 24,960 persons can be fed at one meal with the milk given by one cow in her whole life-time. On an average a cow calves about twelve times during her whole life. Supposing two of them die, of the remaining ten calves, say, there are five males and five females. The latter during their lives will together give enough milk to satisfy 124,800 persons at one meal. The remaining five male calves can produce at least 180 tons of corn,* and supposing we allow 11/2 lb. of corn per head, 180 tons will do on a rough estimate for 250,000 persons as food for one meal. Putting milk and corn together a cow in one generation can supply one good meal to 475,600 people.

 

Similarly if we go on calculating the amount of corn and milk yielded by one cow in all her generations, it will be found that they would be sufficient to feed millions upon millions of people. Besides bullocks are very useful to man for tilling the ground, riding, pulling carts and wagons, and carrying heavy loads, etc., but the chief use of cows is that they yield good milk.

 

Buffalo’s milk is not so useful in promoting the growth of the intellect as a cow’s. Therefore, it is that the Aryas have always regarded the xow as the most useful animal. Other enlightened people will do the same. One goat yields, enough milk to satisfy 25,920 people at one meal. Similarly, horses, elephants, camels, donkeys and sheep are of great service to man in various ways. Those who slaughter these animals should be looked upon as enemies of the whole human race.

 

When the Aryas were in power, these most useful animals were never allowed to be killed. Consequently, man and other living beings lived in great peace and happiness. Because , milk and butter, and such animals as bullocks being plentiful, there was abundance of food and drink ( as milk, etc.). But since the meat-eating, and wine-drinking foreigners – the slayers of kind and other animals – have come into this country and become the ruling power, the troubles and suffering s of the Aryas have ever been on the increase; because, it is said, “How can you get fruits and flowers of a tree when its root is cut off?” VRIDHA CHAANAKYA 10:13.

 

Q. Were all people to live on non-flesh diet, lions and other carnivorous animals would multiply in such large number that they will kill all such useful animals as cows. Your attempt to prevent their slaughter would come to nothing.

 

A.~ It is the business of the State to punish or even kill all those men and animals that are injurious (to the community).

 

Q. Should their flesh, i.e., (of the animals thus killed) be thrown away?

 

A.~ It would do no harm to the world whether it be thrown away, given to dogs or such other carnivorous animals, cremated or even eaten by some meat-eater. But if eaten by man, it will tend to change his disposition and make him cruel.

 

The use of all such food and drinks as are obtained through injuring or killing others or through theft, dishonesty, breach of faith, fraud or hypocrisy is forbidden, in other words they al come under the heading of forbidden articles of diet; while the acquisition of foods and drinks through righteous means without injuring or killing any living creature falls in the category of permissible articles, of diet.

 

This also includes all those articles that give health, and strength, destroy disease, promote intellectual power and energy and prolong life, such as rice, wheat, sugar, milk, butter, fruits, tubers and roots, when properly mixed in due proportion and cooked, and eaten in moderation at proper meal times.

 

Abstinence from the use of all those things that do not agree with one’s constitution and are apt to produce disease or other evil effects, and the use of those that are prescribed for one (by his medical attendant) also constitute adherence to what is called the permissible diet.

 

Q. Is there any harm in eating together, i.e., out of the same dish?

 

A.~ Yes, it is harmful, because people differ in their nature and constitutions, etc., from each other. Just as one is eating out of the same dish with a leper is apt to catch disease, likewise eating with other people is always liable to produce evil results. It can never do any good. Therefore it is said in the Manu Smriti:- “Let no man give the leaving of his food to another, nor eat out of the same dish with another, nor eat too much, nor after finishing his meal leave his seat without washing his hands and rinsing out his mouth.” MANU 2: 56.

 

Q. How will you then interpret the text “Let a pupil eat Uchhistha (the leaving of ) his preceptor”?

 

A.~ It means that a pupil should serve his tutor first and after he ahs finished his meal, let the pupil himself eat of what is left – behind not as leavings but what has not been used by the teacher and is still kept separately. This is only implies that the teacher should have his meal before his pupil.

 

O. If the use of all kinds of leavings is forbidden, honey – the leaving of bees, milk – the leavings of calves, and one’s own leavings – the food left after one had taken one morsel out of it – should also be forbidden.

 

A.~ Honey comes under this description only nominally. It is really the essence of many a medicinal plant, hence it is acceptable. The calf can only drink the milk that comes out of the teats of its mother, but not what is inside. Therefore the milk, that is obtained by milking a cow after the calf has sucked it off the teats cannot be called leavings. But it is proper that the udder and teats should be carefully washed and cleansed with pure water after the calf has had its share, before the cow is milked, and the milking vessel should also be dept perfectly clean.

 

One’s own leavings can do no harm to oneself. Even nature clearly teaches us that it is wrong to eat another man’s leavings. No one feels any great repugnance in touching the secretions from one’s own nose, mouth, ears and organs of reproduction, micturition and defecation,, but one does so in the case of others. It proves, therefore, that this practice is not against the laws of nature. No one, therefore, should eat the leavings of or in the same dish with another.

 

Q. Should not even husband and wife eat each other’s leavings?

 

A.~ No, even their natures and constitutions differ?

 

Q. Well, Sir! What harm is there in eating what has been prepared by any one as long as he is a man; because the bodies of all men, from a Braahman to the lowest of human beings, are made of flesh and bones? The same blood runs in the veins of all.

 

A.~ Yes, there is harm. A Braahman and Braahmani are fed on the very best of foods, hence their bodies are formed out of the reproductive elements, that are free from impurities and other deleteruous elements, which is not true of the bodies of the extremely degraded men and women that are simply laden with dirt and other foul matter. It is, therefore, right that we should eat and drink with Brahmans and other higher classes and not with scavengers and workers in leather. Now what would you say if you were asked “Would you look upon all other women, such as your mother, sister, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, with the same eyes as your wife, because all of them are made of the same kind of flesh and blood?” You will simply be filled with shame and make no answer. Again, as good, clean food is eaten with hands and the mouth, so can the bad, unclean and decomposed food be eaten, would you then eat dirt, etc. ? Can this ever be right?