Now we shall examine the religions of the Aryas, i.e., the people who liven in Aryvarta (India). This country is such that no other country in the whole world can come up to the level of its excellence. It is also called the Golden Land as it produces gold and precious stones. It was for this reason that in the beginning of the world the Aryas cam to this country. We have already stated in the Chapter on Cosmogony that the good and the noble men are called Aryas, whilst those who are otherwise are called Dasyus.

The natives of all other countries on the earth praise this very country, and believe that the philosopher's stone is to be found here. Though this story of the philosopher's stone is a myth, yet it is true that this country (Aryavarta) itself is verily a philosopher's stone whose very touch converts all base metals - poor foreigners - into gold - rich nabobs.

Since the beginning of the world till 5,000 years back, the Aryas were the sovereign rulers of the whole earth, in other words, there was only one paramount power whose suzerainty was acknowledged by the rulers of the earth. Till the time of the Kauravas and the Pandavas, all rulers of the earth and their subjects obeyed the law laid sown by the rulers of this country, for it is said in the Manu Smriti, that was compose in the beginning of the world. "Let all other people of the earth - Brahmans*, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shoodras, Dasyus and Malecchas - learn arts

* Braahaman's _Teachers - secular and spiritual.
Kshatriyas - Men of governing class, statesmen, soldiers, etc.
Vaishyeas - Merchants, artisans and farmers.
Shoodraas - Men of the servant class, laborer.
Dasyus - Wicked people
Malechhas - Barbarians.

PAGE 330

and science suitable to them from the learned people born in this country." MANU 2: 20.
The perusal of the Mahaabhaarata proves that the Aryas were the sovereign rulers of the earth till the coronation of EmperorYudhisthtira and the Great War of Mahaabhaarata, for we read in that book that King Bhaagadatta of China, Babruvaahan of America, Vidalakha* of Europe, the Ruler of Greece, King Shalya of Persia and various other rulers came as ordered to take part in the Great War and in the coronation of Emperor Yudhishthira.

Whe the house of Raghu held paramount authority (in this country), even King Raavana of Ceylon acknowledged its suzerainty. Later when he revolted against its authority, Prince Ram Chandra having vanquished and dethroned him placed his younger brother Vibhishana on the throne instead. Since the time of Swyambhava to that of the Paandavas the Aryas were the paramount power throughout the whole world.

Thereafter, mutual dissensions among them compassed their destruction, for in this world, over which a just God presides, the rule of the proud, the unjust and the ignorant (such as the Kauravas were) cannot last very long. It is also a law of nature that the accumulation of wealth in a community out of al proportion to its needs and requirements brings in its train indolence, jealousy, mutual hatred, lustfulness, luxury and neglect of duty which put an end to all sound learning and education, whose place is usurped by evil customs, manners and practices like the use of meat and wine, child marriage, and licentiousness.

Besides, when people acquire perfection in the military science and the art of war, and the army becomes so formidable that no one in the whole world can stand it on a field of battle, pride and party spirit increase among them and they become unjust. Thereafter, the lose all power either through mutual dissensions, or a strong man from among families of little importance rises to distinction and is powerful enough to subjugate them, just as Shivajee and Gobind Singh rose against Mohammedan rule and completely annihilated the Muslim power in India.

The fact that the Aryas were the sovereign rulers of the earth since the beginning of the world till the Great War called Mahaabhaarata, is also proved on the authority of the Maitreyopanishad

* Called so account of his cat-like eyes.

PAGE 331

which says, "Why! Besides these, there have been other Mighty Rulers who were the Sovereign Lords of the whole earth; such as Sudyumna, Bhuridyumna, Indraashwapati, Shashavindu Harishchandra, Ambrisha, Nanaktu, Saryati,Anarnya, Akshasena, and also such like Emperors as Mauruta and Bharat." MAITRY UPANISHAD, 1,4.

The names of such Sovereign Rulers as Swyambhava.* etc., are clearly mentioned in theMahaabhaarata, the Manu Smiriti and other authoritative books. Only the prejudiced and the ignorant regard these statements as fallacious.

Q. ~ Is it true that the ancients knew the use of fire-arms, such as Agneyastra, about which we read in ancient Sanskrit literature. Were cannons and muskets known to the ancients or not?

A. ~ Yes, it is true. Guns and like fire-arms were used in ancient times. The Agneyastra and the like weapons can be manufactured by the application of scientific principles.

Q. ~ Were they brought into existence through magical formulae sanctified by the Gods?

A. ~ No, the methods of manufacturing these weapons were evolved as the result of deep thought (mantra). But mere pronouncing of mantra, which is nothing but a collections of words, cannot produce and substance. Were any one to say that the chanting of a mantra (or a hymn) can produce fire, he may be asked as to why it should not burn the throat and tongue of the person who recites it. How funny that a person should burn himself to death while meditating the death of his enemy. A mantra literally means the power of thought, hence Raja mantri, from Raja- state, and mantri - one who thinks) is one who thinks over the affairs of a State and is the King's adviser.

Thus, men after deep study acquire a knowledge of the laws of nature, and by the proper application thereof make many dis-

* What a pity that the descendants of these Aryas are being crushed under the wheel of the foreigner.

PAGE 332

coveries in the domain of art and invented machines. As for instance, if an iron arrow or a ball be filled with such substances as when ignited will produce smoke, which by coming in contact with air or the rays of the sun will catch fire, he will have invented an Agneyastra. The fire opened by it will fail of its effect, if the commander of the opposing army discharges a Varunastra which is made of such materials whose smoke is converted into a cloud.

The moment it comes in contact with air it immediately begins to rain and extinguishes the fire. Likewise, there existed in ancient times other weapons of war, such as Vaagaphansa - which when discharged against an enemy paralyzed his limbs - and Mohanastra - which was charged with such narcotic substances whose smoke could cause stupefaction of the soldiers of the enemy -, and Pashupatashtra - another kind of Agnevastra, in which electricity produced from a wire, glass or some other substance was employed to kill one's enemy.

As regards the words Top (cannon) and Bandook (muskets) they belong to a foreign language and not to Sanskrit or to any of the Indian Vernaculars allied to it. Now what called a Top (cannon) by the foreigners, is spoken of as Shatagahni (literally that which kills hundreds at a time) and bandook (musket), Bhushundi in Sanskrit and Arya Bhaashaa (one of the most widely spoken Indian Vernaculars). Hose who are unacquainted with the Sanskrit literature write and say all sorts of nonsense. Their writings can never be considered as authentic by the learned.

All the knowledge that is extant in the world originated in Aryavarta (India). Thence it spread to Egypt, thence to Greece, thence to the whole continent of Europe,, thence to America and other countries. Even today India heads all other countries in the matter of Sanskrit learning. The impression that the Germans are the best Sanskrit scholars and that no one has read so much of Sanskrit as Professor Max Muller is altogether unfounded. Yes, in a land where lofty trees never grow, even Recinis Communis or the common Castor oil plant may be called an oak.

The study of Sanskrit being almost non-existent in Europe, German scholars like Professor Max Muller, who have read a little Sanskrit may have come to be regarded as the highest authorities in Germany, but compared with India the number of Sanskrit scholars in that country is very small. We came to know from a letter of the President of a German University that even learned enough to interpret a Sanskrit letter are rare in Germany. We have also made it plain from the study of Max

PAGE 333

Muller's History of Sanskrit Literature and his commentary on some Mantras of the Vedas that the Professor has been able to scribble out something by the help of the so-called Tikaas or paraphrases of the Vedas current in India, for instance, he translates the word Bradhnam into a horse in the vedic verse which runs as:- Yunjanti bradhanam arusham charanti…." Even Sanyanacharya's rendering of it unto the sun is much better, but its real meaning is the All-Pervading Spirit.* This will suffice to show how much Sanskrit learning Professor Max Muller and other Germans possess.

It is a fact that all the science and religions that are extant in the world originated in India, and thence spread to other countries. Mr. Jacolliot, a native of France, tells us in his book called Bible in India, that India is the source of all kinds of knowledge and good institutions. All sciences and religions found in the world have spread from this country. He prays to God thus, "Mayest thou, O Lord , raise my country to that height of civilization and progress that had been attained by India in ancient times."**

Prince Dara Shikoh had also come to the same conclusion viz., in no other language is knowledge to be found so perfect as in Sanskrit. He says in his commentary on the Upanishad that he read Arabic and other languages, but his doubts were never dispelled, nor was he ever so happy till he studied Sanskrit, which cleared all his doubts and made him extremely happy.

Again look at the Zodiac representation on the temple of Man at Banares so beautiful is it that even today it gives wondrous information on astronomy though it has not been properly looked after. It will be a very good thing if the rulers of Jeypore were to look after the Temple and make necessary repairs.

It is a pity that this jewel of country received such a rude shock from the Great War the even today it has not recovered from its effects, for what doubt can there be in the ruin of a country wherein brothers begin to kill each other. Rightly has it been said, "When the time of destruction is at hand, intellect becomes perverted," VRIDHA CHANIKYA, 16: 17, and men do foolish things. Should anyone, offer them good advice, they

* Vide our book called " An Introduction to the exposition of the Vedas"wherein the true meaning of this mantra is fully explained.
** These are not actually his words, this is what he says in substance. -Tr.

PAGE 334

take it ill, but are always willing to follow unwholesome advice. When most of the learned men, Kings and Emperors, sages and seers were killed or died in the Great War, the light of knowledge began to grow dim, and with it the dissemination of the Vedic Religion came to an end. The people became a prey to mutual jealousy, hatred and vanity. The strong seized upon the country and proclaimed themselves kings. Thus, when the empire was divided into so many independent states even in India, who could then have kept the foreign possessions under control.

When the Braahmans became destitute of knowledge, there could be no talk of the ignorance of the Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shoodras. Even the ancient practice of the study of the Vedas and other Shaastras with their meanings died away. The Braahmans only learnt the Veddas by note - just enough to enable them to earn their livelihood. Even that much they did teach to the Kshatriyas, and others.

As the ignorant became the teachers of the people, deceitfulness, fraud, hypocrisy, and irreligion began to increase among them. The Braahmans thought that they should make some arrangement for their livelihood. They held a council among themselves and agreed to preach to the Kshatriyas and others:- "We alone are the object of worship to you. You could never enter Heaven or obtain salvation except by serving us. Should you not serve us, you shall fall into an awful Hell."

The Vedas, and the Shaastraas written by the Vedic sages and seers have declared men of learning and as Braahmans and worthy of respect; but here they, who were ignorant, lascivious, deceitful, licentious, lazy and irreligious, declared themselves as Braahmans and worthy of homage. But how could the sterling virtues of the righteous, learned and truth-loving Brahamans be found in them. When the Kshatriyas and others became absolutely destitute of Sanskrit learning, whatever cock and bull stories the Braahmans connocted, the simpletons believed. They ensnared all in their net of hypocrisy, brought them under thorough control and began to teach:- "Whatever a Braahman declares is as infallible as words falling from Divine lips."

When the Kshatriyas and others who had more money and brains became their dupes, these so-called Braahmans got a golden

PAGE 335

opportunity of enjoying sensual pleasures adlibitum. They also declared that all the best things of the earth were meant for the Braahmans only. In other words, they subverted the whole system of Classes and Orders, and based it on the mere accident of birth, instead of on the qualifications, character and works of the people, as it originally was. They even began to accept charity given in the name of the dead, in fact they did whatever they pleased. They went even so far as to say:- "We are lords of the earth. No one can enter Heaven without serving us." The so-called Braahmans of the present day say the same thing.

Now if they were asked as to which place they would go to after death - since they did such wicked deeds indeed that they deserved no better abode than a terrible hell and therefore they would be turned into worms, ants, moths and the like - they get highly enraged and cry out, "Were we to curse you, you would be destroyed, for it is written "He that wrongs a Braahman shall be damned." It may be said in reply to this, that certainly it is true he that wrongs a man, who is perfect scholar of the Veda, is well-versed in divine knowledge and imbued with piety and righteousness, and is devoted to the good of the whole world and is therefore called a Braahman, shall certainly be damned, but you neither deserve to be called Braahmans, nor are entitled to our homage.

Q. ~ What are we then?

A. ~ You are popes.

Q. ~ What is a pope?

A. ~ The word pope is originally meant father in Latin, but here this term is applied to a person who robs another through fraud and hypocrisy and achieves his selfish end.

Q. ~ No, we are Braahmans and holy men (Saadhu) for our parents were Braahmans and we are the disciples of such and such a holy man.

A. ~ It may be true, but one does not become a Braahman or a Saadhu by being the offspring of Braahman parents or a disciple of a Saadhu. A man becomes a Braahman or a holy man by bearing good character, by doing righteous deeds and by possessing such good virtues as altruism. It is said that the Popes of Rome used to say to their followers:- "If you will confess you sins before us, we shall grant you absolution from them. No one can enter Heaven unless one pays homage to us and thereby obtains our

PAGE 336

permission. Should you wish to go to Heaven you must deposit money with us and you will get your money's worth of property there." Upon hearing this, those ignorant men who had more money than brains and were anxious to enter Heaven would offer the stipulated amount of money to the Pope who would then stand before the image of Jesus Christ or Mary and write down a draft in the following words:-

'O Lord Christ! The bearer has deposited Rs.100,000 to Thy credit with us in order to get admission into Heaven. When he comes there mayest Thou be pleased to give him in Thy Father's Kingdom, houses, gardens and parks worth Rs 25.000, horses, carriages hounds and servants worth Rs. 25,000, foods, drinks and clothes, etc., worth Rs. 25,000, and get him the remaining Rs. 25,000 in cash so that he may entertain his friends, brothers and other relations etc.'

The Pope would then sign his name on the draft and give it to the supplicant saying:-
"Tell your family members before-hand to put this draft under your head in the grave before you are buried. The angels will then come to take you to Heaven, and after you have been conveyed there along with the draft, you shall get everything mentioned therein.

It seems as if the Popes had had the monopoly of Heaven. These popish practices lasted in Europe only so long as it was sunk in ignorance, but now that the people have become enlightened, the false practices of the popes do not flourish so well, but at the same time have not altogether disappeared.

As in Europe, so in India the popery appeared in a thousand different forms, and cast its net of hypocrisy and fraud, in other words, the Indian popes have kept the rulers and the ruled from acquiring learning and associating with the good. In fact, they have always been misleading the people and have done nothing else.

But let it be borne in mind that it is only those who practice fraud and hypocrisy, and follow other evil occupations that are called popes, whilst those, even among the so-called Braahmans, who live righteous lives, are learned and devoted to the public good, deserve to be called true Braahmans and holy men.

Thus it is proper to designate the deceitful, the hypocritical and the selfish - i.e., those who serve selfish ends at the sacrifice of the interest of others - alone as popes, while good and learned men as Braahmans and holy men (Saadhus); because had there been no such true Braahmans or Sadhus as escaped from the traps laid by theJainees, Mohammedans and Christians, who would have helped to keep up love for the Vedas, and the Shaastras

PAGE 337

in the minds of the Aryan people, and maintain the system of Classes and Orders? This indeed has been the works of true Braahmans and Sadhus.Manu has said:- "Let a wise man extract nectar even from poison." The escape of the Aryas, however misled into popish practices, from the snares of the Main and other religions has indeed been like nectar extracted from poison.

Thus when the laity became bereft of knowledge, the popes who had read a little of the ritual became haughty, they combined together and declared before the kings and others in authority that it was unlawful to punish a Braahman or a Sadhu, and such texts as declared "let no Braahman be killed; let no Braahmans and Sadhus, were applied to themselves by the popes. They also wrote books containing false statements whose authorship they attributed to the great sages and seers of the past in order to stamp them with authority.

These books they passed off as the writings of the great Vedic seers and read them out to the people. Thus under the cover of these great names they succeeded in getting themselves out of ht reach of the Law and did whatever they liked, in other words, they have framed such strict laws that no one durst sit or stand, eat or drink, come or go, sleep or wake without their permission.

They instilled into the minds of the rulers that these so-called Braahmans and Sadhus, who were really popes, might do whatever they liked. They should never be punished. The rulers should not even ever think of punishing them. When the people became so ignorant, the popes did and made others do whatever they wished.

This evil took root 1000 years before the Great War, and even though the Vedic sages and seers lived in that age, yet the seeds of indolence, negligence, mutual jealousy and hatred had begun to sprout a little, and gradually they grew into lofty trees. When the preaching of the truth died away, ignorance spread all over India and its people began to quarrel and fight among themselves, for it is said, "Righteousness, wealth, gratification of legitimate desires and salvation are attainable only when teachers of the highest type are found in a country, but in the absence of good teachers and good disciples dense ignorance prevails. Whenever good teachers are born who preach the truth, ignorance is dispelled and the light of truth begins to shine forth." SAANKHYA 3:79, 81..

Then the popes got the laity to worship them and their feet, and began to say that in that alone consisted their (future) happiness.

PAGE 338

When the people were completely brought under subjection, the popes became entirely negligent of their duty, and extremely immersed in sensuality. As they were like shepherds, and the people like their sheep - ignorant dupes knowledge intellectual power, strength, courage, bravery and valor and all other good qualities were gradually lost. When they became licentious, they began to use meat and drink wine secretly.

Then a sect sprung up among them whose followers wrote books called the Tantraas in which various statements were introduced with words Shiva said. Parvati said, Bhairava said. In these books such curious things are written as follow:-

"(Madya) wine, (Mansa) meat, Meena) fish, (Mudra-cakes), Maithuna) copulation, all these five beginning with the letter M lead to salvation in all ages." KALITANTRA.

"While in the circle of Bhairava persons of all Classes are regarded as twice-born, but after leaving the Bhairavi circle they all revert to their respective Classes." KULARNAVA.

"He, who drinks and drinks and drinks till he falls to the ground, gets up and again drinks, shall never be born again." MAHANIRMANA TANTRA.

"Excepting his mother let a man have sexual intercourse with all women. The Vedaas an the Shastras and other ancient books are like harlots. But the Saambhavi Mudra* is like a lady of high birth who lives in privacy." JNANA SANKALANI TANTRA.

* Shambhavi Mudra is the name of certain positions of the figures practiced in devotions or religious worship offered to Paarvati - wife of Shiva. _Tr.

PAGE 339

Now look at the trickery of these stupid popes that whatever is considered to be highly sinful and opposed to the Veda is regarded as virtuous by the Vaama Margis. The use of meat, wine, fish, delicious eatables, such as various kinds of cakes, and copulation are considered as means of attaining salvation. Believing all men to be (incarnations of) Shiva and all women and all women (incarnations of) Paarvati they mutter the absurd couplet, "I am Shiva and thou are Paarvati, let us then co-habit" and they co-habit - not matter who the man and the women be, and see no harm in it.

The low women whose very touch is considered to be polluting are regarded extremely pure by them. As for instance the Shaastra forbids the touch of a woman when she is menstruating, but the Vaama Margis believe her to be very clean.

Reader! Mark, how meaningless is that verse of theirs which says:-
"Sexual intercourse with a woman is menses is like having a bath (in the sacred Tank) at Pushkar, with an outcast woman a pilgrimage to Kashi (Benares), with a woman working in leather like a bath (in the Ganges) at Pragaya (Allahabad), and with a washer-woman like a pilgrimage to Mathura, and with a prostitute like a pilgrimage to Audhya." RUDRYA MALA TANTRA.

They call wine pilgrimage, meat purity and flower, fish No. 3 and water-cucumber, copulation No. 4, and a cake, No. 5. they have employed such names to meat, etc., so that others may not understand them. They call themselves lotus-like, kind hearted, brave, merciful, mighty and the like, while they call others thorn-like, perverted, emaciated (like lean animals). They say that in a social gathering of the Vaama Margis all persons, whether Brahmans or outcasts, become Dwijas (i.e., twice born), but as soon as they leave that meeting, they revert to their respective Classes.

In a Bhairavi Circle* they mark or draw a triangle, a square, or a circle on the earth or on a piece of board, on which they place a pitcher full of wine, worship it and read this mantra "O Wine! Thou art free from the curse of Brahma." In a sequestered place, where none but the Vaama Margis can go men and women meet together; the men strip a woman naked and worship her, while the women strip a man naked and worship him. Then, any

* i.e., social gathering of Vaama Margis. -Tr.

PAGE 340

man can get hold of any woman, be she his own wife, daughter, mother, sister or daughter-in-law or anyone else's and co-habit with her.

They fill a cup with wine and place meat the sweets on a plate. Then the officiating priest takes that cup in his hand and saying, "I am Bhairava (the Indian Bacchus) or I am Shiva " drinks it up. Thereupon the rest of the company drink out of the same cup. Having stripped naked someone's wife or a prostitute, or a man, they give a sword in her or his hand, call her a goddess (Devi) or him a great God (Mahadeva).

They worship her or his private organs and make that goddess or God drink a cup of wine and themselves drink of the same cup turn by turn. They go on drinking till they get completely drunk. Anyone of the men can then co-habit with any woman, be she his own sister, mother or daughter, he likes.

Sometimes when extremely intoxicated they fight among themselves with their shoes or fists, pull each other's hair, or kick one another. If anyone vomits there, he who ahs attained the highest stage of perfection, i.e., is an aghori (and omnivorous person) or an adept would even eat up the vomited matter.

The following are the qualifications of an adept among them:- "He that drinks away bottle after bottle in a public house, sleeps in a brothel in order to misconduct himself, and commits similar other sins without compunction or shame, is like a great Sovereign Emperor of the whole earth among the Vaama Margis." TNANA SANKALANI TANTRA.

In short, the greatest sinner among them is called great, whilst he who is virtuous and afraid of committing evil deeds is called small, for it is recorded in one of their scriptures, "He that is restrained from the commission of sinful deeds by the fear of public opinion, of disobedience to the dictates of the scriptures, of tarnishing the family name and of being looked down upon by the country at large is human, whilst one who commits wicked deeds without any shame is Divine (Eternal Shiva)."

The Uddisa Tantra describes a ceremonial thus. Let bottles filled with wine be placed in niches in all the four walls of a room. Then let a man drink a bottle of wine from one of the four walls of a room. Then let a man drink a bottle of wine from one of the niches and to the next, and have another bottle, thence go to the third

PAGE 341

niche, and have still another bottle and then go to the fourth and go on drinking till he falls down on the earth like a log. When he comes round a bit let him again drink in the same way till he falls a second time, let him repeat it a third time, and when he gets up a fourth time, he shall never be born again. But the fact is that it is extremely difficult for such men to be born again as men.

They shall, on the contrary, enter the bodies of very low creatures and remain there for long time to come. The law has been laid down in the Tantra, books of Vaama Margis that a man can have sexual intercourse with all women (except his mother), even if they be his daughters, sisters or other near relations.

There are ten kinds of higher knowledge known among them. One of them is Maatangi knowledge. One who is versed in this believes that even a mother should not be spared, that is a man can have sexual intercourse even with his own mother. These people mutter some magical incantations while having sexual intercourse in the hope of acquiring occult power. Very few people indeed are there in this world who are so insane and do idiotic as these Vaama Margis!!!

He who would advocate untruth must revile the truth. Mark what theVaama Margis say:- "The Vedas and the Shaastras and other ancient books are like common harlots, but the Shambhavi Mudra is like a lady of high birth and of great chastity."

No wonder! These Vaama Margi being so low and degraded in their morals founded a religion so entirely opposed to the to the Veda. Later on when their religion had widely spread over India, they roguishly introduced some of their evil practices even in the name of the Veda as the following quotations will bear out:-

"Let a man drink wine (sura) in the Saautramani Yajna."
"Let a man eat meat in a Yajna."
"A slaughter ceases to be slaughter when this deed is done in a Vedic sacrifice."

"There is no turpitude in eating flesh, drinking wine, and committing adultery, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstinence being great reward." MANU.

PAGE 342

Now the word suraa, that does not mean wine, has been translated as wine in one of the above quotations. The word suraa really means the juice of a creeper called Soma. These Vaama Margis, who have started such wicked practices as killing animals in a sacrifice, should be asked if, as they hold, it to be true that a slaughter ceases to be as such in a Vedic sacrifice, what harem will there be if a Vaama Margi and his family members be slaughtered and then offered in a sacrifice?

It is childish to say that there is no sin in eating meat, drinking wine and committing adultery, for meat cannot be had without killing animals, and it can never be right to hurt or kill animals without an offence. With regard to drinking wine, it is interdicted everywhere, and nowhere except in the books of Vaama Margis has it been allowed, on the other hand its use has been forbidden in all (sacred) books.

Sexual intercourse with a woman excepting one's wedded wife is undoubtedly sinful. He who declares it permissible is indeed himself a great sinner.

They interpolated these and similar other verses into the works of the seers, and also wrote books in the name of many great sages and savants, and thus introduced such sacrifices as Gomedha - a sacrifice in which horses were killed. They declared that by slaughtering these animals and offering them as a sacrifice both - the animals sacrificed and the Yajamaana - went to Heaven. This evil practice seems to have originated on account of their ignorance of the true meanings of such wods as Ashwamedha, Gomedha, and Naramedha that occur in the Braahmans, for had they understood them, they would not have committed such blunders.

A. ~ Their meanings are not what the Vaama Margis think. Nowhere in the scriptures and other authentic books it is written that horses, cows and human beings should be killed and offered as a sacrifice in the sacred fire, called Homa. It is only in the books of the Vaama Margis that such absurd things are written.

PAGE 343

Wherever in the authentic books of the sages the sanctions of such a sacrifice is found, it should be understood that the verse or the passage has been interpolated by the Vaama Margis. Now mark! What the Shathapatha Braahmana says on the subject:- "A king governs his people justly and righteously. This called Ashwamedha." "A learned man gives a free gift of knowledge to the people. This also called Ashwamedha. Again , "the burning of clarified butter and odoriferous and nutritious substances in the fire in order to purify the are is also called Ashwamedha. SHATHAPATHA BRAHMANA 13: 1, 6;3.

"To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control. Or to make a good use of the rays of the sun or keep the earth free from impurities (clean) is called Gomedha." "The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha." *

Q. - The sacrificers assert that the Yajmaanaa and the animals burnt in a sacrifice both go to heaven, and also that they bring the animals (burnt in the sacrifice) to life again. Do you think it to be true or not?

A. ~ No, if it be true that they go to Heaven, why should not he (as well as his dear relations), who asserts it, be killed and burnt as a sacrifice and thereby sent to Heaven, or why could they (i.e., the sacrificer and his relations) not be brought back to life after they have been killed and burnt in the sacrifice.

Q. - It the Vedas do not sanction this kind of sacrifice, why should the Vedic hymns be chanted at the time?

A. ~ The hymns cannot prevent anyone from chanting them, for they are only a collection of words, but they do not mean that the animals should be slaughtered and burnt in sacrifices. The Vedic hymns Agnaye Swaha, etc., mean that the clarified butter and other nutritious and odoriferous substances, when burnt in the fire, purify the air, rain, and water, and thereby promote happiness on this earth. How could those idiots understand the true meaning of the Vedic hymns, because the selfish minds know and believe in nothing else but serving their selfish ends.

Seeing these evil, popish practices as well as others, such as feeding the priest in order to satisfy the spirits of the dead, a most dreadful religion, called Jainism or Buddhism, that reviled the

* The Yajamaana is a person who institutes or performs a sacrifice and pay the expenses of it. This is the orthodox meaning of the word. - Tr.

PAGE 344

Vedas and the Shaastras, sprang up into existence. It is related that in this very country there was a certain king of Gorakhpur who performed a sacrifice in which these popes officiated. His beloved queen died during an act of sexual intercourse with a horse as required in such a sacrifice.

This disgusted the king who renounced the world, handed over the government of his kingdom to his son, became a mendicant and began to expose the trickery of these popes.

There are two sects of the Jain or Buddha religion called Charvaka and Abhanaka. Its followers wrote such verses as the following:-

"If an animal when slaughtered and burnt in a sacrifice go to Heaven, why should the Yajamaana (the master of ceremonies) not slay his own father another dear relations and burn them in a sacrifice and thereby help them go to Heaven?"

"If oblations offered to the priests in the name of a deceased ancestor satisfy the latter, it is useless for people going abroad to take any cash with them for maintaining themselves during the journey; because of eatables offered to the priests in the name of a departed ancestor can reach him, why cannot the food and drink prepared at home and offered on plates and in cups in the name of the person gone abroad by his relations reach him in foreign lands? When a person living in a distant country or in a place, say only 10 cubits away from where the food and drink are offered in his name, cannot obtain them, it is impossible then for a departed ancestor to receive things offered in his name."

The people began to believe in these teachings of the Charavakas, etc., that stood the test of reason. Thus their religion (Jainism and Buddhism) began to spread. When many good kings and landlords became its followers, the popes too inclined towards it, for they would go whenever they got plenty of cash. They soon embrace Jainism. There are many popish practices, but of a different kind, even among the Jainis. These will be described in Chapter 12 The majority of the people embrace their religion, but others who lived in the hills in Benares or at

PAGE 345

Canouj, and in the West and in the South (of India) did not accept it. The Jainis being ignorant of the knowledge of the Veda attributed the popish practices (then current among the followers of the Veda) to the Veda and began even to run down these scriptures. They prohibited the study and teaching of the Veda, suppressed the custom of wearing Yajnopavita (the sacred thread), which is a symbol of culture and of belonging to one of the three upper Classes, abolished the system of Brahamacharya, etc., destroyed as many books of the Vedic literature as the could get hold of, and even persecuted and oppressed the Aryas a great deal.

When they gained in power and had ceased to be afraid of any body, they began to favor and honor their followers - both the householders and the mendicants - and to dishonor and punish the followers of the Veda unjustly. They began to live in ease and luxury, and being puffed up with pride became over-bearing in their manners. They also made huge images of their religious teachers, calle Tirthankaras - from Rishabhdeva toMahaavria - and began to worship them. Thus the practice of worshipping idols originated with the Jains (in this country). The belief in God decline and the people took to idolatry instead. Thus, Jainism reigned supreme for about 300 years in India. The people during that time had become quite destitute of the knowledge of the Veda. This must have happened nearly 2,500 years ago.

About 2,200 years ago Shankaracharya, a Braahmana of Dravid (Southern India), studied Grammar and all other Shaastras - books on Logic, Philosophy, Metaphysics, Theology, etc. - during student life, and seeing the religious degradation of his country began to soliloquies thus:- "What a pity! The true theistic Vedic religion has disappeared, whilst the atheistic Jain religion has prevailed to the great detriment of the people. This (i.e., the Jain religion) must be put down somehow." Shankarcharya had not only read the Shaastras but also the Jain scriptures. He was also a powerful debater.

He began to think as to what was the best method of overthrowing Jainism. At last he came to the conclusion that preaching and holding discussions with the Jainis were the best methods to put down Jainism. With this object in view he went to Ujjain (in Central India). King Sudhanwa then ruled there. He had read the Jain books as well as a little Sanskrit. Shankaracharya began to preach the Vedic religion there. He went to the king and said "You have read the Jain books as well as Sanskrit, and also believe in the Jain Religion. I, therefore ask you to arrange a discussion between the exponents of the Jain

PAGE 346

religion and myself on the condition that the vanquished party should embrace the religion of the victor and that you should also accept his faith. Although king Sudhanwa was a follower of the Jain religion, yet as he had read Sanskrit he had some light of knowledge in his heart, and his intellect had not been obscured by extreme animalism, because a learned man can distinguish between right and wrong, and then embrace the truth and reject falsehood.

As long as King Sudhanwa had not come across a very learned teacher, he was in doubt as to which of the two - Vedic and Jain - religions was right, and which false. When he heard Shankaracharya, he was very much pleased with what he said, and replied that he would certainly arrange the desired discussion and find out which religion was true and which false. He invited many exponents of the Jain religion from very distant places and convened a meeting for a discussion between them and Shankar.

In this Shankar was to prove the truth of the Vedic religion and to refute Jainism, whilst the Jain teachers were to prove their own religion to be true and refute the Vedic religion. The Jainis held that there was not Eternal Maker of this universe, and the soul and the world were beginningless, they were never created, nor will they ever be reduced to their component elements.

On the other hand, Shankaracharya maintained that the Beginningless, Omnipotent Supreme Spirit alone was the Maker of the Universe, the world and the soul were unreal, and as the Great God had created the universe by virtue of His Maya, he alone sustains it and causes its dissolution. The soul and the world are like things seen in a dream. God Himself became metamorphosed into this world and sports about in it.

The discussion lasted for many days; in the end the religion of the Jainis were refuted both by reason and cogent proofs, while the that of Shankar remained unrefuted. Thereupon those Jain teachers and King Sudhanwa renounced Jainism and embraced the Vedic religion i.e., the religion advocated by Shankaracharya. Then there was a great stir and noise about it in the country. King Sudhanwa wrote letters to his friends and relations and among others to rulers of the country, by whose help discussions between Shankar and other Jainis teachers were arranged in different places, but the Jainis having been defeated in the first discussion lost everywhere.

Thereafter Sudhanwa and other kings arranged for Shankar's tour throughout the whole of India and furnished him with an escort of armed men to protect him and with servants to attend upon him. Form that time onward the people (of India) began to wear the sacred thread and

PAGE 347

study and teach the Vedas. For ten years he toured all over the country, refuted Jainism and advocated the Vedic religion. All the broken images that are now-a-days dug out of the earth were broken in the time of Shankar, whilst those that are found whole here and there under the ground had been buried by the Jainis for fear of their being broken (by those who had renounced Jainism). Shankar also refuted Shivism that ahd come into vogue a little before his time, and also Vaama Margism.

At that time this country was very rich, and its people were also patriotic. Shankar, King Sudhanwa and other kings had not had the Jain temples pulled down as they intended to establish schools therein to teach the Vedas and other Shaastras. When the Vedic religion had been established in the country and they were about to adopt measures for the diffusion of knowledge, two men, outwardly followers of the Vedic religion but bigoted Jainis at heart, in other words, perfect hypocrites whom Shankar had befriended on finding a suitable occasion poisoned him with such a poisonous substance that his appetite failed and an eruption broke out on his body, and he died within six months.

Then all lost heart so much so that even the dissemination of knowledge that was about to take place did not do so. Shankar's disciples began to teach his commentary on the Vedaant Shaastra, called Shankar Bhaashya, and other books that had been written by him. In other words, they began to preach what had been professed by Shanker with a view to refute the Jainis more successful, viz., hat Brahmaa (God) was the true reality, the Universe was an illusions and that the human soul and God were one.

They started monasteries, Shringeri in the south, Bhugovarahan iin the East and Josi in the North and Sarda at Dwarka iin he West (of India), became their abbots, gained wealth and power , and began to live in ease and luxury, as after the death of Shankar his disciples were highly honored.

Now it must be understood that if it was the belief of Shankar that God and the human soul were identical and that the world was an illusion, it was not good; but if he had avowed this doctrine simply in order to refute Jainism more successfully, it was a little good.

The beliefs of the Neo-Vedantists are discussed below in the form of questions and answers:-

Q. - The world is unreal like things seen in a dream, or like a piece of rope mistaken for a snake, or like a sea-shell seen glittering in the sunshine for a piece of silver or like a mirage for

PAGE 348

water, or like a town of angels or like a juggler's trick. (Brahmaa) God alone is real.

A. ~ What do you call real?

Q. - What does not exist and yet appears to do so.

A. ~ How can a thing appear to exist when it does not exist at all?

Q. - By adhyaropa.

A. ~ What do you mean by adhyaropa?

Q. -Adhyaropa or adhyasa consists in believing a thing to be different from what i really is; the refutation of a wrong belief is called apavaada; by the help of these two this phenomenal world can be taken to exist in Brahmaa Who is Himself Unchangeable.

A. ~ You have fallen into this mistake by believing a piece of rope to be real while a snake to be unreal. Is not a snake also real?

If you say that it does not exist in a piece of rope we ask, "Does it not exist in some other place or does its idea not exist in our consciousness?" If it does, a snake then is not unreal. In the same way, other illustrations, such as that of a mollusk-shell mistaken for a piece of silver, can be shown to be wrong. Similarly, things seen in dreams also exist somewhere in the world. Their ideas exist in our consciousness, hence it cannot be said of them that they exist by adhayaropa (i.e., by erroneously attributing the properties of one thing to another.

Q. - If this be true, how can one see a thing in a dream that was never seen or heard to exist in the wakeful state, such as a man' s head is cut off and he himself weeps, or a stream of water flows uphill?

A. ~ Even this argument does not support your contention, because impression of a thing cannot exist in one's mind unless h has seen or heard of it, and there can be no remembrance without mental impressions, and without remembrance there can be no direct consciousness of a thing. When a person hears from another that such and a such person's head was cut off on a field of battle and his father or brother or some other relation was seen to weep, or when a person sees water from a fountain jetting up, all these things make impressions on his mind. When he is no longer in his wakeful state and dreams in his sleep of what he had seen or heard, since he sees all these things in himself, it can be understood how he comes to imagine that his own head is cut off and he himself weeps or that a stream of water flows upwards. This is

PAGE 349

again not like imagining a thing to exist which does not exist at all, it is more like sketching in which a sketcher embodies his idea of what he had seen or heard on paper, or like painting in which a painter by forming a metal picture of his subject paints it on canvas.

It is true though that sometimes such things are seen in dreams as are still remembered, for instance, one sees one's teacher (in a dream), while on other occasions one recalls things in a dream that had been seen or heard long time ago and had therefore completely passed out of one's memory; in such cases one forgets whether one sees, or hears the same as one ha seen or heard before in the wakeful state. But things cannot be remembered so methodically in dreams as in a wakeful state.

Again a person born blind can never dream of colors, hence you definition of the words Adhyaropa or Adhyasaa is wrong. And what the Neo-Vedaantists called Vivartavada is also untrue. The term Vivartavada means that a person erroneously considers the universe to be real, while it is only illusory (Brahma alone being a real entity), just as one mistakes a piece of rope for a snake.

Q. - There can be no knowledge of an Adhyasa - a thing that is supported - without the knowledge of its Adhishthan - that which supports it, - for in the above instance had there been no rope, the idea of a snake being there would never have entered one's mind. As there is no snake in a piece of rope, nor there ever was, not shall it ever be, in dim light a man may mistake a piece of rope for a snake and tremble with fear, but when he sees it with the light of a good lamp, his mistake is at once corrected and he ceases to fear, in like manner a man erroneously conceives that this world exist in Brahma this illusion of the existence of the world comes to an end, and he finds that it is all Brahma.

A. ~ Who erroneously experiences this illusion of the world in Brahma?Q. - The human soul.

A. ~ Whence did the human soul originate?

Q. - Out of ignorance?

A. ~ What is the origin of ignorance and where does it reside?

Q. - Ignorance is without a beginning and resides in Brahma

A. ~ Was there ignorance of self or of something else in Brahma and who was it that became ignorant?

PAGE 350

Q. - Chidabhasa

A. ~ What is the nature of this Chidabhasa?

Q. - It is Brahmaa. Brahmaa become ignorant of Brahmaa, in other words, He forgets His own nature.

A.~ What is the cause of this forgetfulness?

Q. - Nescience.

A. ~ Is nescience an attribute of an Omnipresent, Omniscient Being or of one who possesses finite knowledge.

Q. - Of the latter.

A. ~ Do you then believe in the existence of a second conscious entity besides the Infinite, Omniscient, Conscious Being? And where did the being possessed of finite knowledge, you just spoke of, come from? Of course it would be alright if you were to believe in the existence of another beginningless, finite, conscious entity besides Brahma, but you do not, hence the objection.

Again were Brahma to become ignorant of Self, this ignorance would spread throughout the whole Braham just a pain in one part of a man's body makes all other parts (of his body) helpless, so would Brahma, if afflicted with ignorance or pain in one part, feel Himself ignorant or afflicted with pain throughout His whole self.

Q. - It is all an attribute of Upadhi.

A. ~ Is Upadhi possessed of consciousness or not? Is it real or otherwise?

Q. - It is indescribable, in other words, it cannot be said of it that it possesses consciousness or is without it, is real or apparent.

A. ~ This is quite absurd for on the one hand you say that it is nescience, and on the other you hold that it can neither be said to be possessed of consciousness, nor devoid of it, neither real nor unreal. It can be compared to a piece of gold adulterated with copper which can neither be said to be gold nor copper, but a mixture of both.

Q. - Just as the ether of the pot, the ether of a house, and the ether of a cloud appear to be distinct from the universal ether by virtue of being enclosed by the pot, the house and the cloud, while in reality they are all identical with the universal ether, in like manner Brahma appears

PAGE 351

to the ignorant different in different persons and things by virtue of the intervention of maya, nescience, and antahkaran (the internal organ of thought) and also by being spoken of collectively and individually, while in reality He is one and the same in all. It is said in the Katha Upanishad, "Just as hear pervades objects of the various sizes and shapes, such as big and small, long, broad and round, and assumes the different forms of those objects, so does God pervades different antahkarans an assumes their forms, but as a matter of fact He is distinct from them."

A. ~ "Even this assertion of yours is wrong. Just as you believe the pot, the house and the cloud, in the examples cited by you, to be distinct from ether, inn like manner why do you not believe the material world - both in its casual and present visible forms - and the soul to be distinct from the Supreme Spirit, and the latter distinct from the former (i.e., the matter and the soul)?

Q. - "Just as heat pervades all objects and thereby appears to assume various forms, so does the Supreme Spirit by pervading the soul and matter appear to the ignorant as one possessed of form, but in reality He is neither matter nor the soul." Again, when a thousand trays full of water are placed in the sun, a thousand different reflections of the sun are seen, but in reality the sun is one, and does not perish, move or spread when the trays get broken or their water moves or spreads, in the same manner Brahma is reflected in the antahkaran - this reflection is is called chidabhasa or the image of God.

The soul exists as a distinct entity only so long as the antahkaran lasts, but the moment the antahkaran, having attained perfect knowledge ceases to exist, the soul attains the nature of Brahma, i.e. becomes God. But as long as the soul is ignorant of its true nature which is Divine, and thinks that it is the Chidabhasa that enjoys, feels pleasure or pain, commits sinful or virtuous deeds or is subject to birth and death, it cannot get freedom from the bondage of this world.

A. ~ This illustration of yours is of no good. The sun has a form so do the trays and the water therein, possessed forms. Again, the sun is separate from the trays and the water therein and vice versa. These two facts alone make it possible for the sun to be

PAGE 352

reflected. Has all these been formless or had they not been separate from each other, there would have been no reflection of the sun. God is Formless and being Omnipresent like ether noting van be separate from Him., nor van the (i.e., God and the Universe) be one and the same, as the relation of one that pervades and one that is pervaded by exists between God and the world, in other words, when the pervader and the pervaded seen from the anwaya and Vyatirekabhava* point of view, they are united together and yet are always distinct from each other.

For, if they be one, the relation of the pervader and the pervaded cannot exist but it is clearly said in the Brihdarayaka Upanishad that this relation does exist between God and the world. Again there can be no reflection of God because it is impossible for a formless object to be reflected (in a transparent medium). As to your belief regarding Brahmaa that He becomes the soul through the intervention of Antahkaran , it is like a child's prattle, for the Antahkaran is mutable, movable and separate, whilst Brahma is immutable and entire. Should you not believe Brahmaa and the soul to be different form each other, how would you answer the following objection.

The Antahkaran being movable, the part of Brahmaa which it would occupy would become devoid of consciousness, whilst the part where it shifts from would become possessed of knowledge, just as an umbrella cuts off the sunshine wherever it is carried, ceases to intercept it where it has been shifted from, in like manner will the Antahkaran by acting as an intercepting medium make Brahmaa at one moment ignorant and bound, and at the next wise and free. From the effect of the presence of an intervening medium like the Antahkaran, and Brahmaa being indivisible the whole of Brahmaa will become ignorant, which can never be true as He is ex-hypothesis, All-knowledge. Again, whatever Brahmaa, through the medium of a certain Antahkaran, has been,

* Anwaya in Logic means a "statement of the constant and invariable concomitance of the Hetu (middle term) and the Sadhya (major term) of an Indian syllogism…..Anwaya, in fact, corresponds to the universal A proposition of European logic 'All A is B'. Vyatirekabhava means an assertion of the concomitance of the absence of Sadhya and the absence of Hetu, and corresponds to the converted A proposition 'All not -B is not -a'…..A cause or Hetu is said to be connected with its effect by Anwaya Vyatirekaryapati when both the affirmative an negative relations between the thing to be proved and the cause that proves can be equally asserted; such a Hetu alone makes the argument perfectly sound and incapable of refutation. This process of arriving at the Vyapati or universal proposition corresponds to the methods of Agreement and Difference in Mills' Logic." - Tr.

PAGE 353

say, at Mathura, the same cannot be re-called in Kashi (Benares) by Brahmaa, since He does not possess the same Antahkaran, as what has been seen by one cannot be remembered by another. The chidabhas that sees a thing a Mathura is not the same that lives a Benares, and the Brahmaa that illuminates the chidabhas of Mathura isnot the same that lives at Benares. If the very Brahmaa be the soul and not distinct from it, the soul ought to be Omniscient.

If the reflection of Brahmaa be distinct, none should be able to recall what he ahs seen or hear in thepast. If you say that one can remember because Brahmaa is one and the same. We answer that pain or ignorance in one part (of Brahmaa) should affect the whole of Brahmaa. Thus by such illustration you have represented the Eternal, Holy, All-wise, Ever-free, Indivisible Brahmaa as non-eternal, unholy, ignorant, and subject to bondage, and division.

Q. - Even a formless object can be reflected, just as ether (sky) is reflected in a mirror or a in water and looks blue or dull gray, in like manner Brahmaa casts His reflection in all Antahkaran.

A. ~ No one can see ether with his eyes as it is altogether formless, how can a thing be reflected in a looking-glass or in water when it cannot even be seen. Only a thing that possesses some form can look blue or deep gray, but never a formless one.

Q. - What is then that looks bluish on high and is reflected in a mirror?

A. ~ It is the particles of dust and water (that have gone up from the earth) and of Agni*. If there were not aqueous vapor above, where could the rain come from? Hence what looks like a tent (and over-spreads us) in reality a spherically-shaped mass of aqueous vapor. Just as fog, when looked at form a distance, appears thick and tent-like but gets thinner on approaching nearer, so does the watery vapor go up in the sky.

Q. - Are the then the illustrations elating to a coil of rope and a snake and to things seen in dreams and the like, which have been adduced above by us, beside the point?

* That state of matter whose properties are light and heat, etc. See Chapter 3 for further information on this subject.- Tr.

PAGE 354

A. ~ No, it is your understanding that is to blame, and this has already been pointed out. Pray tell us who it is that first falls a prey to ignorance?

Q. - Brahma.

A. ~ Is Brahma Omniscient or possessed of finite knowledge?

Q. - He is neither Omniscient nor is He possessed of finite knowledge, because Omniscience and its reverse can be predicated of him alone whose (psychic vision) is barred by a limiting medium (Upaadhi).

A. ~ Who is it that becomes subject to the influence of Upaadhi?

Q. - Brahmaa

A. ~ Then it is proved that Brahmaa can be both Omniscient and its reverse. Why did you then take exception to this statement? If you contend that upaadhi is something that has not reality in existence, with whom then did this false conception originate?

Q. - Is the soul identical with Brahmaa or not?

A. ~ It is different from Brahmaa, for if it were the same as Brahmaa, no false conceptions could originate. He, whose conception can be wrong, can never be All-truth.

Q. - We recognize nod distinction between right and wrong, and all human utterance is devoid of actuality.

A. ~ If all that you believe and say is false, hoe can you afford safe guidance?

Q. -We don't care whether we afford safe guidance or not. Conceptions of right and wrong originate entirely with us (and have o objective reality). It is the soul that is the witness and seat thereof.

A. ~ If conceptions of right and wrong are purely subjective phenomena, you would be a thief and an honest man at one and the same time and, therefore, a very unsafe guide. For he alone is a trustworthy guide whose conceptions are correct, who speaks what is right and acts up to his convictions in accordance with what is right, and not one who is otherwise. Your statement being self-contradictory you cannot be right.

Q. - Do you believe in the existence of the beginningless Maya that resides in the and envelopes Brahmaa?

A. ~ No, we do not, because you interpret Maya as something which is not and yet appears to be. Only he whose mental vision is blurred will subscribe to this belief. It is impossible that a thing, which does not exist at all, should appear to exist, even as

PAGE 355

it is impossible to photograph the son of a barren woman. Besides your view is opposed to the teachings of the Upanishads as is proved by the following passage of the Chhandogya Upanishad, "(Do thou,) O dear son, (bear in mind) that the world had verily a material cause."

Q. - Would you refute the teachings of even scholars like Vasishtha, Shankar and Nischaldas who were possesses of greater learning than you are? To me it appears that Vasishtha, Shankar, and Nischaldas could speak with greater authority.

A. ~ Are you yourself a well-read ma or not?

Q. - Yes, I have read a little.

A. ~ Alright then, try if you can establish the truth of the doctrine promulgated by Vasishtha, Shakara and Nischaldas, we will refute your arguments. He whose position is proved to be right, will be regarded the greater authority. If the position held by you in common with those teachers had been impregnable, you would have succeeded in confuting us in debate by producing the arguments advanced by them, and in that case your position would have been accepted as right.

It is very likely that Shankaracharya had taken up this position with the view to refute more successfully the beliefs of the Jainis, for many a selfish scholar in response to the requirements of expediency preaches doctrines opposed to the dictates of this conscience. But if he really held beliefs like the identity of God with the soul, and the unreality of the external universe, his position was altogether wrong.

Let us now examine the claims of Nischaldas to scholarship. He say s in his book, called Vrittiprabhakar, that the oneness of God and the soul can be inferred from the fact of both of them being possessed of consciousness. An argument like this can be adduced only by men possessed of a poor intellect, because things possessing similar attributes are not necessarily identical, as points of dissimilarity may differentiate them just as the statement that Prithivi (solids) and Jala (liquids) being dead and inert, are identical, cannot be valid, in the same manner the contention of Nischaldas state above is illogical because finitude and fallibility differentiate the soul from God and omniscience and infallibility differentiate God from the soul; it is, therefore, clear that God and the soul are two distinct entities.

Now solidity and gankha (the property of exciting olfactory impulses) are attributes of Prithivi (solids) which distinguish if from Jala (liquids) which possesses rasa (the property of exciting gustatory impulses) and fluidity, therefore solids and

PAGE 356

liquids are not identical. In like manner, God and the soul on account of possessing dissimilar attributes, never were, nor are, nor shall ever be one. This will suffice to show the extent of Nischaldas's learning. As regards Yoga vashishtha, its author was a Neo-Vedaantis. It could not have been written by Balmika, Vashishtha or Ram Chandra, for all of them were followers of the Vedic religion and could not therefore have written a book opposed to its teachings, nor could they have preached anti-Vedic doctrines.

Q. - Vyasa is the author of Shariraka Sutraas which also inculcate the identity of God with the soul. For example he says,

1. "The soul manifests itself after attaining its true nature which is Divine, because the word (Swa) self stands for it its Divine Nature." VEDAANT SHASTRA 4:4,1.
2. "Jaimini holds that the soul is one with God, because there are passages in the Upanishads which declare that the soul can attain to a state of sinlessness." VEDAANT 4:4, 7.
3. "The great teacher Audulomi believes that the soul retains the attribute of consciousness a lone in the state of salvation (hence is identical with Brahmaa) as there are passages in the Brihidaranyaka which declare that the soul is of the same nature as God." VEDANT 4:4, 6.
4. "Vyasa holds that God and the soul are not different, because the passages like the above occur in the Upanishads." VEDANT 4: 5.
5. "When a seer (yogi) attains superhuman powers and regains his Divinity, he is not longer subject to the authority of a higher power, i.e., by virtue of his Divinity he attains final beatitude and remains in the state of emancipation as his own master as well as the supreme Governor of the universe." VEDANT 4: 4, 9.

Now how would you explain these passages?)

A. ~ You have wrongly translated these aphorisms. The following is their correct translation:-

PAGE 357

1. "So long as the soul is not cleansed of all its impurities, and does not regain its pristine purity, it cannot acquire superhuman* powers and attain eternal bliss through communication with the Divine Spirit that pervades the soul."
2. "In like manner the great sage Jaimini holds that so long as the soul does not attain superhuman psychic powers and free itself from the bondage of sin, it cannot attain and enjoy eternal bliss."
3. "The great Teacher Audulomi believes that when the soul is freed from all faults and imperfections, such as ignorance, attains purity and retains the attribute of consciousness alone, it establishes direct relationship with the All-pervading Deity."
4. "The great sage Vyasa holds that when a man attains a beatified state in this life by virtue of direct communion with God and acquisition of superhuman psychic powers and absolute knowledge, he recovers his original pure self and enjoys extreme bliss."
5. "When a yogi has reached a stage at which al his volitional activity is directed towards righteousness alone., he attains to a state of constant communion with God and obtains the bliss of salvation. Then he is free and is his own master quite unlike what we see in this world of ours, wherein one man is placed above another."

Had the interpolation of the above aphorisms been different from what is given here, the following aphorisms would not be found in the same book.

(i) The soul which is distinct from God could not be the author of the universe, for being possessed of finite energy and knowledge it has not the power to build up the Cosmos. Hence the soul is distinct from God. VEDANT SHAASTRA 1:1, 16.

(ii)"The soul and God are distinct from each other, as it has been declared by the Upanishads that they are different. Had it not been so, it would not be true that the soul attains bliss through communion with God Who is All-bliss and that God is the object of realization, whilst the

* I have to use this word for want of a better word. Here the term superhuman is used to express those powers that are not attainable by man except through the practice of the highest form of Yoga. - Tr.

PAGE 358

soul seeks realization." The soul and God are, therefore, not identical. VEDANT 1:1, 17

(iii)"It having been declared by the Upanishads that God is distinguished from the soul and the primordial matter on account of His possessing the attributes of Resplendence, Holiness, All-glory, absence of incarnate existence, Omnipresence, and of His being Unborn and Deathless, without the necessity of respiration, bodily existence and mind, the subtler than the soul which again is subtler than primordial matter. On account of the Character and attributes stated above, God is distinct from both the soul and the matter." VEDANT 1,2, 22.

(iv)"The Upanishads inculcate the union of the Omnipresent God with the soul, and of the soul with the Divine spirit. God and the soul are therefore distinct from each other as union can be predicted only of two distinct entities." VEDANT 1:1,19.

"God has been declared Omnipresent in the Upanishad and because He pervades the soul, the soul which is pervaded is distinct from God that pervades it. This relation can be true only of two distinct entities. Just as God is distinct from the soul, in like manner is He different from learned men, otherwise called Devas, because the latter enjoy the use of the senses, and manas, the earth and other material objects, space, the atmosphere and luminaries like the sun." VEDANT 1:1,20.

(vii)"As God and the soul are two distinct entities, the Upanishads declare that in the recesses of the human heart there lie hidden tow spirits - divine and the human." VEDANT 1:1, 11

(vii)"The soul circumscribed by a material body cannot be identical with God as the nature, attributes and characteristics of God cannot be predicated of it." VEDANT 1:1,3.

PAGE 359

(ix) "God is distinct from the soul as He pervades the senses, the manas, the earth and other material objects, and the soul. This fact of God being Omnipresent is clearly stated in all the Upanishads." VEDANT 1:2, 18.

(x) "The soul encased in a bodily tenement is not God, for they essentially different from each other in nature." VEDANT 1:2, 20.

Thus even the Shariraka Sutras* teach that God and the soul are distinct from each other in their very nature. In the same manner, it can be proved that there can be no Upakram (i.e., the issuing of the Universe from Brahmaa) and Upsanhara (i.e., the merging of the Universe into God at the time of Dissolution) as held by the Neo-Vedantis.

When they recognize not other entity excepting God, it must be He alone then that is subject to creation and dissolution, but the Vedas and other authoritative scriptures declare him otherwise. This belief of theirs is, therefore sacrilegious, for it is impossible that God Who is Unchangeable, Infinite, Holy, Eternal, Infallible, should become subject to change, creation and ignorance.

Even at the time of dissolution God (prakriti) (primordial matter), and the soul continue to exist separately. Therefore the Neo-Vedantic theories of Creation and Dissolution are also false. There are good many other beliefs of theirs that are opposed to the teachings of the Shaastraas and do not stand the test of reason and experience.

After the both the Jainis and the followers of the Shankar exercised some influence on the religious thought of the country and there were discussions and debates between them.

Three hundred years after Shankara there flourished in Ujjain a glorious potentate named Vikramaditya. He put sown internecine warfare among the ruling Princes of India and established peace. Later on Raja Bhartri Hari acquired some proficiency in poetry and allied branches of literature, and in other departments of learning. He renounced the world, and abdicated the throne.

* Another name for the Vedant Shastra.

360

Five hundred years after Vikrama there flourished another king called Bhoja. He encouraged the study of Sanskrit Grammar to some extent, and patronized artistic poetry so much so that even a shepherd, named Kalidas, became the author of 'Raghuvansha'. Whoever composd a fine verse and presented himself at his court was richly rewarded and honored.

after this the kings and aristocracy gave up the pursuit of knowledge altogether. Though the Shivites existed before Shankar's time and after the Vaama Maarga had had it sway, they had not, then, acquired much influence. From Vikram's time onwards this sect began to gain in influence and power. The Shivites were split up into many sections, such as Pashupata, even as the Vaama Maargis were divided into ten sections such as Maha Vidya. These people raised Shankara to the position of an incarnation of Shiva. Sanyasis also embraced the Shiva faith. They also kept on good relations with the Vaama Margis who took to the worship of Devi, the consort of Shiva, whilst the Shivites started the worship of Mahadeva.

Both the Vaama Maargis and Shivites besmear their bodies with ashes and wear rosaries, the beads of which are made of the Rudraksha tree, but the latter are not so much opposed to the Vedic teachings as are the former. The Shivites composed many verses like the following, "Fie on him whose forehead is not besmeared with ashes, and who had not got a Rudraksh rosary round his neck. He should be boycotted like an outcast. He who wears 32 beads on the neck, 40 on the head, 6 in each ear, 12 round each wrist, 16 round each arm, one on the top of the head, and 108 next to the heart is verily like unto Lord Mahadeva Himself."

The Shaktas share this belief. Later on the Vaama Maargis and the Shivites combined together and introduced the worship of the male and female reproductive organs which are termed Jaladhari and Linga. These unblushing wretches did not feel the slightest shame in

PAGE 361

following these idiotic practices. It as been well said by a poet, "The selfish when blinded by self-interest mistakes diabolical deeds for good actions, and are not alive to their sinful character."
They began to look upon the worship of stalks and stones and of the reproductive organs, as the sole means of attaining righteous ends, wealth, the fulfillment of legitimate desires and even salvation.

When after Raja Bhoja, the Jainis installed idols in their temples and began to frequent them for paying homage and adoration to the images, the disciples of these popes (Vaama Maargis and Shivites) began to follow their example. At about the same time in Western India Mohammedans and followers off other alien religions poured into India, the popes composed verses like the following:- "What ever may be the amount of pain inflicted, and even though the life be in jeopardy, let not the language of the Yavanas* be employed in speech. Let no one save his life by seeking refuge in a Jain temple, even though he be pursued by a mad elephant, for it is better to be killed by him than to set foot in a Jain temple.

They began to preach such pernicious doctrines to their followers. When asked to quote chapter and verse from some authoritative scriptures they expressed themselves (willing and ready to do so). On being pressed they quoted passages from the Markandeya Purana and recited pieces from the Durgapath purporting to sing the glories of Devi (goddess).

In the reigh of Raja Bhoja some Pundits wrote the Markandeya and the Shiva Puranas and gave out that Vyasa was the author thereof. When this was brought to the notice of the king, these Pundits had their hands chopped off by way of punishment. Further he issued an order that all works on poetry and other subjects should bear on their title pages the names of the authors and not of sages and seers (of yore). This is written in the historical work Sanjivani by Raja Bhoja. This book is to be found with the Tivari Braahmans of Bhind, a village in the Gwalior State. The Rao Saahib of Lakhuna and his minister Ram Dyal Chaubey have seen it with their own eyes.

* The term Yavanas is equally applied to the Greeks and the Mohammedans, etc.-Tr.

PAGE 362

It is clearly written therein that Vyasa composed 4,400 verses of the Mahabharat, and his pupils added another 5, 600. thus there were in all 10,000 verses in the original Mahabharat. In the time of Raja Vikramaditya the number of verses rose to 20,000. Raja Bhoja says that in his father's time the number came up to 25,000 and at the time of writing the books under notice, when he was a middle aged man, it had risen to 30,000; if it went on increasing at the rate the Mahabharat will in no time become a camel's load.

He further says that if books like the Puranas were made in the name of the ancient sages and seers, the people of Aryavarta (India) would be steeped in superstition and thus being deprived of the benefits of the Vedic Religion would sink deep in degradation. This shows that king Bhoja has some idea of the Vedic teachings.

In the country ruled over by Raja Bhoja and in the neighbourhood ther live some very clever mechanicians who, as the Bhoja Prabandha says, "has constructed a machine resembling a horse in shape that could traverse 27 and half Kosas or about 55 miles an hour on land as well as in air. Another mechanician had invented a fan that gave plenty of air and worked automatically."

If these two machines had been still existent, the Europeans would not have inflated with so much pride.

In spite of the effort of the popes. Their disciples continued their visits to the temples of the Jainis, they even began to attend Jain meetings wherein passages from the Jain scriptures were recited. The Jain popes began to inveigh the followers of the Puranic popes into their nets. The Puranic popes then bethought of themselves that unless they devised some means ot stem the tide of conversion, their disciples would become Jainis.

Upon this the Puranic popes by mutual consultations came to the conclusion that like the Jainis, they should also have their incarnations, temples, images and mythological books. For instance they devised 24 incarnations in place of Jain Tirthankars which likewise are 24 in number. The Jainis have Tantras and sub-tantras. The Puranic popes wrote out 18 Puranas (sub-puranas).

PAGE 363

The Vaishnava sect took its birth 150 years after Raja Bhoja. The founder Shathakopa was the son of a professional prostitute. In his time the movement achieved some successl his successor was Munivahana the son of a scavenger. He was succeeded by Yavanacharya who was born in a Mohammedan family. The fourth was Ramanuja, a Braahaman by birth. He propagated this creed. The Shivites had the Shiva Puran, and the Shaktas their Devi Bhagvat Puran, so the Vaishnavites their Vishnu Puran.

The authors did not publish these books in their own names, but instead fathered their publications on sages, and seers like Vyasa fearing that no one would attach any weight to what was published in their own name. These books should appropriately have been names Navina (i.e., of recent date). But there is nothing to wonder at if a poor man named his son Maharaj Adhiraja (Emperor), and if a thing of recent origin was named Sanatan (ancient). The contents of the Puranas bear on them the stamp of the internecine warfare of these sects.

Mark! It is written in the Devi Bhagvat Purana that a goddess named Shri, the mistress of Shripur, was the author of the universe. She also created Brahma, Vishnu and Mahadeva. She willed and then rubbed her hands and lo! There was a blister out of which Brahma was born. The goddess asked him to marry her. Brahma replied, "Thou ar my mother, therefore, it does not behove me to marry thee." This enraged the mother goddess and she reduced her son to ashes. She again rubbed her hands and produced another son in the same way. She named him Vishnu. The same proposal was made to him with the like result. He too was reduced to ashes.

A third son was brought into being in the same way. She named him Mahadeva and made a proposal of marriage to him. Mahadeva replied, " I cannot marry thee, unless thou art metamorphosed into a different woman." She did the needful. Then Mahadeva asked her, "What do these two heaps of ashes signify?" The goddess replied, "These are the mortal remains of thy brothers. They did not obey my orders and were therefore reduced to ashes." Mahadeva replied, "What shall I alone do? Bring them to life again and produce two other girls and let the three of us marry the three of them." The goddess did what was asked of her and thus the tree couples were married. What a shame! The fellows did

PAGE 364

not marry their mother but married their own sisters!!! Can this action be regarded morally justifiable?

Thereafter the goddess brought into existence Indra, etc. (Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, were appointed as palanquin bearers of the goddess). Many such yarns have been spun out (in this book).
It might be asked (of the Shaktas), "What was the body of the goddess like? Who were her parents? Who was the creator of that Shripur." Should they say back in reply that the goddess had no beginning, it could not be right because whatever is the product of combination of elements must needs have a beginning. If the marriage if a mother with her son be a sin, why should not the marriage between brothers and sisters be regarded likewise?

Just as in the Devi Bhagvat Purana, Mahadeva, Vishnu, Brahma, etc., have been spoken of disparagingly whilst the goddess (Devi) has been exalted, in like manner in the Shiva Puran the Devi, etc., have been held up to contempt. All these have been described therein as the servants of Mahadeva who is proclaimed their Lord and Maser.

Now if the wearing of the stones of a fruit and the besmearing of the body with ashes can lead to salvation, why then the donkeys and pigs and other animals who wallow in dust, and Bhil and other low-born men who wear strings of fruit-stones on their bodies are already saved.

Q. - In the Kalagnirudra Upanishad the besmearing of the body with ashes is enjoined. Is that false? Even the Veda commends this practice, because the words Tryayasham Jamadagni occur in the text of the Yajur Veda. In the Puranas it is stated that the tree which grew out of the tears that ran from the eyes of Rudra was named Rudraksha. It is for this very reason that the wearing of one Rudraksha absolves one from all sins, leads him to Heaven and he terrors of hell are as nought for him.

A. ~ The author of Kalagnirudra Upanishad must have been one who was in the habit of besmearing himself with ashes, because passages like 'the first line traced with ashes (on one's forehead) represents the earth' which occur therein are manifestly absurd, for how is it possible that a line drawn with hand everyday should stand for the earth. As regards the Vedic text Tryaysham Jamadagni it does not relate to the wearing of Rudraksha or

PAGE 365

besmearing one's body with ashes. On the contrary it means "Do thou, O Lord, ordain that my eyesight may be preserved uninjured for 300 years and that i may also follow such rules of health as may help to preserve it." This interpretation of the Vedic text is supported by the Shathapatha Braahman which says, "Jamadagni does verily signify eyesight."

How foolish it is to assert that a tree can grow out of tears streaming from an eye! Who can subvert the laws of nature as ordained by God? Every tree grows out of the seed assigned to it by the Supreme Sprit, and not otherwise. It therefore follows that only savages, who are little better than beast, would wear Rudraksha, Tulsi,* lotus buds, blades of grass Sandal and besmear their bodies with ashes.

Thsu Vaama Maargis and Shivites are given to evil practices and are malicious. They do not even perform their (religious, and other), duties. Whoever is a good man among them does not believe in these things and does righteous deeds. If, as they say, Rudraksha and ashes scare away the minions of the Angel of Death, why are not policemen inspired with fright at their sight? When these things cannot frighten even dogs, lions, snakes, scorpions, flies and mosquitoes, why should the hosts of the Angel of Death (Lord of Justice) dread their sight?

Q. -The Vaama Maargis and Shivites are not good, but I suppose the Vaishnavites are so.

A. ~ Their sect being opposed to the teachings of the Vedas they are worse still.

Q. - Why do you refute the Shaiva and other creeds, they find support in the following Vedic texts:-

"We adore Rudra, the wrathful." "Thu art Vishnu." "Adoration to Vishnu." "We pray to Ganesh, the Lord of Hosts." We pay homage to the goddess Bhagvati." "We worship the Sun, the life of the universe - animate and inanimate."

A. ~ These texts lend no support to Shaiva and other creeds, for Rudra means God, vital air, the soul and heat. The text relating to Rudra would mean that we should render obeisance to God Who is the Punisher of all evils doers, and should take proper food to keep up the animal heat in the body. Besides, wherever

* It is the holy basil held in reverence by the Vaishanvites.-Tr.

PAGE 366

Texts relating to Shiva are found in the Vedas, they mean that we should pay homage to the All-merciful God who showers blessings on all. A Shaiva is really one who worships Shiva - the All-merciful Being; a Vaishnava is one who worships Vishnu - the All-pervading God. A Ganpata is one who worships Ganpati - The Lord of Hosts i.e., (of the Universe); Bhagvata is one who sits at the feet of the muses. A Saurka is one who is the devotee of the All-pervading God, the Soul of the Universe - animate and inanimate. Thus Rudra, shiva, Vishnu, Ganapati, Surya, connote God, and Bhagvati connotes truthful speech.

These various Puranic texts were invented owing to the wrong interpretation of the Vedic texts (quoted above). The following story illustrates this tendency:- a faqir had two disciples who shampooed him everyday. One undertook to massage the right foot and the other the left. One day it so happened that one of the disciples had gone out shopping, while the other was at his post. In the mean time the faqir change his side andit so happened that the foot in charge of the disciple, who was away, fell on the top of the other foot that was assigned to the disciple that was present. The latter took a stick and aimed a blow at the offending foot. The faqir cried out, "Oh you wicked one! What have you done?

The disciple replied "Why has the other foot fallen on the one that I am kneading?' Just at that moment the other disciple returned home and began to knead the foot assigned to him and found that it was swollen. He asked the faqir as to what had happened to that foot. The faqur related the whole story. This fellow without uttering a word or making a sign took up a stick and struck a heavy blow at the other foot. The faqir screamed aloud and both the disciples fell to battering his feet.

When there was a great uproar, a large number of people crowded in and asked the faqir what the matter was. A sensible man from among the crowd rescued the faqir, and expostulated with the foolish disciples thus "Look you her! Both these feet belong to the body of your preceptor. If you knead them, it is he alone that is benefited thereby, and if you cause injury to them, it is he again who suffers pain."

Just as the two disciples in the story made fools of themselves, likewise the Shivites, Shaktas, Vaishnavites and the like revile one another, because they are ignorant of the true meanings of the

PAGE 367

words Shiva, Rudra, Vishnu, etc., which, as is set forth in the first chapter of this book, are the different names of the Immutable God Who is Self-existent, All-wise and Blissful.

These men of little understanding do not use their brains and never give the least thought to the matter, otherwise they will soon find out that all such terms as Shiva, Rudra, and Vishnu connote One Supreme, Incomparable< Omniscient God, the Controller of the universe, on account of His possessing multitudinous attributes. Would not the wrath of God descend on such people?

Now mark he wonderful trickery of the Chakrankitas and Vaishnavites!
The Ramanuja Patal Padhiti says:-

"Branding the body with red hot iron, making the mark of a trident on the forehead, wearing a rosary, bearing a name (ending in Das) and receiving the knowledge of the mystic word are the five holy acts that lead to salvation." These people brand the upper-most part of their arms with a red-hot iron marked with the sign of a conch-shell, a discus, a mace, or a lotus, the quench the iron in a vessel containing milk. Some even drink that milk.

Now it is clear that the person drinking that milk must be tasting human flesh. These people hope to reach God by resorting to such practices. They argue that no one can reach God without branding his body in the way indicated above, for till then the devotee is raw (spiritually) unregenerated.

Just as everyone is afraid of a police constable in uniform, so the minions of Yama (Angel of Death) dare not approach one who is branded with signs which make them out to be Vishnu's devotees. They further say "It is a meritorious act to mark the forehead with sign of a crozier, to brand the body with the signs of conch-shell, a discus, a mace, and a rosary whose beads are made of lotus stalk. These symbols inspire the Angel of Death and earthly potentates with awe. It is also a good thing to bear

PAGE 368

a name ending in Das (servant), such as Narayan Das, Vishnu Das, and to be initiated into the knowledge of them mystic words such as "Adoration to Narayana." This is for ordinary people. the mystic verse for rich and respectable people is "May we worship the feet of Narayana. Adoration to the Great Narayana, adoration to the great Ramanuja." Verily this is quite business-like.

The wording of the mystic verse varies with the social position of the initiated. The Chakrankits believe that these five holy acts (sanskars) are the means of salvation. Just as Vaama Maargis have five Makaras (so-called holy practices beginning with the letter M.), likewise the Vaishnavites have five Sanskars (so-called holy practices beginning with the Letter S).

The Vedic mantras, that hey adduce in support of their belief as to branding the body with the signs of a discus, and a crozier, etc., when rightly translated would mean:- "O Lord Thou Who art the Protector of the universe and the Veda, and art Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Holy in nature canst not be approached by a human soul that has not been purified by means of thorough control of the senses, truthful speech, subjugation of the animal in man, conquest of the lower self, the practice of yoga, association with good men all these constitute Tapa) and is therefore not spiritually regenerate. It is only those, whose souls have been cleansed through righteous conduct and devotion to virtue, that can see Thee Who art All-Holy." RIG VEDA. 9:83, 2.

"Only those who lead a thoroughly righteous life can attain to the realization of the All-glorious, Supreme Spirit." RIG VEDA 9:83, 2.

Now it worth considering how Ramanuja and others can construe these texts as sanctioning the Chankrankit creed. After this how could they be regarded learned. Had they been so, they would not have put upon these texts such an impossible construction, for in these texts the words atapta tanu (which would mean unbranded body according to the Chakrankitic interpretation) occur

PAGE 369

and not atapta bhuja (unbranded arem). Again the words atapta tanu comprehend the entire body from top to toe. Should the Chakrantikas the word tapa to mean branding with fire, they may shove themselves into a furnace and burn their entire body, even hen they will be acting against the spirit of this text. For in it tapa is stated to be the performance of righteous deeds like veracity in speech.

The following verse from the Taitreya Upanishad also supports this view. "Perfect purity of heart, truthfulness in word, deed and thought, restraining the mind from rioting in evil, keeping the senses under perfect control, i.e., the employment of the mind and sense organs for the practice of righteousness, the study of the Vedas and other books of true knowledge, and the molding of conduct in accordance with the Vedic injunctions constitute tapa."The burning of the body by branding it with red hot iron is not tapa. It is a remarkable fact that the Chakrankits pose as Vaishnavites of a very superior order but do not think of the origin of their sect and of the evil practices connected therewith. Their founder was a man named Shatthakopa.

It is written in the authoritative works of the Chakrankitas and in the Bhagat Mal whose author was the bard Nabha. "The seer (Shathakopa)wove winnowing baskets and earned his living by selling them." He was born of a whore; it is very likely that when he wanted to read with the Brahmans, he was refused this privilege, thereupon (having been exasperated) he founded the Chakrankita sect and introduced the use of marks on the forehead and started the practice of branding the arms

All this was opposed to the teachings of the Shaastraas and was evolved out of his own imagination. He was succeeded by his disciple Munivhana who was the son of an outcast. His chief disciple was Yavanacharya who was a Mohammedan by birth. Yavanacharya is sometime corrupted into Yamunacharya. After him Ramanuja who was a Brahman by birth, was converted to this faith. His predecessors had written some (sacred) works in the loval dialects. Ramanuja devoted sometime to the study of Sanskrit, was the author of a few books

PAGE 370

in Sanskrit verse and of a commentary on the Shariraka Sutras and the Upanishads which gave an interpretation of these books quite contrary to what was given by Shankar. He criticized Shankar a great deal. For instance, Shankar holds that the soul and the Divine Spirit are identical; nothing besides God has an existence in fact. The phenomenal word is an illusion and is, therefore, unreal and perishable. Ramanuja on the contrary believes that God, the soul and matter are eternally co-existent,.

Shankar is wrong in so far as he says that the soul and the primordial matter as distinct from God do not exist and Rmanuja's belief, that these three entities are eternally co-existent and yet the soul and God circumvented by Maya (matter) are one* is altogether absurd. The denial of the freedom of will and a belief in the efficacy of tilaka (making specific mark on the forehead) and of wearing rosary, and in idol worship, and other evil doctrines and practices are found in the Chakrankit faith. The creed of Shankar is not so much opposed to the Vedic teachings as that of the Chakrankits.

Q. - With whom did idol worship originate?

A. ~It originated with the Jainees.

Q. - Why did the Jainees start idol worship?

A. ~They did it out of their ignorance.

Q. - The Jainees contend that when one looks at an idol which is symbolical of deep meditation and peaceful repose, one's soul is illumined by these spiritual influences.

A. ~ The soul is possessed of consciousness, while idol is dead and inert. Do you mean to say that the soul should also lose its consciousness and become lifeless like the idol. Idol worship is a fraud. The Jaiinees were the authors of this mode of worship. Their beliefs will be examined in the 12th Chapter.

Q. - It seems that the Shaktas have not borrowed this practice from the Jainees, for their idols are not like those of the Jainees.

A. ~ It is true that the Shakta idols are not like the Jain ones. Had they made idols resembling Jain idols in very detail, they would have become Jainees. It is for this reason that they dressed images quite differently from those of the Jainees, for the Vishnavites and others deemed it their duty to oppose the Jainees and

* This is called Vasishtaadvaita.

PAGE 371

vice versa. The Jain idols were always naked and represented a being who was seated in a contemplative mood and had renounced the world, while on the contrary the Vaishnava idols symbolized gods having by their sides goddesses, who were dressed out in fine style and excited lascivious thoughts by their lewd charms and licentious looks.

The Jains never blow conch-shell, nor ring bells (at the time of worship), while the Vaishnavites and others make a tremendous noise (by blowing conch -shell and beating drums, etc.). It was thus that the disciples of the Vaishnavities and the like vilely popes escaped from the clutches of the Jainees and were ensnared into the nets spread out bye these people. They also composed many books, which are replete with incredibly absurd stories, in the name of the great seers like Vyasa.