Further, another way of such belief is this- "As the space
(sky) is an ubiquitous one, similarly, the Brahma is an ubiquitous one. If you
(the monist) believe so, then believe the Brahma also as big as space and
wherever the material objects, jar, cloth, etc. are found, the space is also
found there; in the same way, believe the existence of Brahma too. But how
could the jar, cloth, etc. and the space be treated and called as one only?
Similarly, how the universe and the Brahma could be believed to be as one? And
the differentia of space is perceived to be everywhere; so, its existence is
believed to be everywhere; but the differentia of the Brahma is not perceived
everywhere; so how could then his existence be believed everywhere? In this
way also. no universal form of Brahma is established."
From all these considerations, the existence of one Brahma
is in no way established. All substances appear to be separate- separate
Here the respondent says- "All is one only, but you are
under delusion, that's why you are not able to perceive him as one. And you
have put up your logic but the nature of Brahma is beyond logic. And his
nature is not describable in words. He is one as well as many. He is separate
as well as united. His glory is so great".
Our answer to him is- "What I, you and all are perceiving
clearly, you call it delusion. And if we deduce by logic then you say that the
real nature is beyond logic. And if you say that the real nature is not
describable in words then how can one ascertain without words? "Further he
says- "He is one as well as many, is separate as well as united", but you do
not specify the viewpoint and instead like an insane person you are magnifying
his glory by asserting that he is like this and also like that. But, where
there is no justice, the liars indulge there in such garrulousness only. So,
let them do so but justice will remain unchanged.
Revocation of World-creatorship
Further, some people believe that Brahma is the creator of
the universe: the falsehood of the same is being shown hereunder :-
Firstly, they believe that such a desire arose to
Brahma that (H) "I am single, so I would like to be many". There we ask them-"
If one was unhappy in earlier state then he would like to change that state".
Brahma desired to obtain many forms discarding the earlier one form. What was
the sorrow in that state of one form? Then the monist says that there was no
sorrow but it was just an inquisitive instinct. Then we say to him- "If
earlier one be less happy and if by inquisitiveness, he becomes more happy,
then he may think of indulging in inquisitiveness. So, how is it possible for
Brahma to have become more happy by changing into many forms from one form.
And if he was perfectly happy in the earlier state, why should he change that
state or form? Without any purpose, no body wants to indulge in any activity.
And suppose he was happy earlier and also remained happy
after completing the desired act but would he not be unhappy at the moment of
rise of the desire? Then he says- "the moment desire arises in Brahma, at the
same moment the desire is fulfilled, so he does not become unhappy. Then we
say- "One can accept this from relatively longer period point of view but from
the instantaneous time period point of view the fulfillment of desire is not
possible the moment it arises. The desire arises only when the act is not
fulfilled; and when it is fulfilled there remains no desire. So, he must have
become unhappy at least in that minute interval of time. Because the desire
itself is misery and none else is misery. Therefore, the rise of desire in
Brahma is inconceivable."
Further, they (the monists) say that on evolution of
desire the Maya (illusion) of Brahma got produced. Since Maya
got produced in Brahma then Brahma also became an illusive (deceitful) person;
how did then here main of pure nature? And Brahma and Maya have the
coherent relation just like a staff-bearer and the staff or both have an
inseparable relation just like fire and heat. If it is a coherent relation
then the Brahma is separate and the Maya is separate; how did `He'
remain undivided (Addvait) Brahma? And as the staff-bearer holds the staff
knowing it to be helpful, similarly Brahma knows the Maya as to be
helpful to him, that's why he holds it, otherwise why should he hold it? And
the Maya which Brahma himself holds, how is it possible to deny
(forbid) it? Rather, it is proved useful. And if it is an inseparable
relation then as heat is the nature of fire, similarly Maya is proved
to be the nature of Brahma. That which is the nature of Brahma, how its
denial is possible? Thus Maya is proved to be useful.
Further, they say that the Brahma is a sentient being,
Maya is insentient. But in inseparable relation such two (contrary)
natures (of a thing) are not possible; e.g., how can light and darkness both
be found together?
Further, they say that Brahma himself does not become
deluded by Maya, rather (other) Jiva gets deluded by his Maya.
Our answer is: As a treacherous knows his treachery himself, so he himself
does not get deluded, rather the other persons get deluded by his treachery.
But he who indulges in treachery, is called a treacherous; the others who got
deluded due to his treachery are not called treacherous. Similarly, the
Brahma knows his Maya; the other Jivas get deluded. There, the
Brahma only will be called treacherous (Mayavi); how the other Jivas
who got deluded by his Maya could be called treacherous (Mayavi)?
Further we ask them - whether Jivas are one with the
Brahma or are separate entities? If they are one then as someone himself
starts giving pain to his own limbs so he is called an insane person,
similarly, the Brahma himself by his Maya starts giving pain to those
Jivas who are not separate from him; so, how would this be possible? If
the (Jivas) are separate from him, then as some ghost (peripatetic god)
without any purpose creates delusion to other Jivas and makes them
miserable., similarly, without any purpose the Brahma creates Maya for
other Jivas and makes them miserable; this also seems illogical.
Thus, saying that Maya is of Brahma cannot be
established. Further, they say that on evolution of Maya the universe
got created; there the consciousness found in Jivas is part of Brahma's
nature and their bodies etc. are Maya. For example, water is filled in
many separate utensils; in (the water of) all those utensils moon appears
separately-separately, whereas the moon is one. Similarly, the consciousness
light of Brahma is found separately-separately in many separate- separate
bodies, where as the Brahma is one, therefore, the consciousness found in
Jivas is that of the Brahma.
This statement is also full of delusion because the body is
inanimate; if in this body the consciousness got created due to the image of
Brahma, why could not then the image of Brahma fall in other inanimate
substances like jar, cloth, etc. and create consciousness in them?
Further, the monist says that the Brahma does not make the
body conscious but makes the Jivas conscious.
Then we ask him - "Is the nature of Jiva Chetana
(conscious) or acetone (non-conscious)? If it is conscious then what would new
consciousness be created in the already conscious Jivas? If Jiva
is non-conscious then the category of body, jar, etc. and that of the Jiva
proves to be the same. "Further, we ask him," - `Is the consciousness of the
Brahma and that of the "Jivas one and the same or separate? If it is
one and the same then how is the knowledge seen more or less in different
Jivas?" And why one Jiva does not know whatever is known by other
Jiva?' You might say that this is due to difference in embodiment of
various Jivas. Then due to difference in embodiments, the consciousness
of different Jivas is proved to be separate-separate. On destruction of
embodiment, will the consciousness of the Jivas get intermingled in
Brahma or get destroyed? If it will get destroyed then this Jiva will
become inanimate. And if you will say that the Jiva itself gets
intermingled with Brahma then there on intermingling with Brahma its own
existence remains or does not remain? If Jivas existence remains
separate then that Jiva along with his own consciousness also existed
(remained intact); what did then intermingle with Brahma? And if existence
does not remain then it means it got destroyed; who did then intermingle with
Brahma? If you will say that the consciousness of Brahma and that of the
Jivas are separate then the Brahma and all Jivas prove to be
separate-separate. Thus, the belief that the consciousness of the Jivas
and that of the Brahma are one and the same is also disproved.
You call the bodies etc. as to be of the Maya; so,
does the Maya itself turn into the bone-flesh etc. or due to the
instrumentality of Maya someone else turns in those forms? If the
Maya itself converts then were the color, smell etc. of Maya
existing formerly or are produced afresh? If those were existing formerly then
Maya was formerly of Brahma but Brahma is of immaterial form; how are
the color etc. attributes possible in him? And if those are produced afresh
then he being of the immaterial form, got turned into the material form;
hence, consequently the immaterial form did not prove to be eternal. And if
you will say that due to the instrumentality of Maya someone else turns
then the question is that when you do not prove or accept existence of the
other substances who else got turned then?
If you will say that the new substance gets created, then
does it get created separate from Maya or inseparable with it? If it is
produced separate from Maya, why do you call then Miyamae
Sharira i.e., the bodies etc. to have formed from Maya? But those
prove to be of their own substances. And if those substances are created as
inseparable then Maya itself became tantamount; why do you then say
that the new substances got created? Thus, your this statement that the body
etc. are of the nature of Maya is fallacious.
Further, they say that three qualities (constituents) got
produced out of Maya, (i) Rajas- the quality of passion, of love and
pleasure (ii) Tamas- the quality of malignancy and (iii) Satvik-
the quality of goodness and virtues. This statement is also not maintainable;
because the disposition of pride-passion-form is called Rajas, the
disposition of anger-passion-form is called Tamas and disposition of
feeble- passion-form is called Satvik. So, these dispositions are
clearly seen full of consciousness but the nature of Maya according to
you is inanimate. So, how would these dispositions be created out of the
inanimate objects ? If the inanimate objects too have these (qualities) then
stone etc. will also have these dispositions; but only the Jivas of
conscious nature are seen possessing these dispositions; therefore, these
dispositions are not produced out of Maya. If Maya is considered
to be of conscious nature, then this can be believed. So, on accepting the
Maya as to be conscious, if you will say the bodies etc. as produced out
of Maya then nobody will believe it. Hence, you should ascertain
properly; what is the gain in believing fallaciously?