Chapter 2
Illusion can be overcome only by a sincere, earnest and constant devotion to God. But the atheists deny God and His creation of
the universe. Atheist: How does it follow that Iswara is the creator of jagat? Answer: Because the jagat is seen to be a kaarya. This
is an artifact. Q.: True, a pot etc., are seen to be the products of work but not the mountains, oceans etc. A.: Because they consist
of parts they must also have been made (created) by an unseen power. (Yat Saavayavam tat kaaryam iti tarkena). This is according
to the axiom: What is with parts must be kaarya. Therefore the world etc., are creations only. Q.: Paramaanu (the fundamental
subtle primary particle) and aakaasa (ether) have no parts. So the jagat exclusive of these two must be taken to be kaarya. A.: No
to both. They – that is, Paramaanu and aakaasa – are kaarya because they are perceptible (knowable). Their being kaarya cannot be
denied for the simple fact of their being impartible. They are known by inference. Many scriptural texts attest our position. They are
(1) One God created the sky and the earth. (2) From the Self aakaasa came forth, etc. Here aakaasa implies other elements also.
Owing to its knowability, the jagat must be a kaarya; being a kaarya there must be its kartaa (creator), and he must be now
ascertained to be the creator of the universe. Q.: This applies to a pot and the potter because both are seen. Not so in the other
case. A.: He is totally different from all other agents. For, the scripture says: “There was then (that is, before creation) neither Sat
nor asat (anything nor nothing). There is no material with which to create this jagat; yet He did it; therefore He differs from all others.
The Creator has now been established. Q.: Should the reasoning based on the aagamic texts that the jagat is a kaarya be upheld
as impregnable, this should hold good for the reasoning based on Baarhaspatya Aagama also which declares that the loka has no
creator but appears solely according to nature. A.: It is only a semblance of an aagama. Here are some extracts from it:
Earth, water, fire and air are the four elements perceived (by the senses) and no fifth element is so perceived. The loka is composed
of varying combinations of these four elements and is also changing every moment, so that each successive modification of this
assemblage is similar to the previous one. The loka is only of the nature of these combinations and it rests in itself. Just as a
solution of sugar acquires intoxicating power so also the mixture of ova and semen in the womb acquires intellectual power capable
of action and cognition. Just as the intoxicating liquor is called wine, so also the intellect-united body is called a purusha (man).
Pleasure is the goal of man and it forms heaven whereas pain is called hell; they are both natural. Mixtures of these two form the
routine of life (samsara). Just as the intoxication disappears after a time so also does the intellect; its total extinction is called
moksha (liberation) by the wise. There is no heaven or hell to go to after death.
Such is the Chaarvaaka doctrine which has already been refuted by all other schools of thought. It has been said to be a semblance
of aagama because it is opposed to all other aagamas. Now it will be shown to be opposed to everyone’s experience also.
Samsaara being an uninterrupted series of births, deaths, etc., is full of pain. Its root cause must be found and scotched. Samsaara
thus ending. Supreme Bliss ensues and this is the supreme goal of man. Such is the belief of the seekers of liberation; this is
supported by holy texts and logic. Such being the case, to admit direct perception as the only valid proof and to assert on its basis
that death is the only goal, show the sastra to be a so-called sastra only. Therefore that aagama has not been admitted by wise
men of discrimination to be helpful for gaining the supreme goal of man.
The Chaarvaaka asserting only svaatmanaasa to the goal of man should be asked, “what is meant by svaatamanaasa which you
say is the goal? Is it the momentary loss or the loss of the series or the ordinary loss as understood by all? “It cannot be the first
since according to you the intellect that is the Self is momentary; the goal is attained every moment and no effort is needed to attain
it. The other two are impossible (consistently with your views). For, at the time of the dissolution of one’s own self (svaatmanaasa)
there would remain nothing to say one’s own (svasya); therefore the loss of one’s own self is unattainable and this ends in no
purushaartha. If you say this very unattainability is itself the purushaartha, then it may even result in the loss of another self
(because there is no syasya)!
Again, about the purushaartha of the loss of one’s self (svaatmanaasa) is it established on any pramaana or is it not? If you say
“not”, it is non-existent like a hare’s horn. If you say it is, – on what pramaana? You admit only direct perception as proof. For this
the object must be present here now. The past or the future cannot be proved according to you. You who admit only direct
perception as proof, to say that the intellect is an effect similar to the intoxicating power of a solution of sugar is like saying “I have
no tongue”. Your sastra was not given out by any all-knowing saint; it is dry and devoid of any reasoning. Having thus dealt with
atheism, the Sankhya school of thought is next examined.
They are parinaama vaadis, i.e., they assert that the jagat was originally contained in its source in a subtle manner; therefore it was
before, it is now and it will be hereafter (this is sad vaada). They say that the jagat was not created by an intelligent being; its source
is the unintelligent principle, prakrti, in which its three constituent qualities – satva, rajas and tamas were in equipoise. It is itself
devoid of intelligence, and cannot therefore do anything intelligently; it is inert (jada). However, it does not require an extraneous
agent to modify itself into the jagat unlike clay requiring a potter to change it into a pot. By itself it is modified into jagat and thus it
forms the source of the jagat. This is in brief the godless Sankhya doctrine.
Further on, in prakrti’s satva (bright aspect) it is dear like a mirror; so it can take in reflections of purusha, the intelligent principle
and the reflection of the universe, the inert nature of its tamasic aspect. Owing to this union of the reflected seer and the seen, the
purusha becomes associated with aviveka (the undiscriminating quality) of prakrti; so he feels ‘I know the pot’ (i.e., any object); this
forms his wrong identity and this is just his samsaara. If however, by vichaara (investigation) he knows himself to be different from
prakrti, prakrti abandons him at once like a thief who has been discovered; this is the end of his wrong identification and constitutes
mukti. This is their belief.
According to their view the universe gets illumined by its relation to the Chit (purusha) reflected in prakrti. Regarding this reflected
Chit, is it void of intelligence like its base prakrti, or is it intelligent by its own nature? In the former case, illumining the universe is
impossible. If contended that even though inert it can still illumine, then the satva aspect of prakrti can serve the purpose and the
reflected Chit is redundant. In the latter case there is no need for the reflected Chit, since direct relation with Chit itself will do. Nor
can it be said that just as a mirror is unable by itself to illumine an object yet when sunlight is reflected on it, it illumines the object,
so also the reflected Chit is needed; for, the sunlight does not require any medium as the mirror does for illumining objects. Nor can
it be said that the reflected Chit partakes of the qualities of both prakrti and Chit, or is altogether different from either or from both of
them. In the former case, it is impossible (like darkness and light being together) and in the latter case it is inconsistent with your
doctrine (apasiddhaanta). Furthermore, prakrti naturally active in the presence of purusha cannot cease to be so after the accession
of discrimination (viveka jnanottaram) for one’s own nature cannot change. Therefore bondage cannot be overcome (by adopting your
system).
We see that a pot etc., are formed by a potter etc., endowed with intelligence, for it is done according to a plan – ‘I will make such a
pot in this manner.’ Since intelligence is required to make a pot, the jagat cannot be the production of an unintelligent principle –
prakrti. The word ‘unintelligent’ is used deliberately to indicate that an image of a potter for instance – cannot make a pot. The srutis
declare, “He (God) thought: I shall create the world”; “I shall manifest names and forms etc.” The Original Being thought and
manifested the worlds with no constituent material at all, like a magician conjuring illusory objects. Hence the anumaana (inference)
is perfectly valid; jagat buddhimat kartrukam kaaryatvat ghataadivat iti – meaning the jagat has an intelligent maker because it is
kaarya, as pot etc. This means that only an intelligent being can be the creator of the jagat and not the unintelligent principle prakrti.
Still more, in order to establish the inert prakrti as the creator of the jagat the Sankhya cannot show any illustration as a valid proof.
Well, I admit the jagat has an intelligent being for its creator. Sure, a potter is necessary to make a pot; similarly the jagat must
have a creator but he need not be Paramesvara, the Lord of All. A.: He must be Paramesvara because of the surpassing wonder that
the earth stands amidst the water and these repose in empty space etc. To accomplish such wonders the creator must have
surpassingly wonderful powers. These powers must also be immeasurable and his capacity infinite. Therefore He must be different
from any common artisan. We find each special work requires a specialist to do it. For the same reason the infinite universe should
have one of infinite powers for its maker. Thus far, the existence of Iswara is established.
That He is the sole Refuge of all, will now be established. Surrender to Him whole-heartedly (without any other object but that of
entrusting yourself to his care). If on the other hand there be any other desire, only half of your heart is with God and the other half
with your desire. So it will be only half or part surrender which is not effective. Only surrender to Him body, heart and soul will lead to
eternal Bliss. Iswara grants everything to His devotee.
Q.: It is alright that persons in position being pleased with others’ service, satisfy their wants to a limited extent. But Iswara being
self-contained has no wants. And so He cannot be pleased with others’ services. How then do you say that He is pleased and fulfils
all the wants of devotees? A.: Because of His love of others’ devotion, that is to say, others’ devotion results in the reaction of God’s
love for them and the automatic fulfilment of all their desires. Moreover there is no certainty with worldly men in power whereas it is
certain with God. Therefore the devotee is sure of his goal. Q.: How is this assumption of certainty warranted? A.: Otherwise God
will be open to censure. Uncertainty in God’s reaction or response means uncertainty in the results of everyday transactions of ours
and untimely end of the samsaara projected by Him. You who desire the Supreme Goal need not engage in it nor seek it. But
surrender yourself completely to God and He will establish you in the Supreme State.
Differences of opinion regarding the means of liberation and consequent doubts as to the means are thus resolved. Q.: Which is
God? Some say Siva, others Vishnu, or Indra or Ganesa etc. Who is supreme among them? A.: No name and form attach to Him.
He is none of them singly or He is all of them. He is not personal. He is pure Chit only.
Q.: But creation, preservation and dissolution are functions requiring the use of limbs and material? A.: It is so with workers of
limited powers and objectives. This holds good for gross bodies; but in dreams the gross bodies do not act and there are no means
nor objectives, yet worlds are created, transactions go on, battles are fought, and empires won and lost; it is Chit that causes it all.
If there had been material before creation with which to create the jagat, such material should be eternal and exempt from being
created. Then Iswara must be accepted to be the creator of a part of the jagat; this contradicts His being the all-creator. Also being
only the effective cause and not the material cause of the jagat, He can no more be Iswara (than a magnified artisan).
Kshemarajacharya says: “Those who admit Iswara to be the effective cause only place Him on a par with a profligate enmeshed in
the lures of a wanton woman other than his wife.” Those who imagine a starling-point for the creation (the aarambha vaadis) assert
that Iswara is only the effective cause and the effect (jagat) cannot come into being afresh. Before creation, paramaanus
(fundamental, indivisible, subtle particles) were present. By Iswara’s will they united with each other and creation took place.
But this cannot be. It is seen that only a sentient being responds to the wishes of another, but not an inert object. The paramaanus
being insentient cannot react to Iswara’s will. Objection: Such is the wonderful power of Iswara as to make even the inert
paramaanus obedient to His will. A.: True, that Iswara’s powers are immeasurable and infinite. It is because of His extraordinary
powers that He creates the jagat even in total absence of material for it. If in spite of this, paramaanus be said to be the material
cause it is thanks to duality-minded obstinacy! Hereby is refuted the theistic (Saankhya) school i.e., Paatanjala or Yoga School.
There is not the least incongruity in our system based solely on the aagamas declaring the all-powerful Supreme Being fully capable
of conducting the totality of actions, transactions etc. Objection: In order to explain the different grades of beings etc., and also
obviate the charges of partiality and cruelty to Iswara, every school of thought admits karma to be the cause of differences. This
admission by you vitiates your position, for, there is karma needed for creation in addition to Iswara. So He is not all-powerful. A.:
True, that this contention remains insuperable to the dualists. As for the non-dualists the jagat is contained in Chit like images in a
mirror; so also karma; it is not external to the infinite Supreme Intelligence (Parameswara) and there is not the slightest discrepancy
in our contention. Objection: Even then, it is seen that a pot is made by a potter; he is the maker of the pot; and therefore Iswara is
not the all-creator. A.: The potter is not external to Iswara. Again just as the king remains the sole administrator, even though his
servants act on the spot, so also Iswara acts through His agents. Conclusion: The Supreme Being is only One Solid Intelligence,
nameless, formless, bodiless, infinite, non-dual, and Blissful. This being incomprehensible to impure minds is apprehended in
various forms according to the capacities of individuals. Nevertheless devotion to any form or name of God purifies the mind so that
the individual is ultimately resolved into the Supreme Being.
