To understand the true meaning of this book you must apply the
The four subsidiary means of reasoning:
- Listening or reading most attentively with a calm mind to the lectures of a learned man, and more so if the subjects are a divine Science, because it is the most abstruse and the subtlest of all the sciences.
- Thinking over what one has heard or read in retirement, and in removing doubts if there be any by questioning the speaker. Questions may sometimes be asked even in the middle of a discourse if the speaker and the audience think proper.
- Rationalizing is the next step.
When all doubts are cleared after hearing or reading a discourse and
thinking over it, let the enquirer enter into the superior condition and
see for himself by the help of yoga (self-realization through meditation)
whether it is the same as he had heard and reasoned out or not.
- The result is the correct
knowledge of the nature, properties and characteristics of the desired
THE CHANDAPUR FAIR
Back to contents
Munshi Pyare Lal kayastha, Reis Chandapur, District Shahjanhanpur (N.W.P.), with a view to ascertaining which was true Dharma (faith), obtained permission from the Collector of his district to hold a religious fair at his native place, and having fixed upon 19th march 1877, as the day of the first meeting, had printed notices circulated, inviting the most learned and distinguished followers of Hinduism, Islam and Christianity to come and have, by friendly conversation and discussion, truth sifted from falsehood.
In response to these notices, leaders of every religion, of profound scholarship, and well-known throughout India, came. First of all, came the famous Vedic Scholar and Founder of the Arya Samaj Swami Dayanand Saraswati, accompanied by the well-known opponent of the Muslim Faith, Munshi Indramani of Muradabad a man who was a complete master of Arabic and Persian, and a critical student of both the Quran and the Traditions. These two gentlemen, deeply interested in religious matters, arrived at Chandrapur on 15th March, 1877.
On behalf of the Christian religion came, on 19th March, 1877, the famous logician and profound scholar, author of many learned pamphlets and of commentary on the Bible - the Rev. T.G. Scott, accompanied by Rev. Mr. Noble, the Rev. Mr. Parker, and the Rev. Mr. John Thompson, and several other Missionaries of knowledge. And on behalf of the Muhammadans came, on the same day and at the same time, Moulvi Muhammad Qasim, the Principal of Devaband School, the most distinguished Arabic Seminary in India, the author of a delightful treatise or rhetoric, and the warder of diplomas to Moulvis, accompanied by Sayyad Abul Mansoor of Delhi, the foremost man in literary discussions, the author of works like the Zinda Javais, written against Christianity, and the holder of a diploma from His Imperial Highness, the Sultan of Turkey, as a recognition of his scholarship, and by many other gentlemen. Debate preparation on major world religions.
Back to contents
It was suggested to the Swami that if the Hindus and the
Muslims formed a coalition and unitedly exposed the Christian Religion, it would be most commendable. But the Swami replied that he was sorry he could not agree to the proposal.
''It appears to me just and proper that no one in this fair should do anything savoring of partiality. To me, it seems best that the Moulvis, the Missionaries and we should meet in love and peace and investigate the truth. No one should be hostile to the others.''
After this it was proposed that all the parties concerned should repair to the place where the jalsa (grand meeting) was to come off and settle the conditions of the shastrarth; but I being pointed out that the crowd there would be in the way, two gentlemen from each repaired to the tents of the Missionaries, and there, assisted by Mr. Moti Mian and Lala Ram Parshad, Reises and Honorary Magistrates, Shahjahanpur, and Mukta Pershad, Reis, Chandapur, commenced their deliberations. But though hours were spent in these deliberations, no unanimity of opinion could be secured as to the conditions of the shastrarth.
The only point settled was the formal recognition of the necessity of holding a jalsa for the discussion. Seeing what little had been achieved and that the Padris were for not staying for over two days, Swami Dayanand observed that he and his companion had come to Chandapur on the distinct understanding that the Conference would last for a full week, and in no case for less than five days, and this period, he said, would have sufficed for determining the worth of every religion. To this, the Munshi Indramani replied Swamiji, be sure that the true religion will be found out even in a single day.
After 10 O'clock, it was unanimously resolved that the first spokesman, on behalf of each party, should speak on the question taken up for discussion for half an hour and that the after-speakers replying to or expressing doubts and objections, should each speak for 10 minutes. The fact was made know to all would-be speakers that every one of them was to be perfectly master of his time, to enjoy, while speaking during the time allotted, complete immunity from interruption. Opening address
Back to contents
Mushi Pyare Lal rose and addressed the meeting in something like the following:-
''We should, first of all, be thankful to God, the omnipresent and all-pervading Lord. We are all fortunate in that this Supreme Sovereign of the universe has placed us under a Ruler who permits us to talk freely on religious subjects. At the same time, we ought to express our thanks to our Collector and District Magistrate, who, influenced by his sympathetic, appreciative and benevolent disposition, had been pleased to allow us to hold a discussion on an occasion like the present on ''god'' and other kindred subjects. Language cannot describe the pleasure I feel today. It is a blessed day indeed, and happy is the land which finds so many influential and learned men, representing different faiths, assembled in it.
''Sirs, the world is a Caravansera, and life is not a thing to be depended upon. The mercy of God has been specially manifested today, in that so many gentlemen, in pursuance of a lofty resolve, have graced this meeting with their presence. I am
confident that they will each speak of the beauties of his sacred Faith in words at once gentle and sweet, and will thus enable the audience to acquire, by his expositions, the fruit of salvation. I, Pyare Lal, a Kabirpanthi, pray to God for the preservation (success) of the Jalsa.''
Back to contents
On the termination of the speech, the discussion commenced as to how many persons should be appointed as ''representatives,'' out of the professors of each creed present. Ultimately, five individuals were put forward by the Mussalmans as their representatives, like many by the Christians, and only two by the Aryas, namely, Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Munshi Indramani. The Moulvis and Padris insisted upon the full number (five) of representatives being appointed by the Aryas as well, but the Swami assured them that two were enough.
The Christians, not satisfied with the answer, made an attempt to add the name of Lakshman Shastri to the list of Arya representatives. Swami Dayanand protested against such conduct, observing that, though the Christians were perfectly free to choose representatives for themselves, they had no right to do so for others. And addressing the Pandit, the Swami said:
''Don't you see their game? These people want to create ill-feeling between us, in order to enjoy the fun!The Mussalmans, however, would not listen to the Swami's protest, and the instant he had ceased speaking, a Moulvi came forward, and, catching hold of the Pandit, urge him to have his name enlisted. Upon this, the Swami observed that in the event of the Aryas agreeing unanimously to appoint the Pandit as their representative, his name might be put down as such, but it was no concern of the Mussalmans to select him.
A Mussalman critic, commenting upon the Swami's words, remarked that if such was to be the case, all the Hindus present should also be asked if the were willing to appoint Swami Dayanand and Munshi Indramani as their representatives. To this, the Swami made answer:-
''When you have not been elected by the Shias and the Sunnis unanimously, when the Christians have not been assigned the position of ''representatives'' by the Roman Catholics as well, where is the necessity for you to raise such objections with regard to us? There are many who would be willing to accept us as their representatives, but many there maybe who would be unwilling to do so but for all that you have no right to create ill-feeling between us.''Munshi Indramani added: ''We are believers in the Vedas and the Shastras, and so are these people; if there are any that do not, they may be constituted into a fourth party in the discussion.'' The object aimed at by the Moulvis, by bringing forward the objections they did, was to stir up quarrels between the Aryas and the Hindus, and, keeping aloof from the wrangling that must ensue, to enjoy the ''fund'' thereof. The Aryas, however, did not think it advisable to add the name of Pandit Lakshman to the list of their representatives, and the Moulvis (perceiving as much) retired, at this stage, to say their prayers. On their return, Moulvi Muhammad Qasin said, that he would address the meeting, for a whole hour, on his religion, independent of what he might to say directly on the questions to be proposed for the discussion,
later on, and that he would remove any doubts that might arise in any one's mind by his speech. To this all agreed.
The debate begins between Islam and Christianity
Back to contents
The Moulvi, after praising God (in substance) said "The ruler of the time ought to be obeyed by all. As all serve and obey the orders of the present ruler, and not those of him whose tenure of office has expired, and, further, as a law, which had been rescinded, is no longer obeyed, but that only which has been substituted for it, even so the Bible, which ''descended'' in the time of the ancient prophets, cannot be conformed to and obeyed. Muhammad was the last of the prophets, and consequently, the Divine Word, Quran, which ''descended on him,'' should be obeyed instead. We do not speak ill of Sri Rama and Sri Krishna since they were prophets of their respective times, but we maintain that Muhammad alone rules preset. Whoever traduces Muhammad, our Religion and the Quran deserves death.''
Rev. Mr. Noble (commenting upon the Moulvi's speech) "There is considerable doubt as to Muhammad being a prophet, and the Quran being the word of God. The Quran has been borrowed from the Bible, and hence it cannot be a revealed book. The fact of Christ being an incarnation, however, is indisputable. It is perfectly clear from his teaching that he led the people towards righteousness. Men can get salvation only through his ''word''. He worked miracles."
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim (replying) "We believe in the apostleship of Christ and also look upon the Bible as 'revealed', though the Christians have introduced into it many interpolations. It is no longer genuine. Besides, the Quran has refuted and replaced it. It is, therefore, not worthy of being believed in, our prophet being the last, our religion is true."
After this, the other Moulvis showed the Rev. gentleman a verse from the Bible, telling him, at the same time, that it was the Christians themselves who confessed that the verse was unauthenticated.
Rev. Mr. Noble - ''He who said this was truthful, he is not to blame if he has corrected a verbal mistake. We love truth, and our religion is consequently true.''
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim - ''Of course, it was very good on his part to do so! But the book or document in which a mistake is discovered, cannot be authoritative. The document in question could never be valid in a court of law.''
Rev. Mr. Noble - ''Are there no verbal mistakes in the Quran? It is not proper to ring changes on such things. We believe only in truth, and we strive only for the attainment of truth. We acknowledge, therefore, the verbal mistake in the Bible. Your Quran, on which you have said so much, abounds, with interpolations, etc.''
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim - ''You are an inquirer after truth indeed! If you really believe what you advance, then how can you believe in three Gods?''
Rev. Mr. Noble - ''We do not believe in three Gods, but only in One. Jesus was both man and God, therefore his works are of a double nature. Having the human element on him, he did the works of man, but by virtue of the Divine element in him, he did the works of God, i.e., wrought miracles, etc.''
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim - Oh! How can two swords fit in one scabbard? The statement of the Missionary is utterly false. Jesus nowhere says that he is God. You elevate him to the position of God, blinded by prejudice.''
Rev. Mr. Noble, in reply, read out a verse from the Bible, in which Jesus declares himself to be ''God'' and which says that he worked many miracles. The verse did not leave any doubt as regards the fact of his having declared himself to be ''God.''
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim - ''If Jesus was God, why could not he save himself from being crucified?''
A native Padri pointed out many inconsistencies in the Quran and said that a commandment could be annulled but not news or prophecy. The predictions of the Quran had been wrong. The Muslims first bent their head in the direction of Bait-ul-Muqaddas, and the commenced bending it in the direction of Mecca. He then explained many verses, asserting that salvation was impossible ''except through Christ.'' ''Your Quran,'' added he, addressing the Mussalmans, ''enjoins belief in Jesus and God. Why don't you act up to the injunction?''
While the discussion was going on, the shades of the evening, came on, and this brought the meeting to a close.
THE SECOND DAY'S PROCEEDINGS- The five questions.
Back to contents
The people assembled at the appointed place, at 7 A.M., and the five questions, which had already been agreed upon for discussion, were again readout. These questions were the following:-
Some time was spent in settling the point as to who should first reply to the questions.
- ~ When, out of what, and why, did God create the world?
- ~ Is, or is not, God All-pervading?
- ~ How can God be just as well as merciful?
- ~ What proofs are there as to the Veda, or the Quran or the Bible being the Word of God?
- ~ What is salvation, and how can it be attained?
Christianity reply to the questions
Back to contents
At last Rev. Mr. Scott got up to speak on the first question. He remarked that the question was nonsensical and that therefore it was useless to answer it. But as all had agreed to discuss it, he would take it up. He said: ''Although we know not out of what God has created this world, we may affirm at best only this much, that He has created it out of nothing, for there was naught else than God in the beginning. He created the world, yet has a beginning. We cannot know the number of years (that have elapsed since the world was created),
God alone knows that. Hence it is not advisable to speak on this subject. As to the third part of the question '' Why god created the world? we cannot answer it correctly. All that we may know, is, that He created it for the happiness of men so that we mortals might live in it, in the enjoyment of felicity.''
Islam's reply to the questions.
Back to contents
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim - ''god created the world out of His body. We are not separate from Him. If we were so, we should be beyond His omnipotence. With regard to the question - When the world was created? it is useless to speculate on it, for we are concerned with eating of bread and not with the time when it came to exist. This world was created for human beings, for God has made all things for them, and then He has created him for His worship. If you reflect, you will see that the earth is for us and not we for the earth; for if we did not exist, it would make no difference to the earth. But we should be very unhappy if the earth did not exist. Similarly, water, air, fire and other elements were created for man. Man is superior to all other creatures, and intellect has been given him to bear witness to his superiority. In short, God has created man for His worship, and the earth for man.''
Swami Dayanand's reply
Back to contents
Swami Dayanand Saraswati - ''At the outset, I desire to call attention of the Muhammadans, Christians and others present to the fact that the fair (meeting) has been held for the ascertainment of truth, and that the object of those who have brought it about, is to find out which Faith is true. That which is proved to be true should be accepted as such by all. No one should harbor ideas of victory or defeat, for it becomes all good men to see that truth prevails and falsehood perishes. Indulgence in remarks by the Muhammadas, such as that the Padris are wrong and by the Padris, such as that the Muhammadans are false, should be avoided.
Wise people should according to their lights, promulgate truth and refute untruth, in mild language. They should always avoid speaking ill of one another, making the muse of bitter words and giving expression to painful insinuations, like, I am victorious, and you are defeated. All should give up prejudice, and speak out the truth, going in for mutual recrimination being the work of ignorant persons. No one should, therefore, employ harsh words.
Now I proceed to reply, in the light of my insignificant learning, to the question Out of what, when, and why, did God create the world? God made the world from Prakriti, which is also called Avyakrita, Avyakata or the atoms. This Prakiti is the material cause of the world, and is, in the Shastras, spoken of as eternal.* As God is eternal, even so, is this material cause. As
*Speaking of chemistry, Dr. Draper says; ''It has disposed of the idea of the destruction and creation of matter. It accepts without hesitation the doctrine of the imperishability of substance; for, though the aspect of a thing may change through decomposition and re-combinations, in which its constituent parts are concerned, every atom continues to exist and may be recovered by suitable processes, though the entire thing may have seemingly disappeared. A particle of water raised from the sea may ascend invisibly through the air, it may float above us in the cloud, it may fall in the raindrop, sink into the earth, gush forth again in the fountain, enter the rootlets of a plant, rise up with the sap to the leaves, be there decomposed by the sunlight into its constituent elements, of its oxygen and hydrogen, and other elements, oils and acids and various organic compounds may be made; in these or in its composed state it may be received in the food of animals, circulate in the blood, be essentially concerned in acts of intellectual executed by the brain, it may be expired in the breath. Though shed in the tear in moments of despair, it may give birth to the rainbow,, the emblem of hope. Whatever be the course it has passed through, whatever mutations it has submitted to, its elementary constituents endure. Not only endure. Not only have they not been annihilated, but they also have not even been changed; and in a period of time, long or short, they find their way back again to the sea from which they came.''
"There is no beginning or end of God, even so there is none of the Prakriti. The various substances are harmoniously proportioned with respect to the atoms of which they are made up, and not one of the primary atoms can be increased or diminished. God makes the primeval root-substance assume various phenomenal shapes. The phenomenal or visible world has a corresponding material cause. God works upon subtle elements and evolves out of them gross materials which become fit for use.
''Things and objects of various kinds have been created from the primordial, material principle. At the time of pralaya (dissolution), god separates the atoms and breaks things up into their primeval root-form. A thing, as it becomes subtle, vanishes from sight; the ignorant people think that it has been annihilated.
"In point of fact, it remains in space in a subtle form, for the root or cause is never annihilate, and the apparent annihilation means the only disappearance. When the atoms are separated, they become invisible, and when they combine, they become visible.
"This process of evolution and involution, under Divine direction and control, is constant and unceasing. It baffles calculation to say how many times God has made the world, and how many times He would yet make it. None can say anything on this subject.
''From this it follows that the position of those who hold that something can spring from nothing, and of those who say that the universe rushed into being as the effect of some words pronounced, is utterly untenable, for the appearance of something out of nothing is impossible. ''To assert the contrary is like saying, ''I witnessed the nuptials of the son of a barren woman with my own eyes.'' If the woman in question had a son, why would she be barren, and when her son has absolutely no existence, how could she have been married at all? To assert that creation is the product of nothing is again tantamount to affirming: ''I was nowhere, but I have arrived here, or that the snake was not in the hole, but yet it has come out of it.'' The wise do not attach any value to such affirmations. They are wholly unreasonable, since how can a thing which exists not, come to be? If we were not in our present respective places here, we could not be said to be at Chandapur. Mark what the Shastra
NAASATA AATMA LAABHAHThis clearly proves that something cannot proceed from nothing, for in this world there is nothing which is without a cause. Something, it is apparent, comes from something; it can never come out of nothing. To admit the absolute non-existence of taking and then to affirm that it is existent, is VADTO VYAGHAT, a pure self-contradiction. No wise man can ever believe it, nor is it capable of being proved by means of any pramana. The birth of something from nothing is thus wholly impossible.
NA SAT AATMAHAANAM
''Whatever is, shall be in future, and whatever is not can never be!''
God created the universe out of the eternal root-matter, and in no other way. In connection with the subject under discussion, two considerations present themselves. One is that if God be the material cause of the universe, He would be identical with the phenomenal world, and consequently knowledge, pain, pleasure, birth and death, profit and loss, heaven and hell, hunger and thirst, fever, bondage, and freedom must all be considered to exist in Him. (According to this hypothesis) the dog, the cat, the thief, the profligate, all are but the various manifestations of the same God!
''The other consideration is, that if it is conceded that the material substratum existed already, the position of god becomes like unto that of a maker or fashioner.
Causes of three kind:
''Now if God is to be considered as the material cause of the universe, we are forced to the conclusion that He himself constitutes the world, just as the jar cannot be different from the earth (of which it is composed); if He be the efficient cause, His position becomes analogous to that of the potter who cannot fashion the pot without the earth; and if He be considered to be a general (sadharan) cause, the world cannot arise of itself from Him even as the jar cannot of itself arise from the earth.
- Upadan ~ It is that cause which is essential to the formation of a thing, such as earth, which is essential to the formation of a jar; like gold, which is essential to the formation of an ornament; like cotton, which is essential to the making of cloth.
- Nimitta ~ It is that sort of cause, which is implied in the agency of the intelligent potter in the formation of a jar.
- Sadharan ~ Causes such as clay, means, space, time, etc. are called sadharan causes.
''In two of the three cases, god, it would be evident, is reduced to the position of a jar (something devoid of consciousness or intelligence.) if the phenomenal world were god, god would be responsible for all sins, such as theft, etc., which is absurd. The substratum of the universe is, therefore, something different and eternal, and God is the maker or fashioner of things, etc., of various forms and shapes. The soul is also, by its inherent nature, eternal, and the gross
the world is phenomenally eternal. We cannot escape these conclusions.
The age of creation
Back to contents
''Now as to the time when the world was created.
Listen, friends! We can reply to this question, but you cannot. When you affirm that your Systems of Faith came to exist only 1,800, 1,300 and 500 years back, these systems cannot throw any light on the question of the world's age. The Aryas have been in possession of information on the point since the dawn of creation. Remember that light was carried from this land to other countries a fact, which is proved by the histories of those countries. The knowledge went from Aryavarta (India) to Egypt, from Egypt to Greece, from Greece to other countries of Europe, and so none but the Vedic Religion can tell us how old the world is.
The Aryas know from the verses, bearing on the creation and dissolution of the world, in the Shastras, that a thousand Chaturyugas constitute one day of Brahma, and as many Yugas one night of Brahma. A Brahma-day covers the time from the creation of the universe to its dissolution, and a Brahma-ratri from the dissolution of the world to its next creation, after a thousand Chaturygas. There are fourteen Manvanttraras in one Kalpa and one Manvanttara is equal to 91 Chaturygas. The present is the seventh Manvanttara, the Swaymbhuva, Svarochish, Auttmi, Tamasa, Raivata and Chakshusha having already expired; in other words, 1,960,852,976 years of the world's age have passed away, and 2,333,227,024 still remain.
''The histories of our country unanimously corroborate it, and this calculation is to be found in astronomical treatises, and changes are made in the same accordance with the principle just enunciated. The year, as it passes, diminishes the future age of the world, and increases the number of years already passed. All genuine histories of Aryavarta are at one on this point, and the is not least disagreement among them.
When Jains and the Muhammadans began to destroy the historical works, etc., of the Aryas, the Aryas committed the chronological formula to memory, and they would repeat it daily, on and all, from an old man down to a child, The Sankalpa, describing the age of the world, runs as follows:-
Om! Tat Sat (i.e., he whose name is Om, is the true Lord). In the second division of the first half of the Day of Shri Brahma, in the second food of the Kaliyuga of the 28th Vaivaswata, in such-and-such a part of the year, in such-and-such a season, paksha, divas, nakshatra, lagan, mahurat, this act is performed, and it shall continue to be daily performed, in future, by the eldest as well as the youngest, member of the family.
AUM TAT SAT SHRI BRAHMA DWITIYE PRAHARAARDDHA VAIVASVATAthis furnishes a system of calculation in connection with the age of the world. If anyone doubts it, he should know that the
MAVANTATARE AASHTAA VISHATITAMAE KALIYUGE KALIPRATHAMACHARANE
AAYAVIRTTINTARE KADESHE AMUKA NAJARE AAMUKA SAMVATSARAYANARTU
MAASAPAGYADINANASHA TRALAGNA MUHURTE ATRA DE KAARYA KRITAM HRIYATE VAA
mode of counting days, etc., set forth in the Sankalpa, is identical with that given in the astronomical works. No one can gainsay it. The system of entries in the cash-book and ledger, which are made according to dates, cannot be questioned. If anyone refuses to believe it, he should be called upon to state his belief on the subject, and if he says that the world was created six or seven or eight thousand years ago, and quotes his Scriptures to support his assertion, his statement, we maintain, we would be equally open to the charge (which, in his ignorance, he brings forward against the Aryan Chronology). The science of Geology supports the conclusion already arrived at (namely, that the world is 1,960,852,976 years old.)
The information which our religion is capable of giving on the point under discussion is afforded by none else. It is desirable that all should believe it to be true.
Why God created the world?
Back to contents
''As to why God created the world, we reply, that the jiva (soul) and the material cause of the universe are eternal by nature, and the actions of an individual and the visible world are phenomenally eternal. At the time of dissolution, some actions of men remain unrewarded and unpunished, and it is with the object of meeting out to them the rewards of their actions that God creates the world and dispenses impartial justice.
''Further, the attributes of knowledge, power, mercy and creation, inherent in God, also call for their natural and legitimate exercise, and hence God creates the world. Just as eyes are meant to see and ears to hear with. Even so, the creative power of the Deity exists for creation. God has created the world for the exercise of His powers, so that His creatures may benefit themselves by the innumerable things it contains. He has blessed them with eyes, etc., for the attainment of dharma, arth, kama and moksha. Similarly, there are many other reasons for the creation of the world, and they cannot be all set forth here in consequence of the time at my disposal being short. The wise can think them out for themselves.''
Rebuttal to Christianity and Islam.
Back to contents
Rev. Mr. Scott - ''That which has a limit, cannot be eternal. The world is limited, so it cannot be eternal. Nothing can create itself. God has created the world by His power, though no one can know out of what God has created it. The Pandit also has not told us the name of the thing it was created out of.''
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim - ''If all things exist from eternity, it is useless to believe in a God. No one can say anything as to the time of creation.''
Swami Dayanand Saraswati ~ '''Rev. Mr. Scott has not understood me yet. I regard the material cause as eternal; the effect is not eternal.. to give an illustration: My body is 3 cubits and a half (in height). This body was not so long before my birth, nor shall it remain so after my death. But the atoms of which this body is composed, shall not be annihilated. They will separate and float in space. The power to combine and to separate*
*''When any substance is put in the fire it gets burnt. Now we ought to see what becomes of the burnt article. We see that it is generally reduced to a handful of ashes. Now the thing to be determined is: Is the article annihilated or has it only changed its form? When a candle burns, the wick gradually disappears. Where does it go to! It changes form and mixes with the air, and hence is not perceptible to the eye.
''for illustration's sake, put a lighted candle into a bottle. Let the candle burn for a moment and then close the mouth of the bottle. After a short time, the candle will be extinguished.
''Now, why does the candle go out? Has there been any change in the air of the bottle? To ascertain this, put some lime-water into the bottle and also some in another into which no candle has been burnt. You will see that the lime-water becomes milky in the former, while it does not undergo any change in the latter. This shows that by burning the candle in the first bottle, an additional element has crept into it and that element is invisible like the air. The experiment proves that no part of the candle is annihilated but that, on the contrary, its component elements merely have been separated.'' (Substance of the foot-note in the original tract.)
inheres in them. Take another example. A jar is made of earth; it had no existence before it came to be shaped into its present form, and it will not continue to exist (as it is) after it has been destroyed. The earth, however, of which it is made, shall not perish or be annihilated.
''The property of adhesion, which renders combinations possible, and which helps in the formation of shape, etc., also inheres in the earth; the atoms are possessed of the property of combination and separation.''''It ought to be clearly understood that this world has been formed of primordial atoms. These atoms exist from eternity; the ponderable substances do not. When did I say that the various things of the world create themselves? All that I said was that God fashioned the world out of the primordial material cause.
''As to the Moulvi's remarks on my reply, I beg to say that though the material cause of all things is eternal, yet the very fact necessitates belief in God. Earth or clay has not the power to shape itself into a jar. Matter cannot assume gross forms of itself, for it is devoid of knowledge requisite for the purpose. Nor can any human soul accomplish the result, for no man has yet been able even to make a single hair. No one has ever been able to grasp the atoms and fashion anything out of them by any means. Nor is there anyone in the present time, who can unite every two trisrenus. This shows that God alone has the power to fashion the world.
''Only consider what skill and wisdom have been displayed in the construction of the eye. Great anatomists and doctors have been studying it up to the present time, yet their collective knowledge
of it is imperfect. No one can know thoroughly how God fashioned it, and what beauties He has endowed it with. The creation of the Sun, the Moon, etc., and the upholding of these is the work of God and He dispenses to the souls the fruits of their actions, and none else. Truly, belief in God is a matter of absolute necessity.''
A Native Christian - ''When there are two things, namely, one cause and other effect, both cannot be eternal. Therefore God has created something out of nothing (with His fist.)''
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim - ''Qualities are of two kinds, -intrinsic and extrinsic. The intrinsic is essential and inherent, and the extrinsic, borrowed from without. The intrinsic qualities, when transmitted to other things, partake of the form or character of those things, but the substance of which they are really the attributes, is distinct from them; as, for instance, the reflection of the sun takes the form of the vessel which it enters, but it does not become the sun itself. Just in this fashion have we been created by the Divine Will.''
Swami Dayanand Saraswati (addressing the Native Christian). ~ Why do you object to both the cause and the effect being eternal, for the material cause or the root-matter of which the physical universe is composed, is eternal. The souls, which are past counting are also eternal. Something can never proceed from nothing. I have already made this clear. You ascribe creation to power. Now tell me what is power? If you regard it something real, then being a cause it becomes eternal, since the names, attributes and powers of God are eternal, none of them being the product of time.''
Replying to Moulvi Muhammad Qasim ~ ''If you ascribe the creation of the world to intrinsic qualities, your contention is not valid, for qualities cannot exist apart from a thing or substance, nor can they lead to the formation of things or substances. If the world has been produced out of the intrinsic or essential Divine qualities, then the world is effect-God. And if you set it down as the product of the external Divine qualities, you will have to believe in the eternity of those qualities, in addition to believing in God. And if you maintain that creatures sprang out of the Divine Will, then I ask, is will a substance or quality? If substance then you cannot but believe it to be eternal; if quality, then the world could not have sprung from it. Just as you cannot produce anything from mere will, even so, creatures cannot produce themselves simply from the will.''
Rev. Mr. Scott - ''We only know this much that God created something out of nothing, out of what and when, and how, we know not. God alone knows that man cannot know it.''
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim - ''God has created this world out of His nur (light).''
Swami Dayanand (replying to Rev. Mr. Scott) ~ ''On seeing an effect, we should infer the cause. And an effect is always of the nature of the cause, as an earthen jar of the nature of earth or clay. The jar is composed of the same substance as earth or clay. You
say, God created the world out of His power. Is that power, I ask, eternal or created in time? If eternal, then you can believe it to be a substance, and regard as the eternal material cause of the world.''
(Replying to the Moulvi ~ ''Nur is light. No substance can be produced out of light. It helps the perception of the forms of material objects, and it can never exist apart from that which emits it. It is thus clear that you cannot do without a material cause of the universe. We too do not regard effect to be absolutely eternal, but only the cause of which it is the effect.''
Anative Christian - ''If God evolves the world out of His essence, then the world must be eternally existent in His essence and He must be eternally existing in the world. This makes God limited or conditioned. God, then, is limited or conditioned.''
Swami Dayanand ~ ''The universe existing in the Divine Essence, was eternal, and the same, assuming a grosser form (from Prakriti), became limited or conditioned, and not God who gave Prakriti or dimensions the primary atoms, - length, breadth, height, etc. Thus the universe came to be limited and conditioned and not God.
''Recall what I said at the outset that something cannot proceed from nothing, but only from something. Your statement too comes to the same thing, namely, that the material cause of the world is eternal.''
Rev. Mr. Scott - Hear, my Muhammadan brethren. The Pandit can reply to this question in a thousand ways, and if a thousand men like us were to combine, even then he could reply to them. Hence it is not desirable to prolong discussion in this subject.''
The discussion lasted till 11 A.M. and then all men went to their homes. The chief topic of conversation among the people of the fair was the discussion, and everyone said: ''We have found him a thousand times wise than we heard he was.''
The third day of discussion on Mukti salvation.
Back to contents
The people assembled again at 1 0'clock. Some time was spent in deciding as to which subject should be discussed since much of the time allotted for discussion had passed away and many subjects yet remained undiscussed. It was settled that the subject of mukti (salvation) should be taken up. Next, the question as to who should open the discussion was considered. The Muhammadans and the Christians excuse themselves, each party in its turn, from speaking on the question first, the one begging the other to make a beginning. Upon this, the Swami observed that the previous order should be followed, namely, that Rev. Mr. Scott should open the discussion, then the Moulvi Sahib should speak, and then he himself. The Rev. gentleman and the Moulvi, however, declined to follow the order suggested. Hence the Swami himself made the preliminary speech:-
Mukti means emancipation, i.e., liberation from pain of every description, and the attainment of bliss in the infinity intelligent and blissful Supreme Being. It implies release from birth and death. But now is it to be attained? The first means
for its attainment is virtuous conduct. As to what is virtuous or righteous, that ought to be ascertained in the light of the approval of God and of the human Soul. That which does not command their approval is wrong and sinful. as an illustration of what I mean: A person steals a thing, and when caught and questioned by the authorities as to his doing, he denies having committed the crime. But his atma (soul) says from within; ''Yes, you are guilty.'' ''Similarly, when a man thinks of committing theft, the internal Ruler speaks to him in the depths of his heart, saying that the act is reprehensible and that he should not do it, and He (the Ruler) creates in his mind a feeling of shame, doubt and fear. But when a man thinks of doing something virtuous, God gives rise in his heart to a pleasurable sensation, urging him to go on with his pursuit''. The feelings of pleasure that animate the Soul, when it performs a noble act, are conspicuous by their absence when the Soul goes in for something evil. As long as a man, in utter disregard of the Will of God, commits evil deeds, he cannot: in any way, obtain salvation. Such a wicked man is called asur, dusht, daitya. The Veda says:-
ASURYAA NAAM TE LOKAA ANDHENA TAMASAA VRITAA:
''He who destroys the purity of his soul, i.e., who acts in disregard of Will of God and against the dictates of his own conscience, is asur, rakshas, dusht, papi and neech.''
''The following are the means of attaining salvation:-
''When a man contemplates God from the core of his heart he enjoys peace ineffable. When a child wants to come to his parents downstairs or to go upstairs, the people leave off attending to a thousand urgent and important affairs and lift him up in their arms to keep him from falling, for they love to keep him happy and in peace. Just in the same manner God, the source of all benevolence, lifts the man, that goes to Him with a sincere heart, into His blissful arms. Such men are happy, and God never permits pain to approach them. The people should cast off
- ~ Virtuous conduct.
- ~ The acquisition of true knowledge, i.e., the study of the Divine Word, the Veda; improvement of gyan (knowledge) and love truth.
- ~ Associating with truthful and virtuous men.
- ~ Withdrawing the manas, the senses, and the Atam from untruth and leading them towards truth and wisdom by the practice of yoga.
- ~ Stuti or meditation on the attributes of God.
- ~ Prarthana or devout and sincere prayer after the following style:
''O lord of the universe! Benevolent Father! Lead us from untruth to truth; lead us, O Blissful Master, from darkness (ignorance and unrighteousness) to light; lead us, all-pervading Lord, from the turmoils (sufferings, i.e., birth, death, etc.), of the world to immorality.''
prejudice, and, rejecting untruth and accepting the truth, strive for the attainment of felicity. Injustice is the result of unrighteous regard for ourselves. This may be illustrated as follows:- ''The clothes of the Moulvi Sahib are good. If I covet them, I should be thinking of my own comfort and disregarding that of the Moulvi Sahib. This injustice and adharma would be traceable to a feeling of selfishness. This pursuit of selfish ends is also termed anarth. The desire or pursuit of happiness in accordance with the dictates of dharma and arth is kama, and the pursuit of the same by unrighteous methods is designated kukarma. Salvation is obtained by means of dharma, arth and kama. Conformity in life to Divine Will, as has already been stated, constitutes dharma, and its disregard, adharma. These things lead to mukti, and naught else. It is attained by self-exertion, and not otherwise.''
Rev. Mr. Scott ''Panditji has defined mukti as emancipation from pain, but I hold it to consist in avoiding sin and attaining heaven. God creates Adam immaculate, but Satan tempted him to commit sin. By his fall all his descendants have become corrupt. As the watch-maker does not interfere with the working of a watch but allows it to go on with its work without imposing upon it any restraint, so has God made man a free agent, and he commits sin of his own accord. He cannot, by his own exertion, attain salvation or escape pain in any way. Salvation is, therefore, impossible without faith in Lord Jesus Christ. The Hindus say that Kaliyuga is an era of sin and corruption, and that man cannot, in this age, obtain salvation. But I say they can if they will only put their faith in Jesus.
''The people of places which have been visited by Lord Jesus, i.e., wherever his teachings have been disseminated, have been saved. Are there virtue and excellent qualities to be found, in any remarkable degree, in the followers of any religion but those of Christianity? There was in England a man as powerful as Panditji, but he was addicted to drinking, was licentious, and a thief. When, however, he accepted the faith of Christ, he became free from all these vices and sinful habits. Similarly, when I came to believe in Christ as my Savior, I obtained mukti and ceased doing evil deeds. Salvation is impossible of attainment except by conforming to the Will of Jesus. Hence all must believe in him. He alone can give salvation. This the only way of attaining it, and none else.''
Moulvi Muhammad Qasim - ''We cannot say that all the means enumerated by Panditji for the attainment of salvation are sufficient, for everything depends upon the Will of God. He gives salvation to whomsoever He likes, just as the ruler of the time punishes or lets off anybody he chooses. We have no authority over Him, we do not know what He will do. But we must have faith in the ruler of the time (i.e., the Divine Vice-regent on earth.) The ruler of the present time is our prophet; salvation, therefore, depends entirely on professing faith in him. It is, no doubt, true that one can do good acts by means of knowledge, but salvation is in God's hands.''
Swami Dayanand Saraswati (in replying to Mr. Scott) ~ ''Your statements as regards mukti, that it consists in avoiding sin and not in freedom from pain, is due to a misapprehension of what I said, for I have already said that avoiding doing evil deeds, committing sin, etc., is a preliminary sadhan (means) for the attainment of mukti. The consequence of evil deeds is pain; in other words, when a man commits sin, he cannot escape pain. The sadhans, too, I have enumerate clearly. If the Padri Sahib had kept in mind what I said, he would not have made the remark he did.
''As regards to the second point, that Adam was tempted by Satan to commit sin and that posterity, in consequence, became corrupt, the assertion is without foundation. God, according to Christian belief, is omnipotent. But when Satan disregarded Adam, the immaculate creature of God, and thus, interfering in the government of God, reverse the state of affairs established by Him, God ceased to be omnipotent.
''In point of fact, none can interfere in the ordinances of God. The assertion that the entire race became corrupt owing to the sin of Adam is repugnant to common sense, and whoever commits sin, the same suffers pain, and none else. No wise man will ever subscribe to the Christian idea. Moreover, Adam and Eve alone could not be the progenitors of the human race, for the marriage between brothers and sisters is a sin. Evidently God created a number of men and women at the beginning of creation.
''As regards the assertion that Satan tempts, I would ask ''If Satan is everybody's tempter, who was Satan's tempter? If you reply that he was tempted by himself, then I say that the same could be said with equal force with respect to human beings. In such a case, it is useless to believe in Satan as the tempter. If you say that Satan was tempted by someone else, then it would follow that it was the work of none but God. And if this was God's work, then, according to your religion, there cannot by any giver of salvation, nor any receiver of it, for when God himself becomes the tempter, none can be the savior. Such a thing, however, is against the Divine nature, for God is just and true, and His actions are always just, and He can never be a tempter.
''It is noticeable that though Satan works such mischief in the government of God, God does not punish or kill him or throw him into prison. This clearly indicates the helplessness of God. It also shows that God alone is the tempter. But all this is untrue. Nor is there any such being as Satan. As long as belief in Satan is not eradicated from the mind, so long there can be no escape from sin. People must delude themselves: ''As Satan, by tempting Adam, involved him had his posterity in sin, so God, in order to redeem mankind, got His only son crucified.'' There is nothing to fear now, for if we commit sin, we, being believers in Jesus Christ, will have our forgiven, for he sacrificed himself for our sins. Verily such men cannot escape sin!
''The illustration of the ''watch'' is correct, for all are free agents, but the Will of God consists in the performance of noble acts and in avoiding doing evil ones: the statement that the
attainment of heaven is salvation, and that men are unable to shake themselves free from sin owing to the temptations of Satan, is unfounded; for every man is free to act, and Satan is a myth. You can, by shaking yourself free from the hold of sin and by the grace of God, attain salvation. Adam ate wheat the only sin he committed and was driven away in consequences from paradise. I ask, when the mere eating of wheat involved Adam in sin, and resulted in his expulsion from heaven, will you, who long for the attainment of heaven, abstain from the use of these things in that place? If not, won't you be sinners and driven away from paradise in consequence?
''Your conception of God appears to be anthropomorphic, i.e. as man is not omniscient, even so, is God according to your belief, for you speak of intercession and advocacy, in connection with Him. Such a thing is a reflection of Divine omnipotence. God knows everything. He does not stand in need of an advocate, nor in that of intercession from others, for intercession can be necessary for him only who has no knowledge of the person whom it is to benefit. Further, God, according to your belief, becomes essentially dependent, for He cannot bestow mukti on anyone except through the intercession of Christ. That is to say, His knowledge is limited, which (you must admit) is inconsistent with His knowledge attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. You must see that if God is just, He cannot go against this attribute of His at the intercession of anyone; for if He does, He ceases to be just. Similarly, if you believe that angels, etc., are ever-present in the Divine court, as there are officers in human courts, you make Divine nature defective and faulty in my other respects for, in such a case, God cannot be all-pervading and All-encompassing. And if God is not omnipresent, He must be corporeal, and in the event of His being corporeal, He cannot be all-controlling and all-grasping.
And further, a corporeal being must be subject to birth and death, but this is against the attributes of God. Hence, such a belief, it is evident, can never gain currency, for it circumscribes God.
''Observe how, without a proper study of Arya Shastras , men are apt to believe in wrong ideas. The statement of the Reverend gentleman, in connection with the Kaliyug, is also wrong, since we do not believe in it, in the light of the Vedic Teaching. The Aitareiya Brahmana says:-
KALIH SHAYAANO BHAVATI SAMJIHAANASTU DWAPARAH''Those who commit evil deeds, cannot escape their painful
UTTISHTHAMSTRE TAA BHAVATI KRITAM CHARAN
''It means, ''The person who is adharmi (unrighteous) and nominally dharmi (righteous) is kali; he who is one-half dharmi and one-half adharmi, is dwapar; he who is I one-fourth adharmi and three-fourths dharmi is treat; while he who is entirely dharmi, is called satyuga.'' It is not proper to indulge in any assertions on this point in disregard of facts.''
consequences; they alone will, who do noble acts, no matter what country they may belong to.
''Cannot God save His devotees by His own power and without the intercession of Jesus? The answer must be in the affirmative, He does not stand in need of prophets. This, however, is true, that dharmatmas (good and virtuous people), in whatever country they may be, serve as saving agencies, reclaiming individuals from sin, and such a country attains prosperity and glory. And this desirable result is essentially due to virtuous conduct, it has but little to do with creeds.
''In olden times there were good arrangements for updesh among the Aryas, and consequently the condition of the Aryas was good. If, at the present time, they are degenerate, owing to the absence of updesh among them and for various other reasons, their degenerated condition cannot, in any way, detract from the nobleness of their religion. The Arya Religion alone has been preserved pure since the dawn of creation, it has not been corrupted at all. The degeneration that has taken place among our community during 1,960,852,976 years is but insignificant compared with that which had taken place among the Muhammadans during 1300, and among Christians during 1800 years. The prosperity of the Christians is due to a good organization (of which the British Parliament is an example) and not to their religion. If an organization among you become extinct, you would not be able to make solid progress through your religion. The example which the Reverend gentleman has given of a wicked man in England, likening him to me, was unworthy of him. I suppose he did it unintentionally.
As regards the remark of the Moulvi Sahib on mukti, that God may do what He desires, it is not grounded on reason, for God is all-knowledge and ever just. He is partial to nobody. Moreover, the remark implies that it is God that does evil and that the evil in the world is the outcome of His desire, a thing which cannot be true. Whoever performs acts conducive to the attainment of salvation, it is to him that salvation is granted and not to those who do not perform such acts, for God never does injustice. If He were to bestow happiness upon men, or subject them to pain and suffering arbitrarily, His conduct would be open to the charge of partiality and injustice. Indeed, He never so acts. Just as the fire cannot be false to its property of burning, even so, God cannot go against His own nature, which is for universal justice. He can never do anything fraught with injustice in the remotest degree.
''God alone is the ruler of all times for purposes of salvation, and none else; whosoever sets down any other as such, is in the wrong.
''Salvation is impossible of attainment by a mere belief in another individual, for when salvation is the result of intercession from without, God has virtually no power to grant it; in other words, God is not independent in the matter. Such a being cannot be God! The true God can never stand in need of anyone's intercession, for He is omnipotent. I believe all wise men regard
Him as such, and if, influence by prejudice, some do not, that is a different matter. It is strange that you believe Him to be ''one without a second''. And yet associate prophets with Him as His indispensable counselors in the matter of determining as to who should get salvation and who should not.
The truth is that God grants salvation to righteous people, who perform noble acts for the attainment of that exalted position. He does into require the assistance of anybody in the matter. It is a man who stands in need of the help of his fellow-beings. God wants no one's help. Nor is He of a capricious nature, and were He such, He would be perpetrating gross acts of injustice. He does not, in point of fact, deviate from His nature at all. He gives salvation to His truthful, righteous devotees, and keeps them in a state of perpetual bliss.''
In the meantime it struck four (P.M.). The Swami said that he had yet much to say. The Mussalmans said that it was their prayer-time. The Rev. Mr. Scott told the Swami that he was desirous to a private talk with him. Both of them, therefore, retired to a separate place for the purpose. While they were away, one of the Moulvis mounted the table and began to harangue the people on his faith, while just a few yards from him the Pandits began to hold forth on their own doctrines.
Some men began to give out that the fair was at an end. On hearing this the Swami asked the Padris and Aryas if the Moulvis had returned from their prayers. The reply was that the fair was over. The swami enquired who had declared the fair to be over without previously having secured the consent of the parties concerned and whether the discussion would be proceeded with or not. When there were confusion and noise, and no chance of a further discussion was left, some gentlemen requested the Swami to return to his resting-place as the fair has terminated. The Swami observed that he wished it had lasted at least for five days. Rev. Scott replied that he could not stay for more than two days. Upon this, the Swami returned to his lodgings and commenced discoursing on the ''Principles of Dharma''.
''TRANSMIGRATION OF SOULS.''
Back to contents
The same day the Rev. Mr. Scott, in company with two other gentlemen, visited him at his place, asking if the doctrine of the transmigration of the souls was true. The Swami answered in the affirmative. He said that migration was proportionate to one's karma; those who did noble acts became human beings; but those who did evils ones, went down into the bodies of birds, animals, etc.; while those whose karma was of a very high order, become devatas or saints and sages. As an illustration of the truth of the doctrine, the Swami said that the moment a child was born, he commences sucking at his mother's breasts. The reason for this was that the child was impelled to do so because of the impressions of the previous birth. Further, inequality, in the degree and extent of riches and happiness, and difference in social status, showed that all these were the results of karma. The karmas determined the body. The souls were eternal, without a beginning or end. The impressions of preceding birth clung to the spiritual body, and this was why there was such a variety of human temperaments.
Similarly, there were many other proofs of the truth of the doctrine of transmigration of souls, but there was none in support of the assertion that the soul was a creation, which might ultimately become extinct in the world. The doctrine of sleep after death and of the day of judgment was not true. <<< Prev---------------------Next >>>
After talking so far the Padris went away.
The Moulvis, on reaching Shajahanpur, wrote a letter to Munshi Indramani, inviting him to a discussion there; but when the Swami and Munshi reached the place, no one would come forward!
Return to contents of Book
"The man who resolves, to stick to the truth at
all costs, steadily rises in virtues. When his virtues raise his reputation
and prestige, he becomes all the more a devotee of truth. This devotion to
truth becomes an unerring source of power and greatness." Swami Dayanand
Back to top of Page