Is  Idol worship justified?

             K: When God is formless how to meditate on Him? 

V:  Meditation is of two kinds. One is about worldly things and living beings and other one is about God who is beyond senses and All-controlling. We meditate about worldly things when we see them or get parted from them. For ex, I saw a woman in Calcutta. We became friendly. Next, I saw her in Bombay after five years. Immediately I remember her as the woman I met at Calcutta. Secondly, when we part ourselves. For ex, my friend left for tour. Frequently, I would remember where she could be now? When we are together the question of meditation does not arise. Because how could we meditate when she is already before me? But when she parted she is remembered. These are all about worldly things. But the meditation about God is different. To meditate means is to keep mind away from materials and subjects. In other words, zeroing on Soul whose strength is spread over mind and senses. So long the mind and senses are preoccupied with worldly things the soul cannot meditate on God. It is necessary therefore before undertaking meditation that the mind and senses are not allowed by habit to be drawn towards materials and subjects. Meditation is also called as Dhyana, is the seventh step in Yoga. First, yama Niyama Asana, pranayama, pratyahara, Dharana, are to be tackled first. Then the man becomes qualified for undertaking Dhyana. As per rules, meditation is mastered after the six steps are overcome.  When there is a distance of seven steps before mastering Dhyana how is it that it could be achieved through Idols first?

K:  The mind is fickle. How it can stay on the formless? Idols are required for staying of mind. Mind cannot become steady without a formless object?

V: You are innocent. Mind could stay put only in formless. It cannot become steady in form. This is because, the object with which  a  form is made of elements of  sound, form, touch and liquid etc, Hence mind becomes unsteady after getting stuck in these things. If mind could become steady because of form then the entire world which is having a form and logically the minds of all should have become steady. But this is not the case. The more the minds getting entangled in worldly objects the more unsteady the mind becomes. If you examine still more carefully, mind does not become steady at all. The moment the mind becomes still, death follows. Frankly speaking, mind getting inwards from outside transactions could be stated as the steadiness of mind. So long man lives, his mind would be always in momentum.

K: Are you of the opinion that people who meditate thru Idols are under illusion? Through Idols the unsteadiness of mind is kept away. Hence people worship idols of Ram, Krishna, etc.

V:  I have already told that meditation of God is not possible thru Idols. Dhyana means mind being away from subjects. All Idols have all the five subjects in a disorganized way. Looking at them roughly, they have FORMS. Fruits, flowers, milk etc are offered to them and hence there is a juice present. Fruits have scent or smell. Blowing of Bells or conches has an element of sound. The Idols are made of five elements, like, sound, smell, touch, form, and liquid. Then how the Idols can keep away the unsteadiness of mind? People, who worship Krishna’s idol for steadiness of mind, should Ponder over the fact, that it was Krishna who was present in full life before Arjuna and still the mind of Arjuna was wavering. He tells Krishna,

                         Chanchalam  manah krshna  pramadhi balavadrudam|

                          tasyaham nigrahm manye vayoriva sudhushkam||   [Geetha]      

 Meaning:  The mind is fickle, agitated and strong. I find it is as difficult as to control the air.

                        Krishna replies.

                                        Asamshayam  mahabaho  mano durvigraham chalam|

                                        Abhyasena  tu kaunteya  vairagyena cha gruhyate||   

Meaning: Arjuna! It is not doubted that the mind is very fickle and obdurate. But it is controlled by regular practice and detachment.

           Given the fact   that when Arjuna was seeing Krishna day in and day out and in spite of his mind was still restless, how the imaginary images of Krishna could instill steadiness of mind?

K: Then should we not worship Idols at all?

V: We should do Idol worship [Murthy puja] i.e. the inanimate Idols should be worshipped in the manner deserving for an inanimate matter. Similarly, the live i.e. Conscious entities should also be worshipped in a manner befitting for living beings.

K: I did not catch your point. How worshiping of the inanimate [Jada] should be done as deserving to a Jada matter and Conscious [Chetan] beings in appropriate manner as deserving to Chetan entities? 

V:  The term Pooja [worship] has many meaning as per its root verb and also in common parlance. For, ex, the meaning of the term Pooja is to do honor whereas with reference to a jada matter it means to use the inanimate matter judiciously or wisely and to safeguard it from destruction.  Now think over the meaning attached to worship of a Jada matter. It means to keep them in order, to safeguard them, to ensure that they are not broken and do not get soiled. This is the intended meaning here. Bowing before all things, offering fruits and flowers is not thought of here. When it is said that a noble man is to be worshipped the intention here is that he should be honored with food and gifts and does not mean flinging of fruits, flowers, water etc at him. Further in the context of fraudulent, the worship of him conveys the meaning that he should be thrashed soundly and not otherwise. So here in one context, Pooja means altruism and in other context punishment.  Likewise in respect of jada matter i.e. Idol-worship what is intended here is that these Idols are to be kept safely and offering of light, prostrating before them is not at all the desired intention. This is because that these Idols being inanimate cannot grasp the reverence of a doer nor in a position to receive what is offered to them in the form of flowers and sweets. Conscious beings in the form Father, mother, teacher, Sanyasi, advisor, and scores of men similar to them should be done Pooja i.e.  They are to be honored with fruits, flowers, food etc. In other words Pooja here is to be understood as doing an honor or respect.

K: God is said to be everywhere. He is also found to be in Idols. In that case why Idols should not be worshipped? What is worshipped is not stone. The all pervading God is worshipped therein,.

V: It is true that since god is found to be everywhere he is found to be in Idols also. But it is not necessary that He should be worshipped everywhere and in all things. It is the soul that offers Pooja and the object being to meet with God. Meeting between the two is possible only where they could have a chance to meet. God is no doubt is in Idols. But the soul which desires meet with God is not there in Idols. Then how could there be a Meet? Yes. God and Soul are both present in the hearts of every human being. Meet between these two could take place here only i.e. hearts. Hence the man who wants to meet God is required ensure that Pooja is done in his heart after controlling the mind and senses. Now look!  Can we drink water everywhere presuming that God is there in water? God is present in Lions and Snakes. Is it okay to go nearby them? Hence it is clear ignorance and superstition to believe that God is in Idols and hence He should be worshipped there. God is in poison. Then should we eat it? No. Only such things that are eatable are to eaten. Idol worshippers think that they are doing Pooja to the all pervading God in Idols. But frankly speaking, there can be no Pooja of the all pervading God in Idols. You may ask how?  God is present also in those Pooja items that are placed on Idols. For ex, sky [void] is present in a pot. It is present in brick also.  Could he hit the Void by throwing the brick at the pot? Since the void is pervading everywhere the brick cannot hit the void rather the pot gets broken. Not the Void. Because the void is present both in the pot and brick. Similar is the case of Pooja things that are placed on the Idol. These Pooja items are deposited over Idols and not on God for the reason God is pervading in Pooja items also.

V: It is not necessary that we need to put fruits and flowers on God. But looking at Idols reverentially we become aware of the grace and glory of all pervading God.

K:  This is talk in the extreme. How could we get the knowledge of all pervading God, his grace and glory? Just think. There is an oil in til seed. But what is seen? Is it til or oil? Apparently only the til seed is seen. You don’t see the oil in it even when seen with utmost reverence. When the oil is seen?  Only when the til seed is grinded the oil is seen. Similarly what is seen in Idol are the bare Idol only and not the all pervading God. Only when you cut the bond with Idol and start searching God in the heart then only God is perceived. Now about the knowledge of glory of God while looking at Idols. How the glory of God is seen in the man made Idols? In fact the greatness of man who has carved the lovely Idols will alone be seen when looking at Idols. If you want to see the grace and glory of God observe the entire Creation with a rational attitude. You will observe the beauty and greatness even in small things.  What mark of God’s greatness is there in the man made inanimate Idols?

K: Sister! We get the results as we believe. Even you don’t agree that Idols are not God you can get the results by thinking God in them. Secondly, before we ascend to the heights, we cannot do it so instantly and we require steps. I consider Murthy Pooja as the first stepping stone for the realization of God. Hence, if anybody were to make the imaginary pieces of God and worship them there is no fault in it

V: You should know that faith does not alter the truth of an object. If somebody due to ignorance thinks or believes that lime water is milk can he churn butter out of it? Will the stomach gets it’s full by visualizing a stone as a Roti? If by mere thinking could get the desired things then the people would not have been found to be so sorrowful. We would not have witnessed the people laboring hard to get things they desire. A belief becomes a belief only when it stands on Truth. Otherwise it is a non-belief. Supposing if a person were to consume laxative pills believing them as medicinal

Tablets can he not get the purging? Hence it is sheer ignorance to say that we can get the results by mere believing contrary to the hard facts.

  Look!  The priests of Somnath temple had a belief that the inanimate Idol was a veritable lord Mahadev himself. Hence, when Mohamed Gazni came in aggression the priests were sitting idle. They started advising the people, to do Somnath Jap and there was no need to fight as the Lord himself would vanquish the enemy forces. What terrible consequences followed because of this belief and trust are well known to the students of history. Why Somnath temple? Other temples also were destroyed and the Idols broken and tons of money was looted and taken away all because of this belief and trust. Still people did not get rid of their superstitions. The irony is,  People believed in  powers of  the Idols which were incapable of doing anything but  reposed no faith in  the Conscious entities[ people] who were capable of achieving anything. What a shame? This is the main reason for the downfall of our country and community. Now you would have understood how sorrowful the outcome of belief borne out of ignorance is. Your statement that Murthy pooja as the stepping stone for realization of God is totally erroneous. Yes. Worship of Conscious bodies could of course be treated as the stepping stone of God’s realization in a limited manner but the same cannot be accepted in the context of worship of inanimate Idols. The inanimate objects could be pavements for climbing Himalayas but how they could be stepping stone in God’s realization when they [pavements] are void of any knowledge? The alphabets A, B, C, D are the basic steps to learn English. But if anyone believes this as basic steps for learning Hindi or Sanskrit how could he learn these languages? Hence he could climb to the target thru things which is considered as its steps. The steps for God’s realization are selfless service, Satsang, the eight paths of Yoga [Yama, Niyama, Asana, pranayama, pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana, and Samadhi]. Only the regular practice of these steps faithfully can ensure the God’s realization.

                    You asked me what are the faults involved in worshipping the imaginary Idols of God. The faults are many. They are as under.

1. Man deceives himself by assuming certain real things in imaginary or artificial objects. Even Animals, Birds, insects know that artificial things cannot accomplish the functions of the   Real. Throw a mouse made of mud or rubber before a cat. The cat never pounces upon the artificially made mouse. A bee never stops on a flower made of paper. Similarly the animals never aspire on artificial things. But a man who claims to be very intelligent creature among all animals longs to obtain the maximum of good things out of artificial things. Can there be a bigger paradox than this?

2. Man imagines his requirements are also due to this imaginary man made Idols. Since man needs food he also feels that God also requires food and therefore presents eatables. He dresses them as he himself dresses. He bathes the god as he takes bath. He puts God to sleep and awakens him. He puts on ornaments on God as he tries to put on himself.  When man is of the belief that God also is in need of formers requirements then what sort of upliftment that could be expected of this God? When God is himself is the subject of many requirements how he could fulfill the requirements of others? Can the blind lead the blind? No, Never.

3. God is one. But the Idols are many. Each group bound by their own tradition has carved out gods as per their belief. Consequently, there are inter-group clashes destroying national unity. There are other hundreds of faults.

K: Then is it your opinion that we should neither carve out Idols nor worship them? When we see the peaceful, serene and detached Idols of great men we get peace; further they make impact on us.

V: It is not my opinion that we should not carve out Idols at all. Yes we should make Idols that is what I say. By keeping the photos of great men or making their Idols, we can perpetuate their memories. However it does not mean that these replicas should be worshipped like Conscious beings or they should be prayed for grant of favors treating them as either Gods or Gods representatives. How can these grant favors as done by Conscious beings or God? Can a father who is dead shower as much love as he did while being alive to his son? Is the body of the father which fed his son so lovingly while being alive is of any use after death? What difference is there between carved out Idols and the dead body?  The Idols do not putrefy whereas the dead body starts putrefying soon after death. This is all the difference and in respect of others matters there is no difference. Pooja means proper use. If goods are not put to use properly then they get ruined causing harm to the man. How you may ask?  Listen! There is a devotee of river Ganga.He worships it day in and day out. He offers flowers and Sweets to the River. He sings praises of Ganga always. But he does not know how to swim. One day he gets into the deep river. Will not he get drowned? However great devotee of the river he might be, since he does not know swimming he is sure to get drowned. Then there is other person who does not treat Ganga as mother. He has killed somebody. His clothes have become bloody. He jumps into the river and Swims across the river. How this happened? The reason is simple. He knows how to make use of the river. The first one was doing a wrong Pooja. Hence the river drowned him and saved the other. There would be a section of worshippers of Ganga. Taking bath in the river, offering flowers etc is treated as worship. Every year they shell out hundreds of rupees to Railways. They also get killed in stampede.

                        Then there is other section of Ganga worshippers. They make canals. Through irrigation they produce abundant crops, and produce power in the form of Electricity. They never did take bath in the river. They got Ganga in their taps at home. Since they knew the correct usage of the river [a Jada matter] how could they keep idle? Any number of examples could be given about the unconscious matter [jada] similar to Ganga. Now about the impact on seeing some Idols. Good or bad influence is not got by seeing the Idols. It is so because of the inherent Sanskars. A Hindu goes to a Ram or Krishna temple. He automatically bows before the Idols. This is because he would have imbibed the history of these personages and also learnt the way they vanquished evil persons like Ravan and Kans. These sanskars could be either through Books or by being heard. But before the same Hindu if you place a statue of Confucius of China, he does not get influenced, nor does it induce any faith in him, the reason being he does not know anything about Confucius. Hence he does not bow before this statue. A Muslim does not bow before any Hindu deities. Why? Because that Muslim has no Sanskars. On the other hand he finds an awful looking Muslim in a photo more pleasing for the reason that Sanskars that the Muslim appearing in that photo is looked as “momin” [Help to Islam] is strongly embedded in his mind. Hence, it is the Sanskars that makes an impact on

Mind while seeing some Idols. If Idols were to make impact it should have done it so to all the viewers of Idols and got peace. But this does not happen.

V: Don’t they show Maps in Schools? They disclose the knowledge of the entire world thru the medium of small Maps. Likewise, the small Idol could disclose the knowledge of God? Is it not?

V: Dear Sister! The Map is made of the world which has a shape. Hence we get knowledge of rivers, mountains, sea, cities, Railways etc. God is omnipresent and formless. Hence it is not possible to make an Idol of Him. Hence the Knowledge of God is not obtained.

K:  Syllables and sound are formless. But we make a sign of it and students are taught. If we don’t design the shape of syllables and sound how could else the students learn knowledge?

V: Syllables and sound are not seen by the eyes. But they are heard of course. The eyes choose the subject matter of its concern in order to make the subject known to ears. But how could it receive as its subject matter as it’s when the relevant subject matter is not theirs? This is understood by experience only. It is also not correct to say only when imaginary sign is accompanied by sound, Education could be imparted. If this were to be correct, we would not have seen learned blind men at all. They would not have seen how A, B, C, D alphabets looked like. However we see many blind men well versed in English, Hindi, etc. Secondly the imaginary signs are known as Varna [Letters]. Not syallables.What is written is letter. It has a form. That which is spelt is syllable and this is formless.

          It is also not correct that thru the signs [which have a form] one could get the knowledge of formless. This is because the formless sound is first spelt and then sign is written and told to recognize the sound with a particular sign. If your logic is accepted then it amounts to driving the knowledge of formless God first and then asking the student to recognize God in a particular   form! When the knowledge of formless God is obtained already then why worships the Idols? Is not the God realization an object of worship? When God is realized why worship without a reason?

K: Good! Time is formless. But people get their jobs done thru the Clock.

V: Clock is not the form of time. Just as we become aware of the time with the movement of Sun, similar work is done through a Clock. The entire functioning of Clock is dependent on Sun.

K: How to meditate on Formless? When an Idol is present before, we keep on meditating. Now we sit for meditation of Formless and closed the eyes. Nothing is before us. Then how the mind can remain steady?

V: There are two types of world; one is spiritual and another physical. The Soul is related to the spiritual. Physical is related to elements like Earth, water, Fire etc. Let us remember that God related subjects are spiritual in nature. Where is the scope of spiritual thinking when your mind keeps roaming here and there while doing Meditation? What are remembered are physical things only? Spiritual meditation could take place when the thinking of worldly objects having form is set aside and the Soul is thought of being pervaded by God. There is no bar of space and time between God and Soul. What is far away is Knowledge. Once the obstacle of Knowledge gets removed God is beginning to be felt. It stays put when the minds desires. The mind stops on those things that are practiced. All works in the world is successfully got through practice only.  We would have seen women carrying many water filled pots over their heads negotiating the uneven roads taking care to see that a not a drop of water is spilled over. Many boys and girls carefully walk on the wired thread while doing acrobatics. In circus, dogs and cats even fire bullets. This is all due to practice only. Many weaklings take cold bath in the biting winter but which is dreaded by musclemen. Like wise those who are habituated of thinking God and by practicing the Yama and Niyama they keep meditating on God for hours together near rivers and mountains. Those who have attained Samadhi keep meditating for days together. Do they meditate on any Idols? Not at all. If you think bit deeply, the mind does not rest on Idols at all. The minds keep wandering on the eyes, nose, and limbs of the Idols. When the Idols are not present, the transactions are drawn towards the Soul.

          Sister! Kindly remember. Even if the mind were to rest on Idols, it rests on Idols only and not on God. Really speaking, God is formless and omnipresent. Hence close your eyes and start meditating on the meaning of OM with a feeling” that God is present everywhere and I am present in Him and He is also present in me” Keep repeating OM. Recite Gayathri Mantra or any other Vedic mantra and think deeply of its meaning.  See how the mind is not brought to control.

K: If we buy sweets from sweet meat shop for a Rupee and eaten, it causes happiness. The Sweet is having a form. The taste we derive is formless. If we were to ask the vendor to provide one rupee taste how could he give that formless taste? This goes to show it is only through the material representation we could get the God’s Bliss.

V: That which is the taste of a matter is enjoyed when it is eaten. If Khova is eaten we get the taste of Khova. If a Laddu is eaten then we get the taste of Laddu only. There is a link of subject and its effect between Khova and its taste, and the link between them is not that of be pervaded and pervade. Khova is a subject and taste is its effect. However, the Idol and God are two different subjects. You know Khova through its taste. When God is not the quality of Idol how could God is felt thru the Idol? Further only when Khova is eaten then only its taste is derived. How a person could derive the taste of khova when it is artificially made of mud? Not possible. Similarly, only when god is experienced the God’s Bliss is obtained. Instead, if material representation is made of metal and mud in place of God how then the God’s bliss is obtained?

K: A currency Note with a King’s photo thereon is more comfortable for circulation. In a similar manner Murthy Pooja is also more comfortable.

V: First of all a King is a person with a body. Hence his photo can find a place in a currency Note. Whereas God is formless and his Photo cannot be made. Further, the Notes printed under the king’s authority are legal and can be easily being traded upon. Whosoever prints Notes against King’s authority could be jailed. Hence the proper and correct usage of forms and objects made by God is more rewarding. Making photos and stating that they are the material representation of God amounts to flouting the order of God which attempts to land the doer in darkness for several births.

K: We have heard in Mahabharata that Ekalavya learnt Archery by making the Idol of Dronacharya?

V:  There was a person Dronacharya and his photo was possible. What Ekalavya did was to make the prototype of the master. He did not worship it in place of God. Secondly, the prototype did not teach him archery. If that is the case why he should have practiced? He learnt the entire Archery thru his efforts and practice. Dronacharya was completely unaware of this development. When he came to know about his prototype he gave punishment.  If photos or prototype were capable of imparting education then Vedas could be learnt by just putting up of the photo of Vedavyas. One should be able to get riches by just putting up the photo of Kubera. Do we learn anything other than inertness from the lifeless objects? A butler from his association with an Englishman learns to talk in English. A labour learns to make sweet dishes by working with a Sweet maker. By sitting near fire, the heat is felt. We get the quality of things that we are associated with. By associating with inert, lifeless idols people also got inertness and lost vitality. They were beaten. Temples were destroyed. Country was thrown to slavery and poverty. Because of this inertness the qualities of self-confidence and Action were lost.

K: Good! We have discussed the matter enough. Now tell me whether God is just and merciful? If yes, how both attributes could remain together? If mercy is shown justice gets affected. If Justice is shown then the mercy is lost.

V: Let us discuss this tomorrow.

K:  Sister! Please reply to yesterday’s question.

V:  Why to remain devoted to God? And why should we praise and pray Him was your yesterday’s question.
             Well.  All things in the world aspire to get drawn towards its Primary source or centre of Power. This is applicable equally to both Conscious [chetan] and non-conscious or inert [Jada] bodies. Fire moves up and up for the reason that the Sun is the primary source of heat or Fire. Now consider another example. Throw a mud ball towards the Sky and however high it is thrown up ultimately it lands on the earth because Earth is the prime source of mud. Water gets evaporated from sea, because of Sun and the water so evaporated becomes a cloud. It starts raining and the water enters the rivers which ultimately join the sea, because sea is the prime source of water. So is the case of other materials also. Every material has its prime source.
         Ocean is the Prime centre of water
         Sun is the treasure house/ source of Fire
         Sky is the Prime centre of Wind
         Earth is the source of soil 

Similarly Knowledge also has its prime source in the world. That is God. All the knowledge that man has acquired has been got from God. If a man could acquire the knowledge by himself without others assistance there was no necessity for schools, colleges, universities etc. Teachers were also found then not necessary. But this is not the case. Parents teach their children to talk and make them aware of so many things that surround them. They teach their children, how to eat, drink, dress etc. Behavior, etiquettes, inter-personal relationships etc are also taught. When these children enter schools they learn many other things. Here it should be also noted that what the teachers teach is also not theirs but what they would have learnt while at home, Schools and colleges before becoming teachers.

Here a question arises. When the knowledge the men acquire is thru others who taught the human beings or the primary man at the time of Creation when there were no people before them? The answer is they got the knowledge from God only. Then how the Knowledge was given? How he taught them since He had no body?
 

Here it may be clarified, that there exists a difference between revealing the knowledge and imparting them.  Teaching is done through sound and knowledge is revealed in heart. Since God is all pervading He is present in the human beings created at the time of Creation. Accordingly, God reveals the Knowledge in the souls of chosen Rishis Viz, Agni, Vayu, Aditya and Angira. These Rishis in turn teach the knowledge for others through the medium of Sound. Then starts the mechanism of teaching, i.e. reading and hear them reading, reciting etc.

If God had not given the knowledge, the tradition of transmission of knowledge would not have come off. It is therefore clear that whatever knowledge that man has acquired is thru the process of transmission only and whatever enlightenment he has obtained has become possible thru god given intelligence and by observing the nature of world created by god. Man can enhance the boundaries of knowledge but so long he is not administered knowledge he cannot obtain himself. In the beginning of Creation God has revealed the knowledge in the hearts and minds of Rishis in seed form. Subsequent growth of knowledge in expanded form [Tree form] is rendered possible thru the efforts of Rishis   and intelligent men. This is the rule from time immemorial and the same will continue in future also. When all things in the world are aspiring to get drawn to its prime source and still at it, why the soul with finite knowledge would not wish to move towards God who is the repository and source of infinite knowledge? This is because his evolution is not at all possible sans God. Conscious bodies evolve with conscious bodies and unconscious [inert] bodies with inert bodies.

The welfare of conscious soul is not possible by any inert things in the world. It is true however, that by intelligently utilizing the inert matters the well being of body is definitely ensured. The soul however, bound as it is by limited knowledge [i.e. remaining Alpagna] seeks improvement in the worldly things but fails.  Hence he remains restless. Ignorance is the reason for unhappiness in the world. If soul were to understand the true nature of materials obtaining in the world, he will not experience unhappiness or sorrow. The soul becomes enmeshed in sorrow and shackles so long it keeps equating untruth to truth, ignorance to knowledge and conscious to inanimate. God who is the source of knowledge is the real source of happiness. Removed from God happiness does not lie in worldly things. If happiness could be found in worldly things then the entire world should have looked happy and cheerful. But the actual position is different. Every conscious being in the world seeks happiness, because it is not with him.  Why he should seek happiness if he already had?  He becomes  liberated with worldly sorrows and bondages and attains eternal happiness called Bliss[Ananda] in the end when while remaining devoted  keeps on doing praise[ Stuti] prayer[ Prarthana]and communion[ Upaasana]

K: It is wrong to say that there is no pleasure or happiness in the worldly things. If there were to be no happiness in them, then why they should be much sought after by men? If money were not to bring happiness why people would have struggled to accumulate it? If food were not cause happiness why they would have consumed it? Why wear clothes if they were not to cause happiness? Why construct Homes if they were not to bring in pleasure and happiness?  All this indicate that there is happiness in worldly things. Hence, people desire to have them and do not want to give them up. He finds happiness in their acquisition and feels unhappy at its loss. Then how to believe that happiness is not found in material things?

V:  Sister! What you find happiness in worldly objects is not real happiness but illusion of it. Happiness is in the minds of men. When a man makes use of things he feels comforted and comes to believe that happiness is obtained from them only. But frankly speaking, happiness is not obtained from a particular thing. He feels happy so because of mind’s concentration. When a dog bites a dry bone, its gums starts bleeding and the dog [unaware of the fact that dry bone cannot have a blood] keeps on sucking the blood oozing from its own gums! Similarly where is the happiness in the worldly things outside? Happiness lies inside. This is known. If money were to spell happiness, then no rich man would have been unhappy. But the extent of worries that the rich man has is not there with the poor man. A rich man down with diseases could buy medicines but not health. That rich man   could employ teachers, workers, buy books but can he earn knowledge? No. He can earn knowledge and wisdom only thru hard intensified study. Likewise he may buy food but cannot buy hunger.

There are millionaires in the world who are unable to digest even one meal a day. Now tell me whether there is happiness inherent in money. If food were to bring happiness the quantum of happiness one derives by eating four chapattis should be four times by eating 16 chapattis. This is because happiness should be proportionate to the quantum of food eaten. But does this happen? By eating more than that satisfies his hunger he becomes sick requiring medication. Dry, tasteless food tastes like nectar when one is hungry, whereas, nectar tastes bitter when not hungry. Similar is the position about clothes. If clothes were to cause comfort, the same cloths that are comfortable  in winter should continue to be so in summer also and vice versa. If causing comfort were to be the nature of clothes then it should cause comfort in all seasons. Why warm clothes are not suited in summer and winter clothes are not suited for winter?

The nature and character of a thing should remain constant under all circumstances. For ex, to burn a thing is the nature of Fire. This nature will not undergo change. Sweetness is the quality of sugar. Eat sugar at any time. You taste sweet only. Likewise, if causing happiness is the nature of worldly things, then people would not have sought happiness even after their possession. They should be feeling happy every second. Now be clear!  Will the problem of a person running high temperature could be overcome by putting him on a soft, silky bed? Never. Hence I tell you, that happiness does not lie in the worldly things. God is the source of Happiness and that is obtained by being nearer to Him.

K: If happiness were to be within, and real joy does not rest with the worldly things, then why a person derives happiness in eating sweets? Why he does not derive happiness by eating Mud? There is joy in eating Rotis but not sand. Sugar tastes but not grass. What is the reason for this?

V:  The feeling of happiness which we derive in eating sugar candy etc is because of the character of the latter and this does not constitute real happiness. The sweetness is felt when this is concentrated in mind. Then only he experiences joy in it. If sugar candy were to cause happiness then it should cause same happiness during fever also whereas sugar tastes bitter during fever. Similar is the case of chillies. Persons not habituated to taking chillies find it as poison. So is the case of other worldly things. Now about person not finding happiness in eating mud. If mind is concentrated in it then eating mud also becomes enjoyable.

We might have seen some women eating mud balls. Some animals eat sand stones also. Leave this matter aside. We find people taking liquor which is awfully smelling, astringent and bitter. Opium is highly bitter but some people consume it. People find happiness in these things. Does joy lie in these things? No. Man derives happiness in these things as long as his mind gets concentrated in them. A question may arise as to how the mind gets concentrated in an object. When a man becomes used to a thing he starts concentrating therein albeit temporarily is the answer. Because of habit, the inherent culture or the sanskars of that object leaves a strong impression on the mind. The sanskars of a particular thing instigates a person to use them often and often.

Similar is the case of beautiful scenario. Man in order to see his mind gets relaxed goes to forests, Sea, Parks, mountains etc. But when he is entangled in a criminal case he does not derive joy in these places of interest. Strikingly good places appear to be drab, worthless places for him for the reason his mind is restless resulting in lack of concentration. A person goes to a music concert, Film show etc to enjoy. But if he finds his son being sick he does enjoy the show even though present. This is because the sickness of son has disturbed him. At times when our mind is busy roaming elsewhere, we are unaware of taste of food being eaten. Hence it is clear that happiness rests with when accompanied by concentrated mind and not in objects.

K: First you said that God is a prime source of all Happiness and now you are telling that happiness lie in concentrated mind. Why this dichotomy?

V: Only in the concentrated mind the blissful God is felt. The ignorant finds that happiness lie in the external things. This is not dichotomy. What is important to be known here is, because of habit man obtains   transient concentration in worldly things. Hence transient happiness is obtained. We may ultimately realize God if we start concentrating mind in comprehensive form in worship. This is the ultimate aim of life. Precisely for this reason, praise [Stuti] prayer [Prathana] and communion [Upaasana] is necessary, the object being let mind gets concentrated and thereby derive more and more happiness.

K: What is the proof that the more the mind is concentrated, the more happiness is derived?

V: I give a proof based on state of being while in wakeful {Jagrit] state and in deep slumber [Sushupthi] state. During wakeful position man’s transactions [vrithis] are spread over towards worldly things. Hence concentration is not attained. The mind rushes to one object or the other. But in sleep condition his mind’s activities are in concentrated, restful mode, and he feels happy after a good sleep. Getting up in the morning he says that he is happy because he got a good sleep overnight. The happiness he got in sleep was due to the mind’s concentration. The soul is relieved off the connection with worldly objects and rapprochement is done with God. The soul is attached either to worldly things or with God. The more he is attached to worldly things the more sorrow he experiences. The more he cultivates relationship with God he derives more happiness.

This becomes clearer from the example. A person is in jail. He is ailing. He is pained at the loss of his wife and children. He is having lot of other worries.  He is disturbed but till when? These things drag him to restlessness as long he is in wakeful state.  Once he manages to get sleep all the troubles disappear and he enjoys the same amount of happiness that a king enjoys. Even animals enjoy happiness in sleep. This is because that in Sleep his mind’s transactions are not scattered over, but remain concentrated. Control of mind’s transactions is called “YOGA” i.e. communion with God. When an intelligent communion is established with God thru Stuti, Prarthana, and Upaasana it is said that there is spiritual elevation. This spiritual upliftment reaches its zenith thru Samadhi where Soul becomes immersed with God. This is the ultimate aim of life.

K:  Which is called Stuthi, Prathana and Upaasana?

 V:  Praising the God with full devotion and faith is called Stuthi. Seeking God’s help for the removal of his foibles or weaknesses from those Godly qualities is called Prarthana. Keeping away from the worldly things that involves his pride in self called Ahankar and strongly invoking a feeling that he is nearer to God is called Upaasana.

K: You believe that God has no Form. But large number of people in the world thinks otherwise and offer prayer to the Form. What is wrong in understanding that God has a Form or having a Body?

V: You will get answer to this question tomorrow.

K: Sister! Give reply to yesterday’s question

V: Your yesterday’s question was how God could protect the world when he was devoid of body for the reason that there could be no activity without body being present. But  I say that  your understanding of the matter is wrong. Conscious being can do functions any where it resides. It can give momentum. Where it is not there, then only the requirement of body is needed. For ex, now I have lifted this book. From which?

V: If hands were not to be there would it be possible to lift the books?

V: Good! The hands have lifted the book. Now tell me which lifted the hands?

V: Look! I am shaking my entire body. From which the body is being shaken?

V: You were just telling that no activity was possible without Body. Now how the body got its activity without a Body? The answer to this question is wherever the conscious entity and its strength is present there remains no necessity for the agency like the body. The Soul that resides inside the body gives mobility for the entire body, and for those things that reside outside the mobility is given thru the body. This is because He [Soul] is not found outside. God resides both inside and outside and he is omnipresent. Hence He does not require a body. Since he is present in the entire universe he gives momentum for the entire universe.

K: I see, Pot makers, Cooks etc, who are having a Form, alone could create objects having Form. Then how formless God could create this world having a Form?

V: Creators who have a visible Form could create things that are external to their bodies. They cannot create things within their bodies. For the creation of things that are external to their bodies the help of limbs like hands and legs are necessary. However these are not necessary for creation of things that are inside. There are no materials which are external to god. He pervades all. He is omnipresent. Hence no body is necessary for Him to create. A cook prepares food that is outside his body. Supposing if he prepares the food inside his body then who would eat the food? In such case why hands and legs are needed? The blood, bone, and marrow are formed inside the body without the help of hands and legs. Now think over. Sense organs create and watch external things. In case they were to watch what goes inside the body the life becomes miserable. How things will be if one were to smell inside body things, were to watch the flesh, blood, stools etc present inside the body? It is awful experience indeed! It is god’s grace that we see things that are external to the body.

K: Does the Creator pervade the created? Clock maker makes the clock. Clock is different from that of clock maker. The sweet maker makes the sweet. The sweet and sweet maker is different from each other. It is a universal principle that the maker is different from what is made. How it is possible that the God creates all and pervades all? Secondly it is not understood how things are created without the aid of hands and legs.

V:  The clock makers, sweet maker, are all creative men with finite abilities further bound by the limitation of space and time. They are together with the object created to the extent of action involved for creation. If they were not to be there the corresponding action would not have taken place. When we say that clock-maker made the watch it would mean that he assembled the machine parts. A clock-maker makes the watch but does not create it. The machine parts maker is with the clock when the machine parts are being assembled. If he was not present, the machine parts would not have joined together to become a clock. Similarly the machine maker is present with machine parts with action. If that was not the case the machine parts would not have been made. Similarly, the people who made steel [out of iron ore] used to make machine parts were with the steel and this would not have come off had they not been with steel. This goes to prove that behind making a clock many hands of creation are involved. The Creator is present with the every corresponding action. Similar is the case of Goldsmith, and others. They are the creators of their action. Many hands are involved before making a final product.

                        So it is clear that while making an object, apart from the maker, the help of many people are involved. Then only an object could be created. Why this is so? This is so because man has limited knowledge and limited abilities and he could create things with the coordinated efforts of others. Those Creators are with the created by their action. When they could associate with gross objects as such, why god is not present in the subtlest of the subtle, grossest of the gross Creation? Think for yourself. Creation does not mean just Sun, Moon, Stars, Mountains, Tress, Rivers, Human beings, Animals, Birds etc, There are many things which are endless subtle and beyond imagination. The Creation includes or a combination of all these things.

                                        Creation is made by an intelligent combination of atoms. Five gross elements, five principles of subtle entities called Panchatanmatras [speech, touch, vision, taste, and smell] five great elements called Panch-Mahabhootas [ether, air, water, fire and earth] are all created out of these atoms. The creation is made of out of these things. If the assembler of atoms is not with them how they can take shapes? There is no machinery in the world which can hold atoms together and bring out things out of them. The elements which are indivisible are called Atoms. God is immanent in all the atoms. Hence is able to form the grossest and subtlest things in the world. The atoms are the subtlest things in insensate [Jada] matters and God is more subtle than them. Hence he could pervade them. If this was not the case, he had to seek the help of outside agency similar to man taking the help of others for creating things. Hence it is clear that everyone is present to the extent of action involved for creation. Now the question how could things be created without hands and legs? Granting that these parts are necessary, a question that arises here as to who could have created these limbs? Here it should be understood, Hands and legs are the product of creation. When hands and legs could be created without the help of the latter is it not then possible for other parts of Creation to be had without the assistance of hands and legs? Are the hands and legs of a child in mother’s view being formed with any hands or legs? Seeds grow into plants and trees. And are they so made with hands and legs? It should be made clear here, that hands and legs could manufacture things that are related it. Is it possible to create mosquitoes and other minute creatures out of legs and hands? The circumference of the Earth where human beings reside is about 25000miles. There are planets like Mars, Uranus and stars like Sun in the Universe which are million times bigger than the Earth. Is it possible to create these objects with hands and legs? Only the omnipresent and omnipotent God has created these bodies in a purposeful manner.

K: Sister! Some how you initiate new subjects for discussion.  Where is the Rule being observed here? Are the things created as per Rule? Where is the method here? We see tall mountains, deep valleys, on the one side! And on the other side there exist dense forests, deserts, bushes, shrubs etc. Where is the method/order here? Like wise the world is formed haphazardly. Normally a system is followed. When a man builds a house, he provides for a living room, well, lavatory etc so as to make it hospitable. An agriculturist builds an agricultural farm, provides for a farm house, canals, varieties of plants and trees etc in a methodical manner. A shopkeeper arranges goods in order in the shop. So a Rule or method is followed by man, whereas I find Creation to be reckless and bizarre. As per my assessment no Rule or method is found to be in Creation.

V: It is utter foolish to say that no Rule or method is found in Creation. Why Sun should rise in East and set in west? Why not the other way round? Is there no Rule here? Even the best made human watch shows slight variation in being either fast or slow. But do you find a variation by a second in the movement of Sun and the Moon? How perfect are their movements? Based on the movements of Sun and Moon the eclipses occurring at a distant future could be predicted accurately. Similar is the state of things in respect of other cosmic bodies also. Now tell me why mango seed is obtained from Mango tree only. Why we cannot get oranges from Mango tree? Why man is born a baby, grows into adult and gets old. Why not he gets old first, youth later and baby there afterwards? Why see with eyes only and not heard from them? Why nose smells only but cannot taste? Are these not indicative of the presence of Rule here?

                     Mountains are found to be somewhere and so the rivers. Oceans, bushes, Forests are found to be at some other place. And to say that there is no Rule in creation because of this diversity is reflective of your ignorance. With what petty yardstick you are measuring the Creation? Normally people find fault in things they do not understand. This is universal phenomenon. This sort of reasoning could be likened to an ant which started climbing the body of man and telling that the head is like a forest, eyebrows as thorny fences, nose as a hillock with nostrils as tunnels, moustaches to bushy forests, etc and felt that man indeed should be awful creature. The ant bound by its limited intelligence assumes that body has been formed haphazardly.

           Supposing, for the convenience of ant, if the eyes, face, nose and other parts are removed and body is made flat then the ant might feel that the body had been constructed in orderly fashion. Now my point is body shaped to the requirement of an ant could satisfy the whims and fancies of an ant and it might even say that the human body was in order. But the body shaped to the ant’s requirement could ever remain human? Will the aesthetic intelligent transaction between the organs of perception and action occur there? Not at all. Take another example. An Engineer constructs a machine having hundreds of parts inside it. The shape and size of each part might be round, curved, square, big or small. The parts are made to the requirement of the machine. An ignorant person not aware of the importance of machine might think that the parts are too big or curved and he may even say that the parts have been assembled haphazardly. It is natural for an ignorant to think this way. But the machine maker knows well and he has assembled the parts as ought to have been done for the machine to work satisfactorily. If the machinery parts had been made either round or straight only the Machine would not have worked at all.

                 Similar is the position of Creation effected by God. The machinery called Creation has many parts. It has mountains, rivers, ocean, valleys, forests etc, etc. The Creation has a purpose and an object, i.e. welfare of human beings. For the ignorant, the parts of Creation appear as uncouth, useless and lacking in order, the reason being they are unaware of purpose of Creation. The usefulness of parts of Creation i.e., oceans, rivers, mountains etc is not understood. The examples of shopkeeper, agriculturist, etc that were given are too small and could be understood easily, whereas the laws of Creation are too subtle and complex to be understood. Just think over of the Brain thru which man makes laws. Even this brain is made by god who has formulated innumerable laws of Creation. If no laws were to be there who would have believed God? The existence of immutable laws provides the proof of existence of God.

K: O.K. God has made the Creation. Who has created the God?

V: Created matter is the effect. It [created matter] requires a material cause [base material] and the Maker is called Efficient cause. God is not a created-matter. He is Eternal and has No origin. Hence, the question, as to who created God does not therefore arise. Who could be creator for who is self-created? If the Creator were to have a creator then he cannot be called a Creator. He becomes a Cause then. He is alone a Creator who is self-independent. The matter- created, cannot be termed as Creator. The human bodies deemed as Creators are not Creators in the real sense. They are instruments or agencies that bring about Creation. The Soul is the Creator.  

K: O.K. Granting, that Creator has no Creator as such, then please tell me as to why should we accept the God? Why should we praise [stuthi] pray [prarthana] and communion [Upaasana] Him? How is He related to our lives?

K; Sister! You have been telling me to pray daily. I am asking you to whom we should pray? And where is that God?

K: You have told the wonderful. If god were to be everywhere then where are other things? All space  are occupied by God and if there is no place free from God then there is no place for other things. Were the other things  remaining  without a space ?

V: It is not that way sister! When it is said that there is no place free from God, it means that God is everywhere. This is my opinion and that is how it is told in a common language. God being there is not dependent on space. It is the   physical  elements that occupy the space.

 Earth, water, air, fire and their atoms, are those things that occupy space. But God pervades them all. Hence it is said that God is everywhere.

K: O.K. If God were to everywhere why He is not seen? When not seen, where is the proof of  his presence?

V: Are there are no objects present which are not seen? There are so many things in the world which are not seen. cold, hot, happiness, sorrow, time, direction, hunger, thirst, itching, pain, etc are there which are not seen. There may be many reasons for a thing not to be seen.  Like far off places say, like  Europe, America etc, many things are not seen. Are we able to see the kite or a bird flying at  a far off distance? Because of closeness of proximity also, eye is not able to see a thing. There are hundred of subtle things like atoms. Some like bacteria or virus could be seen only thru microscope. Water being covered with algae is not seen because of algae and like wise there are so many unseen because separated by cover. Because of dirt, a mirror is not seen and because of presence of a wall the man sitting across the wall is also not seen. Milk and water are both liquids and because of this water in milk is not seen. If there were to be trouble in the eye many things are not seen. A man affected with jaundice cannot see white objects. Hence it is not correct to say that things are not present just because they are un seen.

K: For me, I don’t believe in anything without seeing.

V: This shows your obduracy. I have already said that there are many things which are not seen and yet   we have to believe them. Good! Now, are you listening to  what I am telling?

K: Yes listening.

K: By ears of course

V: Are you sure that what I am telling?

K: Yes. Why not?

V:Are you seeing my words thru your eyes? Okay. Look here, I am having a flower in my hands. Which is that flower?

K: It is Rose.

K: Yes. It has a fragrance.

V: How did you come to  know about  this?

V: Tell me one thing. Did sugar was there in the milk that you drank overnight?

K: Thru My tongue.

V: Now I point out, that the sound was perceived thru ears, fragrance thru nose, and sugar thru tongue. Why this way? Why not did eyes perceive sound, ears the fragrance and nose the sugar? Even though the smell and fragrance was present why not the same was seen by eyes?

K; The senses perceive its subjects only and grasp knowledge. God is not perceivable by any sense organs. How could we believe that He  is present at all?

V: God is not seen and therefore he is not present  was your initial argument. Now you have turned over. You have agreed that there could be things not seen. It is separate issue that the knowledge of such unseen things could be had by other sense  organs. Now, you are asking how the presence of  God could be accepted when he is not perceivable by any sense organ. If you believe that God could not exist as He is not understood by senses, then how you understand these senses? If you believe that sense organs are understood by sense  organs only then it constitutes what is known as Atmashrya Dosha. This is because thru what is seen is not seen by itself. When their subjects are different by themselves how sense organs could understand the  sense  organs? The subject matter of eye is sight; ears sound; nose smell; tongue taste; skin touch. Nose cannot understand the eyes nor the  tongue can understand the ears.

K: How it cannot be  understood? When I hold mirror before me,  the eyes, ears, nose , tongue etc are forthcoming. The eyes are more forthcoming about knowledge of other organs.

V: Sister! This is your wrong understanding. What you see from your eyes is only a form or sight not the subjects. Will you see the subjects of other sense organs in the mirror? The eyeballs can see places of sense organs which have a form. The strength of these senses are present in that places. Can eyes disclose the entire knowledge about other sense organs? Eyes cannot see by itself. You are of the opinion that eyes are seen in a mirror. Now, I put a question. Tell me what is in my hand?

V: How did you see that there is a mirror in my hand?

K; Thru eyes of course.

V: When you said that you saw mirror thru eyes , it means before seeing a mirror eyes  had a knowledge. In other words it means to say that without eyes mirror would not have seen. Now tell me, whether thru eyes mirror is understood or vice versa? If eyes are understood thru mirror, even when eyes are dried up, the mirror should have caused the knowledge of the dried up eyes. When eyes are dried up , let alone causing the knowledge of eyes, mirror  cannot cause the knowledge of itself. If you think deeply, even eyes see the others with the help of other aids and not independently. It is however  true that sight cannot be seen without eyes but the knowledge of  sight  cannot be made  by eyes themselves.

K; What other aids are required for eyes? Eyes sees the Forms independently. The subject matter of eyes are sight. How do you say that eyes don’t see independently?

V: Hence it is clear that eyes are not just enough to see. It requires light. If there were to be no light eyes are helpless. And even if both light and eyes were to remain present  and the object is not stationary then also we cannot see. If you place the book too close to your eyes you cannot read. Similarly also we cannot read letters in a book held at a distance. Therefore to read letters book is to be held at a definite distance and place. Further, even the object at a place and light were to be there and  if eyes were removed from the mind, in that event also we cannot see. There are many occasions where mind is involved in some work, the objects are not seen by the eyes even though they  may pass thru our front. In such circumstances, if you were to ask a person whether he observed certain things he would say “ no, I did not watch”. Now you would have understood what are the aids that are required to see a particular object.

V: Have you not understood as yet? If you cannot perceive God thru sense organs, you cannot understand sense organs thru sense organs. But even then we have to accept the sense organs. Then why doubt about the acceptance of existence of God.

K: How we can understand the senses?

V: Sense organs are understood by the Soul thru experience. When he perceives sound, smell, Form,etc he understands “ That there are aids within me and I am getting the benefit thru them”

K: And how we could understand the God?

V: God could be understood by experience.

K: How the experience is got?

V: God is felt thru Soul.

V: When mind is got rid of three faults.

K: What are these faults?

K: What are its characteristics?

V: The thinking of doing bad to others and the effects of Sins fallen on Soul [sanskars] is called Mala. Constantly thinking over the worldly objects[materialism] and lack of firmness in mind is referred to as Vikshepa. The impact formed on mind about the pride of temporary worldly things is referred to as Avarana.

K: How can we overcome the above three faults?

V: There are three ways thru which we can overcome these three hurdles.

K: What are they?

V: Knowledge, [Jnana] Action[Karma] and Communion [ Upaasana]

K: What you mean by Knowledge, Action and worship?

V: Understanding the matter as it is, i.e. to treat inert matter  as inert[Jada] Conscious entities [ Chetan] as Conscious[Chetan] and transitory things as transitory  things marks the  Knowledge. To work for the welfare of Soul, Body and Society and to try for the acquisition of ennobling things  is referred to as Action. To approach a material and  overcoming his shortcomings based on the strength of that  material   is referred to as Communion.  Consider for a while, that  a person is down with cold. If he approaches water for the removal of cold it betrays  his ignorance, not knowledge. If he is aware of fire and tries to obtain fire thru Action and approaches fire for the removal of cold then only he gets rid of cold. From Knowledge, the Mala is overcome, from Action, Vikshepa, is got rid of and finally thru Communion  the effect of Avarana is kept away. Then only God is felt.

 K: Make this point more clear. How the faults of Mala, Vikshepa, and Avarana are removed respectively by Knowledge, Action, and Communion respectively?

V: With the help of Knowledge, it should be understood that all worldly things, all living beings are not permanent. For this reason, not entertaining the  feeling of snatching away  the rights of others is a step in the direction of removal of evil  of Mala. By thinking that worldly things are the end all and be all and appropriating them with that spirit  would cause infirmity of mind  or Vikshepa. It is true that materials in the world are means to an end. But they are not end by themselves nor they could be life ideals. According to this principle, the action of man should be dispassionate, like a lotus in a water pond. This is type of Karma which drives away Vikshepa. Looking upon the God gifted things as something his own is the thing that makes a deep imprint on the mind of man and this prompts him to treat money, women, land as his own which   causes self-pride and this cast spell over his mind. Further with the strength of these material possessions he starts tormenting the others. He thinks there are no superior to him. But instead, when he does Action with full Knowledge then he withdraws all forces inside and with concentration thinks that “ God is with me and I am with God” in his heart then he gets away from the evil of Avarana. Hence by constant efforts and resorting to Knowledge, Action and Communion he is able to drive away the three evils Mala, Vikshepa and Avarana. Then only he can the feel the presence of God.

K; Sister, you are very clever and good at logic. Now tell me why God is necessary to this world at all?

V: Why God is necessary to the world? Very good question. If God were not to be there then how is the world is created?. Who can create Sun, Moon, mountains, rivers, Air, water, ether, stars, forests, Trees, fruits, Milk, honey animals, birds, water creatures, snakes, etc. Who else can create these things and species?

K: Why God is necessary for the creation of these things? They are self-formed and has been there always.

V: If things in the world could form themselves without the help of creator, then food should  have there without a cook, pot without a potter, ornaments without a goldsmith, sweet without sweet maker, dress without a tailor etc. Secondly any thing in the world does not remain permanently. Every thing in the world has a origin, growth, decay, and ultimately destruction. All big to very big things have been created and gets destroyed in the end..

K: I don’t see that God creates things. It does not appear as such. All things are formed by themselves and this order is there from time immemorial. Earth, water, Air, Fire, and their atoms are in existence in the world. These elements keep on joining themselves in the creation of new and newer things and getting destroyed separately. Where is the work of God involved  here?

V: Your opinion does not stand  to facts. The Earth and the other elements and their atoms are inert matters. They don’t join themselves without joining them and do not disintegrate without getting disintegrated. Joining and Unjoining  are mutually hostile qualities. These qualities do not stay together. There may any number of qualities in a matter but not mutually hostile qualities. If the nature of a thing  is to associate they keep on associating. and on the other hand disintegrating is their quality they keep on disintegrating. They do not join with mutually hostile qualities. If you were to say that joining and disintegrating are the nature of a matter, those qualities which are  predominant will have a say over the other. For ex, if joining is the predominant quality, it never allows the world to disintegrate. If disintegrating is the nature of a matter and remains predominant it never allows the world to stay together. If both qualities are held to be equal then no object can be formed in the world. But we are seeing where an object is formed, remains for a while and gets destroyed. You may imagine any number of qualities in physical matters, but without God, Creation, sustenance, and dissolution is not possible in the matter called Prakrithi. There is difference in Conscious[ Chetan] and Non-Conscious[ Jada}forces. The Non-Conscious cannot do anything on their own. It keeps working with the help of Conscious forces only. The Conscious being is capable of doing, not doing or undoing anything. This is the natural qualities of Conscious beings.

K: The person who creates a thing in the world is directly  visible. The goldsmith, potter, the sweet maker, the bird which builds the nests are  all seen. If God were to be creator of this world he would have been visible.

V: Believe me. The maker in the world is not at all visible. It is totally false to say that the goldsmith, Sweet maker, potter are visible. You may ask how? Listen. People like Potter, Goldsmith etc are creators who are made of twin elements, Body and Soul, The body to a soul is an instrument to do a function. Only when soul uses the  instrument called body a material  is formed. Without the instrument called body a material cannot come off. The goldsmith, potter etc are physical bodies which are visible and are made of five elements called earth, water, fire, air and sky. But the soul who makes use of this body is not at all visible. The body without the soul cannot create things. Likewise without body, a soul cannot do anything either. His strength is of limited character. Hence God grants him a body which is visible. But God is of  limitless potentialities, omnipresent and omniscient. He does things without a body. The soul is also a creator like God, albeit with a limited strength and abilities . God is a creator of all. Both God and Soul  are not visible.

K: If God is without Body then how is that He can create the world. No function is ever possible without an instrument called  body.

V: Now the time is over. Tomorrow morning answer to this question will be given.

K:   When this “Namaste” greeting started? What does it mean?

V:   Since the days of Creation till the date of Mahabharata period, all men were greeting each other with Namaste. Later, with the advent of many religions and practices, men started using their own forms of greeting. One said Good morning, Good night, good bye and other said “Aslam alekum, Valekum salaam, Adam arj, and still others said something else as a form of greeting the other. Among others, Hindus also resorted to telling Jai Krishna, Jai Ram, Jai Govind, Jai Radheshyam, Pranaam, juhar etc. Until Mahabharata period the whole world was under Aryan rule. People followed Vedic Dharma. They used to greet with Namaste only until then.. Now, with the efforts and grace of Swami Dayanand people have started understanding the tenets of Vedic Dharma and have again started using Namaste to greet the other. Now, you have sought to know the meaning of Namaste. Let me state that it would mean “I respect you, I regard you”

K: Have Vedas commanded that we should say Namaste? What is wrong in greeting with Jai Ramji, Jai Krishanji?

V: Why Vedas only? Namaste as a form of greeting is found written in Ramayana, Mahabharata, Upanishads, Geetha and other ancient books. No reference is found for jai Ram, jai Krishna in these books. Infact Ram and Krishna were themselves doing Namaste since they followed Vedic Dharma. Ram was born a few lakh years ago and Krishna was here before 5000years. Creation of this world backs to even earlier period and it is said that around 195 crores of years are over since the creation is done. I have told you earlier, that greeting with other than Namaste is the creation of traditionalists. You ask what is faulty with JaiRam and Jai Krishna. Faults are not one but many. First it evokes the feelings of sectarianism. There are no meanings of regard or love in them when two men greet each other. There are people of varying ages in society. Hence while meeting each other it is necessary that they express regard or sense of equality in the interest of humanity, decorum and dignity. Instead, chanting wishing victory to traditional gods in the form of JaiRam and Jaikrishna is unbecoming for the learned. Further, with these words we are also not expressing any feelings to them. By the by who are we to chant victory to gods? Instead when we say namaste to you it would mean that you are to be regarded or respected. Expressing appropriate words suited to the occasion is a hallmark of dignity and culture. Instead of doing so if we say Ram ki Jai or krishnaki jai it is totally irrelevant and would amount to arranging a vehicle for a person who is sitting before a table and asking for food. Each person is to be respected, fittingly as elder or younger. The Vedas command that namo mahadbyo nama abhrakebhybho namo yuvabhyo nama ashinebhyah ie, young and old including children are to be respected: parents deserve respects; sons and daughters are also due for respects.

K: while telling Ramki jai, krishnaki jai, at least we remember them

V: No doubt they are remembered. But is it necessary that at times when we are required to show humility, respect, and love that we should chant Ramkijai, krishnakijai? It is inappropriate and not in order to chant these words at all times and at all occasions. It sounds well when these slogans hailing Ram and Krishna are chanted aloud, in a narration where Ram kills Ravan or when Krishna vanquishes Kansa. How beautiful is the slogan “Ramnam satya”? But, is it then appropriate to say so at all times? If this were to be OK for all occasions then spell them during the marriage time. It sounds awful and People will take you to task and you will be roughed up (In North India while the body is being taken for cremation, people would be chanting Ramnam satyahai in order to impress, that the world is transient and God is alone permanent}

K: Now should we greet with Namaste to everyone? It is nice if the son greets his father with Namaste. But what system is this if father were to greet his son, mother to daughter, with Namaste? Does it it not look odd if younger to elder, younger to older, lowly to the high, and high to the lowly to say Namaste?

V: Good! Please tell me should not man show love towards his mother?

K: Yes. He must show love towards his mother.

V: should not the man show love towards his brother?

V: should not show love towards his daughter?

V: I believe he is not wrong in showing love towards his wife.

V: Now, I ask. What sort of practice is this that all should be shown love? Love to mother, sister, daughter, wife, father, son, brother?  Same word to all? Love towards all? What sort of decorum?

K: The sense of feeling of love is different with each person, mother, son, wife, sister and others

V: Like wise, there are different feelings while doing Namaste. When we show love to parents we show faith in them. Between sisters the love assumes the form of being friendly. With the wife love becomes romantic. With the God the love becomes devotion. Similarly when we do Namaste to our parents it indicates respect to them. While doing Namaste to sons-daughters it coveys blessings to them. Between friends it indicates regard to each other and for children it is being of kind to them. All these feelings are inherent in one word called Namaste. The purpose of these feelings is common, i.e, and respect to all. As the word love includes the feelings of respect, faith, friendliness, romance, likewise Namaste includes other forms of feelings of respect, blessings, love etc. The word Namah has meanings that include food, bowing, Rule, discipline. When we say Namaste to the elderly it indicates humility. Between equals it indicates strength. When said namaste to the young it bestows the wishes of food, strength, discipline. Even when we ignore other meanings and take one meaning indicating bowings only it evokes great feelings. When said namaste to the elders it means bowing with humility and when said to equal it means that I bow to to uplift you.

K: You have removed my misgivings. Now you clarify whether meat eating is good or bad.

V: Let us discuss it tomorrow. It is getting late.

K: you please clarify whether Jaati is by birth or thru Action?

V: Jaati is from birth. And not thru Karma

K: You were telling me on the other day that a person becomes Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/shudra by his Karma and now you are telling me that it is by birth.

V: True. Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/shudra are there because of their Guna (quality of mind) and Karma [competence and capacity] whereas Jaati comes from birth.

K: What does it mean? Are not Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/shudra castes? Or Jaatis?

V: No. they are Varnas. A thing that remains constant from birth to death and which does not undergo change is called Jaati. For ex, Human species, animal species etc.Man does not become animal and an animal does not become human.

V: Why Varna should not undergo change? The meaning of Varna itself is “to choose” when Varna is dependent on Karma, naturally Varna gets changed on account of Guna and Karma.

K: Then did not God create Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/shudra Varnas?

V: God has created Jaatis. God thru Vedas has ordained creation of Varnas based on Guna and Karma.

K: From which Guna and Karma Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/shudra are made?

V: The Vedas by employing a figurative speech [body metaphor] has ordered the following.

       Uru tadasva yadvyshyah padbhyam shudro ajayata

                                                                    [Yajurveda 31.12]

       Meaning; A Brahmin is akin to face of body called Society. The Kshtriya is its arms. The Vyashya is its trunk and the Shudra is its limbs.

              The facial part of the body has the chief organs of perception. It has ears, nose, tongue, eyes and skin which are related to five senses of perception. The face part of the body is knowledge predominant as it is recipient of knowledge that is perceived thru the five senses. Further, while the other parts of body are covered to protect itself from vagaries of weather the face is however is always is kept open and withstands adverse weather conditions. Whatever things that these organs of perception are received or perceived the same is transmitted to other parts of body and nothing is retained. Hence the person who has the qualities of knowledge, fortitude, and sacrifice is known as Brahmin.

           The reason why Arms are likened to Kskhtriya is for the reason that Arms are source of powers and therefore power predominant. Whenever the body is attacked it is the arms that rush in to defend the body first. Hence the person who could protect his subjects with his power tempered with justice could be called a Kshatriya.

          The trunk portion of body is called Vysya is for the reason that after collecting the air and food they are rendered pure and digested and the energy so produced is sent to all parts of body for sustenance. Hence he who earns wealth and distributes the same among the members of society could be called Vyshya.

          Similarly, there are sound reasons for having likened limbs to shudra. Firstly the feet carry the entire weight of the entire body. It takes the body to the desired destinations with its strength. It has neither knowledge nor power or money of the above three Varnas. Hence it cannot serve the society with these items of service. However it possesses the strength of labor so essential for the survival of Society. Hence those who serve the society by the virtue of their labor are addressed as shudras. Brahmins must serve the Society with their knowledge, Kshtriyas with their physical courage and strength, the Vyshyas with their wealth power and Shudras with their strength of labor. This is Varnatva of Varna System

K: I see some amount of Knowledge, strength, resources [money] and spirit of enterprise [labor] being present in all human beings. Viewed this way, man has all four Varnas. Then how could the system of Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/shudra could be formed?

V: This is quite true. Every human being possesses the qualities of four Varnas in varying proportions. However the Varna is decided on the basis of predominant quality being present in each human being. It is a fact that one or the other qualities of each Varna is predominantly present invariably in all human beings. One person remains intelligent, the other is physically strong and yet another possesses the business acumen and the next is good at physical labor. Varna is decided on the predominant quality. Vedas have described the issues in seed form and the intelligent have understood this metaphor.

K: Please explain the functions-duties that count for each Varna.

V: He, who has the qualities of control of senses, restraint, Fortitude, purity, peace, gentleness, knowledge, Science, and believes in the Existence, is to be called as Brahmin. He who has qualities of Heroism, courage, valor, efficiency, resolute in war, philanthropic, and inclined to dispense Justice as is done by Just God is Kshtriya. He, who protects cow and other useful animals, does Agriculture, proficient in Trade and commerce is a Vyashya indeed.  He, who is efficient in physical labour and supports the other Varnas with his sheer labour qualities, is a Shudra.

K: What wrong is there in accepting Varna by birth? Millions of people believe in Varna based on birth.

V: According to even those who believe Varna is by birth, Varna is established by Guna and Karma only. Because as per their view, all the 3 Varnas viz, Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/ are deemed to come under “Dwija” and Shudra under “Ekaja” category. He who has two births is a Dwija. Similarly, those beings which are having two births are also called Dwija. For ex, the human teeth and birds. The milk teeth fall off and new set of teeth are formed. In the beginning stage, egg is formed followed by a bird. Now Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/ should think over what is their second birth. By birth all are “Ekajas”. Then how is that they become “Dwijas”? They become “Dwijas” thanks to the grace of mother called education and father called Acharya and thru these they get their second birth and become Dwija. The Acharya confers the Varna based on their qualification, merit and inclination. This was how Varna system was obtaining in ancient days. Parents were sending their children to Gurukulas. The Acharya on completion of their education were conferring the deserving Varna based on merit and qualification.

K: Then does not the son of Brahmin become a Brahmin and shudra’s son a Shudra?

V: Not necessarily. Is it necessary that Doctor’s son should be a Doctor? And a teacher’s son a teacher? And a lawyer’s son to become a lawyer? When the son does not has the requisite merit how could he ascend to the post of his father?

K: I believe similar to the way a donkey begets a donkey and horse begets a horse, mango is got from a mango tree, a Brahmin is begotten to Brahmin and so in the case of Shudra.

V: I have already made it clear that donkeys, horses etc are a kind of jaatis (species) and a specific Jaati begets its own Jaati. Whereas Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/shudra are all Varnas. They keep changing as per Guna and Karma. The Jaati however does not change. A donkey does not become horse. They remain as they were until death.

K: In my view Varnas do not undergo change. He is in the same Varna where he was born.

V: Your remark that Varna does not undergo change is fantastic indeed! Now tell me If Varna were not to change how come that a Brahmin or Kshtriya becomes a Muslim or Christian? This country has about 20 crores Muslims and majority of them are converts from Hindu society, which consisted four Varnas. How these people got changed? If Varnas were to be god made they would not have been converted. God made things do not undergo change. Does mango ever becomes an apple? Does god made lion could ever become an elephant? Take any matter. Things which are god made remain changeless. If Brahmin had been created by God then he would have continued to remain a Brahmin even after his conversion to Islam or Christianity. Is this so? When there is a change in Guna and Karma a Brahmin ceases to be Brahmin.

K: Sister! Let him be a Muslim or Christian. A Brahmin continues to remain as Brahmin even after his conversion although it could be stated that after his conversion he is not suited to the job held by him earlier. A sweet dropped in a gutter becomes unfit for eating but nevertheless it continues to be sweet as ever.

V: Sister! You say that a Brahmin continues to remain as Brahmin even after his conversion to Islam. Then why such converts are not called as Brahmins? Why you call them as Muslims? Why you don’t call them as Muslim Brahmin or Christian Brahmin as the case may be? Your analogy that a sweet in a gutter is unfit for eating may be o.k. but tell me does a child or horse or cow fallen in a gutter become useless?  Would your gold bangles become useless when fallen in a gutter? No would be your answer. All that is fallen in a gutter does not become useless. Even a rupee maintains its worth found in a gutter. Your logic however does not apply to Varnas, but to species. A laddu does not become a jelebhi and man continues to be man in similar circumstances. At any cost a donkey does not become a horse. Form will not change. This is the difference between Varna brought about by Guna and Karma.

K: Then is it that Varna is not determined by the form?

V: No. Varnas are determined by Guna and Karma. If Varnas were to be recognized by the Form, question about asking his/her Varna would not have arisen at all? This underlines the fact that Varna is brought about by Guna and Karma. If God had created Varna he would have given some identification for recognizing each Varna. As already explained, horse, deer, cock etc, have their own forms/ shapes and even a child could recognize them. So also the case of vegetable kingdom. A scholar is not needed to recognize which is mango or apple. However Varna of a person in an unknown group of people cannot be identified. This is to be ascertained.

K: Is it not remotely possible to identify Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/shudra by color or texture of their skin? I have heard big scholars telling Varnas are god made.

V: It is not based on color or texture of skin or even by the size of physique. Can you identify the Varna of a child among hundreds born in hospital? It is just impossible. God is kind that he has made Varna to be based on Guna and Karma.

V: No Varna is superior to others. In their scope of work all jobs are big and important. In the context of thinking the Head is supreme. Whereas on the question of preventing harm to body the hands are supreme. In the matters of digestion of food and distribution of energy the stomach is supreme. For withstanding the weight of body and taking it here and there the legs play very pivotal part and they are supreme. Similarly when the society is to be served thru knowledge Brahmins become supreme and when the society is to be defended the Kshtriya is supreme and for production and distribution of wealth the Vyashya is vital and where labor is required the Shudra become important. Hence no Varna is supreme by itself.

K: I had thought that Brahmins were superior followed by Kskatriya followed by Vyashya and Shudra was considered as lowest in the ladder.

V: This is totally incorrect. Superiority or inferiority may arise between people belonging to same Varna and not between people of different Varnas. We may compare between a lawyer who earns Rs 500- a day with another who earns Rs5000/- a day. But is it wise to compare between a Doctor who earns Rs500/- a day with a lawyer who earns Rs5000/- a day? Can we say that a doctor who earns less is inferior? As already stated the degree of comparison may arise within the same Varna and NOT between different Varnas.

V: Varna system based on Guna and Karma is prevalent in all the countries of the globe although the Varnas are not known as Brahmana/Kshatriya/ Vysya/shudra. The Varnas are categorized as intellectuals, Military men, Businessmen and Labour. The system is world wide.

K: Thanks sister. Now tell me how Namaste greeting started?