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

V:   Your question was what was wrong in assuming God had a form? Okay. There are many faults that are involved in treating God as having a form. Firstly, God is known as Sachitananda.   This has three words.viz, “Sat”  “Chit” and “Anand”. The term “Sat” means being present uniformly at all times, present, past and future. In the other words, that which does not undergo change is called as “Sat”.  That which is Knowledge is known as “Chit” The term “Anand” indicates free from sorrow at all times which is known as Bliss. God is called Satchitananda because He is changeless, His knowledge is never destroyed, and who never experiences any sorrow.

                 It is in this context we should see how the objects in the world fare. All the things that have a form in the world are all subject to change and therefore they are not “Sat”. Only formless God and soul could be called under “Chit” Whoever is having a form or body cannot be away from sorrows. He does not enjoy happiness at all the times. He is afflicted with the feeling of hot and cold, hunger and thirst, fear and sorrow, sickness-ageing-death. God is distinct from these two.

              The first fault in assuming God as having a Form, is with a form, he ceases to be Satchitananda and changeless. This is because all bodies have inbuilt qualities of birth- growth-decay and death. God is above these characteristics.
              The second fault is God with a body becomes finite; Whereas God is infinite in nature. He is omnipresent.
             The third fault with god having a form is He begins to cease “Beginning less and endless” This is because every thing with a form has an origin and therefore it has a beginning. It cannot be called as beginning less and endless. The thing which has an origin must have an end. That which is created is destroyed in the end.
              The fourth fault is God with a body cannot be “All-Knowing” for the reason a body is limited by space and time and therefore it cannot have knowledge of all things. Because of this God cannot become “Antaryami” He cannot understand the mind of everybody.
             The fifth fault is God ceases to be eternal. That which remains and has no reason for being remainant is called “Nitya” He being Nitya is not a combination of things. Whereas the things that have a form is the combination of certain elements.
            The sixth fault is God instead of being supporter of all He himself becomes dependent on others. The entire world is dependent on God and He is supporter of all. He has assumed the entire world. Whereas if God is treated as having a body He is required to be dependent on some other material. Precisely, for this reason, the traditionalists have set apart places treating God with a body. Some have placed God in seventh heaven, others at Kailas, golok, etc. It is funny that God who is a supporter of the entire world have made himself dependent. If God were to remain dependent on world then how the world could support itself?  Similarly there are so many faults in treating the god with a form or body.

K: God is no doubt formless. However, Scholars are of the opinion that God takes shape and reincarnates from time to time. For ex, vapor is formless but when required by time it takes a gross form. We can multiply such examples. When physical things could be formless and yet could assume shape why not God who is formless, could not take a form?

V:  The example of water vapor and fire pointed out does not appear to be correct. Water and fire are not basic elements. Many atoms make for water vapor and this take gross shape in the form of cloud and again become water. If water vapor were to be made of one atom then it would not have taken gross form. So is the case of Fire. Many atoms make a fire ball and assume a gross form. To say that fire is all pervading and formless is totally wrong notion. Fire is subtler than earth and water elements. Hence it could be said that fire is pervading in Earth and water. But it is not pervading in air and ether. But it is true that both water and air is pervading in fire for the reason these are more subtle than fire. The subtle pervades the gross. In all things where fire is pervading they have shape and form. All the things in the world which have a form are caused because of all pervading fire. Because the quality of fire is form. Physical things become gross from subtle by the association of many atoms. God is omnipresent, and all alone. He cannot therefore assume shape and take a form. Now, about the god descending from time to time. This is only assumption and nothing else. The term Avatar means to descend and ascend. Only a finite bodies can do this and not applicable to infinite entity like God. The act of ascending, descending, Avatar, coming and going is unthinkable about an entity which is omnipresent. Wherefrom He can come and go when He is found to be everywhere?

K: Does not God take Avatar to vanquish Ravan, Kans, Hiranyakashipu etc? I have heard that God takes Avatar whenever Dharma is threatened?

V: God has not taken Avatar ever nor He will ever do so in future. From time to time great men are born who have vanquished the wicked, showed the right path and therefore people have called them with some honorific titles. Some people have named them as Nabi or son of God. Still some other has described such great men as Avatar or God personified. But the fact remains that great men remained as such. Why you don’t talk rationally? Can God not capable of destroying by remaining formless?  Hundreds of living beings are born every second and does God goes on destroying them? With one earth quake lakhs of men are killed. Epidemics wipe out hundreds of living beings. Is it sensible to believe that God takes Avatar just to kill wretched beings? Do men like Ravan, Kans ever count? Is it not ludicrous and insulting to God to assume god taking avatar to kill the wicked when He is capable of Creating, Sustaining and destroying the world? It is also not free from blame to say that God takes Avatar when Dharma is threatened. Probably those people who believe in Avatars believe this to be true. But they stand condemned by their own statement. Look! The people having belief in Avatar agree on Ten Avatars and also four Yugas. These Yugas are viz, Satyayuga, Threthayuga, Dwaparyuga and Kaliyuga. In Satyayuga, Dharma stands on four steps. In Threthayuga it stands on three steps, in Dwapara Dharma and Adharma stands equally on two steps each. In other words in Dwapara the elements of Punya [Virtue] and Papa rests on three steps and Virtue [Punya] rests only on one step. Now think of the order of Avatars in all the yugas. It is said four Avatars took place in Satyayuga, three Avatars in Threthayuga and two in Dwaparayuga. And they believe one Avatar taking place at the end of Kaliyuga. Now what is to be pondered over here, why four Avatars took place in Satyayuga when Dharma was resting on all four steps and no Adharma was present. In Threthayuga when Dharma was resting on three steps why three Avatars? Why one less? When in Dwapar when both Dharma and Adharma was present in the proportion of 50:50 why only two Avatars? In Kaliyug when Dharma and Adharma is in the ratio of 25:75 why only one Avatar is outstanding and that too at the end of the Yug? Logically speaking, the number of Avatars should be more with the increase in the proportion of Non-virtue. Whereas the number of Avatars went of decreasing with the rise in the proportion of Non-Virtue. Now tell me what is the relationship between Avatars with the loss of Dharma?

K:  The Avatar men have shown amazing things not capable of being done by ordinary men. For ex, lifting of Govardhan Mountain with little finger, etc. Because of this we are compelled to believe that they are all Avatars of God.

V: First of all it is wrong to say that someone lifted a mountain with a finger. Even if we accept this could be true, this does not demonstrate anyway the greatness of God or God’s avatar. You may ask why? Before God, who has upheld Sun, planets and countless stars the lifting of Govardhan Mountain appears to be too trifle. There are hundreds of Mountains big and small in the world you live. God has upheld the world and what greatness is involved in upholding a Govardhan Mountain? What heroism is there in upholding a Govardhan Mountain? This is like a student of M.A answering a paper set for 3 rd standard. Yes. If a 3rd standard boy were to answer a paper for M.A then it deserves full praise. This is because it is unbelievable. If God’s Avatar were to lift a mountain there is nothing great or amazing here.

K: If God were not to take Avatar then how to believe that God is All-Powerful?  Where is his   omniscientness of God if He could not take an Avatar? He is All-Powerful who could do anything.

V: You are irrational. If God were to take Avatar he ceases to be All-Powerful and gets reduced to an entity with limited strength. You may wonder how? He who was doing things earlier without a body and limbs will now start doing the work with limbs. Earlier he was seeing things without eyes. Now he sees with his physical eyes. Earlier he was listening without ears. Now he listens with physical ears. The import of this is, earlier to taking Avatar he was doing everything without a body and now he is dependent on body. Where is His omniscient ness when he becomes dependent? Like the man with finite knowledge depending on Body God also becomes dependent on body. Now where is the difference between man and god? God also becomes subject to hunger and thirst, cold and hot that torment a man. Hate, Love, fever that man experience will also be felt by God. The extraordinary thing is God becomes subservient and not at all remain Independent. He requires food, water, clothes and shelter. How could you say that he is all powerful when he starts depending on his body for execution of jobs when earlier he was doing everything with no support from any side?   A person with just a blink of an eye makes a person unconscious and yet another make him unconscious with the help of a drug. Who is powerful among these two? Definitely the person who renders unconscious with a blink of an eye for the reason he does not dependent on drugs for this job.

               Now, you would have understood that God is more powerful without taking Avatar. It is totally wrong notion to believe that being All- Powerful means that He is capable of doing everything. All-Powerful means that all powers are with him. He can join subtle things and could disintegrate them. He would award the human beings based on their Karma. He could create, sustain and dissolve the world and run it as per laws. He requires nobody’s help in the execution of his jobs. That is the meaning of being all-powerful or omniscient. Rendering impossible things as possible is not the meaning of being All-Powerful.


K: Does God not make impossible the possible?  He is no God who cannot make impossible things possible.

V: Not making impossible things possible, not undoing the Rule [i.e. making or mending the rules] is God’s divinity. If you were to believe that God could turn impossible to possible then I would ask “can God kill himself? Or can God create another God? Please reply.

K: God may not kill himself. But since he is All-Powerful He could create another God as equal to himself.

V:  No Sister! God cannot create another God of equal standing. You may ask why? Listen. Now imagine that God has created another God. Now is this created god could be equal to the creator? No. This is because one is old God and another is Created God. One is Visible God and another is invincible God and thus there are two Gods. One is ageless because he is eternal. The age of other God has just begun for he is created. The first God is all-pervading and other is pervaded. Both cannot become all-pervading.  If you were of opinion that both are pervading 50:50 then none are omniscient and omnipresent. Hence all-Pervading does not mean that He could do everything and anything. God could do which could be done by him.

K: What is wrong in accepting that god could take Avatar? What is the risk here?

V: When God could not Avatar at all, the acceptance of God taking Avatar, would amount to twisting and killing the truth. This is the first danger. Secondly God himself gets entangled in decadence. Narayan becomes Nara. Nara becoming Narayan could be treated as growth, but the reverse is definitely a sign of downfall. If a poor becomes rich then it is his real improvement but if a rich becomes poor it is definitely a sign of retrograde progress.  Thirdly, a fraudulent declares himself as an Avatar and misleads the followers. He makes money out of them and leads a sinful life. There are umpteen examples in Bharath where some fraudulent men have declared themselves as Avatars and totally cheated the people. Fourthly, people start tolerating the injustice and fraud. People begin watching loot, murder rape and destruction of property by hooligans and don’t protest against them. They feel it is not in their hands to prevent the injustice and of the opinion that only when God takes Avatar he would put down effectively all the cases of injustice. Then only that Dharma reins and evil is vanquished. This sort of wishful thinking is due to the belief in the concept of Avatar. Communities or group of people who don’t believe in the concept of God taking Avatar stand firm against assaults  and resist firmly the cases of injustice and destruction bravely. They firmly believe that God has given those hands to protect themselves and never tolerate Adharma. They don’t look towards God for jobs that could be done by them. To be frank, the theory of Avatarvad has ruined the Aryan community and destroyed their self-confidence. This has caused untold hardships for Aryans and contributed to their prolonged slavery. Our history is a witness to this tragedy.

K: Your logic is fine, convincing and effective. Now tell me how to meditate on God who is said to be formless.

V: It is really God’s kindness that the effect of true principles have made impression on you. I will reply to your question 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?