edit my essay for me diversity workplace business plan hitler leadership essay google drive business plan online masters creative writing

sex movies

سكس عربي

arabic sex movies



سكس xxx

The Chicago-Prashnottar: 36-40 Questions & Answers

Published: 05.07.2011
Updated: 10.07.2011

36. Question:

Since the soul is affected with illusion or perverted knowledge it is necessary to preach the monistic theory.


When the illusion of the soul is gone, it will certainly change its condition and when there is such a change, Dualism comes in of itself. When a man preaches Advaitism to another man it is taken for granted that another man exists. To be preaching monism to another man and at the same time believing in its truths is just like saying that one's father has been a celibate from his birth. Certainly such a man is devoid of all sense. Believing in the existence of oneself and of another is nothing else than Dualism. To believe in monism is therefore destitute of all reasoning.

37. Question:

The existence of one Supreme soul is enough to show the baselessness of all knowledge relating to differences.


This argument of yours is also wrong in as much as the existence of one Supreme soul has not been proved.

If there is such an existence is it self-evident or proved by the help of some other evidence? It is not self-evident for if it were so, none could have any controversy about it. If it is proved by means of other evidence, is that evidence empirical or scriptural? If this evidence is empirical, what is the argument? Please explain.

38. Question:

The argument is this that the matter which is under discussion relates to the interpénétration of the Brahma in the outward phenomena, because whatever appearances there are, have for their background some underlying principle.

In other words all phenomena have nomena behind them, just as the functions of the body which are outwardly apparent have the soul for their underlying principle. Since all sentient and insentient phenomena are under consideration their outward appearance cannot be accounted for without there being some underlying principle behind them. The instances of a pot, a piece of cloth, &c. &c. are illustrative of this position.


This argument of yours is not correct because the existence of the subject master to be proved, the reasoning proving it and the example illustrating it, is only by way of proof.

39. Question:

There are two kinds of eternal substances (1) one God - the material cause of the universe and (2) matter which is eternal. The matter consists of the atoms of Earth, Water, Fire, and Air, and of Space, Direction, Soul, mind and time. These nine substances are eternal and beginningless - not made by any one. With the aid of these Sod creates the world.

The manner in which God is considered the Creator of the world by religionists is this. "He is one - the creator of the world. He is omnipresent, eternal and self-dependent. He is the Lord of this visible world and its multitudes of beings."

Those who believe in the creation of the world by God hold that the earth, mountains, trees &c. in as much as they are effects, are the work of an intelligent Being. The world is a product just like a pot. It is therefore the production of an intelligent Being who is none else than God. If you say that this argument is untenable because the earth, mountains, trees &c. are produced by the combination of their innate causes and are therefore effects, and have bodies; this is not right. Nor can it be said that this argument is many-sided and contradictory as it is very remote from the position of the opponents. Nor can it be urged that this argument is beyond the basis of Time as the direct evidence is not barred by the scripture - the subject and its attributes being different. Nor can it be said that this argument is not cognate as what is to be proved is not established by the absence of the contrary proposition. Nor can it be said that God is not the creator of the world because of Him having no body and being just as a liberated soul. There is a conflict between the first and second propositions which does not allow the statement that God is the creator of the world, to be established. By denying a body to God, He has not been proved the creator of the world. We believe in God having a body and therefore our proposition is correct. God is only one. If there were many Gods, there would be a divergence of views among them in the accomplishment of a work (taken up by all simultaneously). As there is none else to check them their differences will continue and the accomplishment of the work be interfered with.

The case would be that one God is creating a man with four legs, another with six legs, the third, with two legs and the fourth, with eight legs. In this manner all other things will be made variously. There would in such a case be general confusion and disorder in the world.

But no such disorder is seen; hence the creator is only one God. God is also omnipresent and omniscient. If God were not omnipresent, the things which would be created simultaneously in all the three worlds would never be created at the same time because only where potters are present, pots will be made and not where they are not present. God is omniscient. If He were not so, He could not be able to know the material causes of all the products. If He did not know the material causes of the products, He would not create a variety among the objects. God is self-dependent not relying upon anyone else. He dispenses fruits of happiness or sorrow by His own will. "It is by the will of God that the worldly beings go to heaven or hell. Without Him they are unable to reward or punish themselves for their virtuous or wicked deeds."

If God is dependent upon someone else, then He will not be regarded as the chief author of the world. There will also come in the fallacy of argument in a circle if one God is dependent upon another and another upon the third and so on and so forth.

God is therefore self-dependent - not under the control of someone else. God is eternal. If He were non-eternal, someone else is required to create Him. There is no other such Being; therefore God is eternal. It will thus be observed that God is the creator of the world.


Your statement that the earth, mountains, trees, &c are the work of an intelligent Being, is untenable, for your proposition does not recognise the quality of "pervasion". The inference is not valid till supported by the evidence of " pervasion." What I say is recognised by all learned men. Now I ask you whether the God that creates has a body or no. If He has a body, is His body visible just like ours or invisible like the body of ghosts &c? If you consider that He has a body like ours, then it involves the fallacy of the infringement of direct evidence, as grass, trees, rainbow, clouds &c. are seen being produced without the presence of God, If you accept the other statement, then the body of God is invisible.

I ask whether this body is invisible by the reason of its grandeur or by reason of our vitiated sight which is the result of our previous bad actions. For the statement that the body of God is invisible owing to its transcendent glory, there is no proof. Besides your statement has the fallacy of mutual dependence. When it is proved that His glory is transcendent, then only is proved the invisibility of His body and vice versa.

If the body of God is that of a ghost, then the matter will remain as doubtful as it was. The question will be whether there is any God at all as His body is invisible. Either it is not in existence just as the son of a barren woman or it is the gloom of our past action which obstructs our vision. Such doubts will never cease. If you say that God is without a body, then the illustration and the one whose illustration is given will be mutually inconsistent and the argument will be self-destructive, because the author of effects such as pots &c. is a potter with a visible body. If you call God without a body, He will be found incompetent to do anything. Just as the vacuum of the sky is without any maker, so God either with or without body cannot be proved as associated with the effects of the world. Besides your argument is not all comprehensive in as much as you admit that there is no intelligent author of such effects as lightning, clouds, rainbow &c. Your argument vitiated as it is, does not prove that an intelligent God is the creator of the world. The statement that the whole world is the work of God is not tenable, for, there is no evidence to prove that God is the creator of the world.

40. Question:

Evidence proving God to be the creator of the world is of the character of an inference. One who dispenses fruits to beings according to their actions must be an intelligent judge. Tools such as an axe or a saw gradually cut a piece of wood into two under the supervision of an artisan, so do the good or evil consequences of actions take effect under the direction of an intelligent judge. It can never be said that such tools as an axe and a saw move themselves to cut up a piece of wood because they are insentient objects. If it is said that it is the nature of the axe and the saw to cut, then they should always be cutting and never cease. This is not the case. By this example it is proved that the different souls attain their fruits gradually under the direction of God-just as circular triangular and rectangular villages and towns are the work of an intelligent town-planner. As are pots &c. exactly so are the earth, mountains, trees &c. the work of God.


The inferential proof by which you establish that God is the creator of the world is not sound as it suffers from the fallacy of taking for granted what is to be proved. It is just like what has already been refuted by me. The view held by the Jains as heretofore alluded to, is that the variety that we see in the world is due to the effects of actions. Karma or action alone is the cause of the conditions of happiness or sorrow of the various kinds of people inhabiting India, and all other countries, islands, and cold mountainous tracts. There is nothing else than Karma. Form experience too, Karma is found to be the prime cause. When a virtuous king reigns, there is neither famine nor any other distress and this happy state is justly considered as due tc the influence of his righteous actions. That which gradually gives reward or punishment to beings is Karma and Karma only. Actions depend up on men who being sentient beings are intelligent. It is therefore that actions being dependent upon rational beings gradually unfold their effects. If you say that your aim is to prove only a super-intelligent God, and not ordinary intelligent beings, then your proposition is devoid of what is to be proved. The connection of God as a supervisor in regard to the action of an axe, or a saw is not established but the connection of potters and others in regard to making pots &c. is established.


The Chicago-Prashnottar

Translator & Publisher:
Atmanand Jain Pustak Pracharak Mandal, Roshan Mohalla, Agra.

Edition: 1918 (1st Edition - 500 books)

Edited Online Edition: HereNow4U

Share this page on:
Page glossary
Some texts contain  footnotes  and  glossary  entries. To distinguish between them, the links have different colors.
  1. Advaitism
  2. Body
  3. Brahma
  4. Karma
  5. Monism
  6. Omniscient
  7. Soul
  8. Space
Page statistics
This page has been viewed 781 times.
© 1997-2022 HereNow4U, Version 4.5
Contact us
Social Networking

HN4U Deutsche Version
Today's Counter: