Here is the complete, simplified rewrite of the text you provided. It is written in clear, modern English, and I have made sure to keep every single argument, detail, and footnote from the original text without summarizing it.
A Second Defence of the Monotheistical System of the Vedas:
In Reply to an Apology for the Present State of Hindu Worship
Calcutta: 1817
Advertisement
So far, only two publications have appeared with the stated goal of defending Hindu idol worship against the arguments I have made. I drew those arguments from the Vedant and other sacred authorities to prove that the system of idolatry is wrong.
The first of these publications appeared in a Madras journal, and my reply to it has been available to the public for some time. The second publication, which is the subject of this current answer, is supposedly written by a learned Brahmin currently living in Calcutta. It was printed in both Bengali and English, so I have had to prepare a reply in both languages. The Bengali version, intended for my fellow countrymen, was published a few weeks ago. For my European readers, I thought it would be helpful to add some extra remarks to the English version to make my arguments clearer and easier to understand than a simple, bare translation would allow.
A Second Defence, etc. etc.
The learned Brahmin begins his defense of idolatry by saying: "Do not suppose that the following treatise has been written just to refute the doctrines of those arrogant inventors and self-interested moderns," etc. "This brief treatise has been composed solely with the intention of expressing the true meaning of these sacred authorities."
He then concludes by saying: "The Vedant Chandrica (the Lunar Light of the Vedant) has thus been made apparent, and the tiny glow-worm's light has been eclipsed."
I am very much afraid that foreign gentlemen—as well as native Indians who do not understand the true teachings of the Vedant—might get a very bad impression of Vedantic theology if they read this treatise on a superficial level. It is called the "Lunar Light of the Vedant," but it is actually filled with satirical fables, abusive language, and contradictory statements. Sometimes it admits to monotheism, but at the exact same time, it blends it with and defends polytheism (the worship of many gods). The actual Vedant theology, however, is perfectly consistent in teaching the unity and universality of the Supreme Being, and it strictly forbids treating any living creature with contempt or bad behavior.
As for his satire and abuse, my education does not allow me to respond with similar language. Furthermore, my religion does not even allow me to desire such an unbecoming retaliation. In my current situation, I must bear these insults calmly.
Besides, it is not surprising that a sect of people who regularly scream foul language at their supposed gods when they get angry at them* cannot be expected to use decent language during a religious debate unless they are kept in check by fear.
*(Footnote: This can be seen at the annual festival of Juggernaut. If the heavy chariot carrying the god happens to get stuck on an unseen obstacle, the devotees assume the delay is caused by the malicious opposition of the god, and they freely scream the most gross abuse at him.)
Faith and Works
The total sum of the arguments laid out in the first 13 pages of his translated treatise (even though they constantly contradict each other) seems to be intended to prove this point: Faith in the Supreme Being, when combined with moral works, leads a person to eternal happiness.
I am very happy to note that this doctrine actually strongly supports everything I have said in my own translations. I will repeat a few paragraphs here for my readers' satisfaction:
From the Abridgment of the Vedant, page 16: "The Vedant shows that moral principles are actually a part of adoring God. This includes controlling your passions and your physical senses. The Veda declares that good actions are absolutely necessary to bring your mind closer to God. You must strictly practice these good acts both before and after you draw closer to the Supreme Being. This means we should not give in to our evil desires, but should try to completely control them. Relying on and resigning yourself to the only true Being, while turning away from worldly, selfish concerns, are included in these 'good acts'."
From the Introduction to the Ishopanishad, page 87: "Because of these impressions, I felt compelled to provide genuine translations of parts of our scriptures. These scriptures do not only teach the enlightened worship of One God, but also the purest principles of morality."
However, the learned Brahmin claims twice in his arguments that worshipping a "favored deity" and worshipping a physical image are also considered moral acts. I will expose the absurdity of this claim later when we discuss idol worship.
For my English readers, I need to clarify something important: The Sanskrit word used for "works" does not mean the same thing as the Christian theological concept of "works" (as in "faith vs. works"). Christians use the word "works" to mean morally good actions. Hindus, however, use the term "works" in their theology to mean the specific religious rituals and ceremonies prescribed by Hindu lawmakers.
These Hindu "works" often completely contradict commonly accepted rules of moral duty. For example, the lawmaker Angira prescribes the crime of suicide to widows, and the Narsingh and Kurma Puranas prescribe suicide to pilgrims visiting holy places. Therefore, I completely reject the idea that "works" in this Hindu sense (performing the specific religious rituals assigned to different social classes) are necessary to attain true divine faith, or that they are a required part of holy knowledge.
The Vedant (Chapter 3, Section 4, Text 37) clearly declares that a person can acquire true knowledge of God without observing any of the rules and rituals prescribed for the different classes of Hindus. The Veda also contains many examples of people who completely ignored religious rituals and ceremonies, but still achieved divine knowledge and spiritual absorption by controlling their passions and meditating on the Ruler of the universe.
Manu, the first and greatest of all Hindu lawmakers, confirms this exact doctrine when describing the duties of laymen in Chapter 4, texts 22, 23, and 24. Furthermore, in his commentaries on the Ishopanishad and other Upanishads, the illustrious Sankaracharya declared that attaining faith in God and adoring the Supreme Being are completely independent of Brahminical rituals. The Veda clearly states: "Many learned, true believers never worshipped fire, nor any celestial god through fire."
The Contradictions of the Learned Brahmin
The learned Brahmin actually admits this himself on page 9, line 6 of his treatise: "In the opinion of Sankaracharya, attaining spiritual absorption does not depend on works of merit" (meaning religious rituals). However, he immediately forgets the obedience he claims to owe to that celebrated commentator and directly contradicts him on line 9: "It has also been ascertained that acts of merit (Brahminical rites) must be performed prior to attaining divine knowledge."
If divine knowledge depended on performing Brahminical rites, and spiritual absorption depended on divine knowledge, then it logically follows that absorption would depend on Brahminical rites. This is the exact opposite of what the commentator he just quoted actually believes!
He contradicts himself again. First, he states (page 11, line 12): "In the ancient writers, we read that a knowledge of Brahma (holy knowledge) is completely independent of acts (religious rites)."
But then he immediately tries to explain this away (page 11, line 24): "When the Shastras state that absorption may be attained even if the sacrificial fires are neglected, they only mean to praise holy knowledge, not to depreciate or insult meritorious acts (Brahminical rites)."
In this instance, he actually chooses to accuse his own holy scriptures and ancient writers of wildly exaggerating and praising holy knowledge too much, just so he doesn't have to admit that their authority damages the structure of paganism and idolatry! This shows the public just how zealous the learned Brahmin and his friends are when it comes to protecting their highly profitable business of idol worship. They are literally willing to sacrifice the authority of their own scriptures to protect it.
The True Purpose of Idol Worship
After fully reading his treatise, it is clear that his arguments have only one goal: to support the weak system of idol worship. He repeatedly declares that the Shastras and historical custom command the adoration of 330,000,000 deities—especially the main ones like Shiva, Vishnu, Kali, Ganesha, and the Sun—through physical images.
I am very surprised by this. During the last twelve months, I have distributed nearly five hundred copies of my Bengali Preface to the Ishopanishad to all kinds of Hindus. After reading it, the learned Brahmin offered absolutely no objection to the facts I laid out regarding why the Shastras allow the worship of physical figures, and why idol worship is so common in this country.
In that Preface, I freely admitted that the Shastras do direct the worship of these deities. However, I used their own authority to prove that this was merely a temporary concession. It was a compromise made specifically for uneducated, vulgar people whose limited mental faculties made them incapable of understanding or adopting the purely spiritual worship of the true God.
As I remarked in that Preface:
"The Puranas and Tantras repeatedly declare that God is ONE, and that He is far beyond the comprehension of our physical senses and our minds. They do indeed declare the divinity of many gods and explain how to worship them. But they reconcile these contradictory statements by frequently affirming that the instructions to worship celestial beings are only meant for those who are mentally incapable of elevating their minds to the idea of an invisible Being."
To remove any doubt about my claim, I quoted the most unquestionable authorities in that Preface, a few of which I will repeat here:
"Therefore, corresponding to the natures of different powers and qualities, numerous physical figures have been invented specifically for the benefit of those who do not possess sufficient understanding."
"The vulgar (uneducated) look for their gods in water; men with slightly more knowledge look in the celestial bodies; the ignorant look in wood, bricks, and stones; but learned men find God in the Universal Soul."
"It is impossible for people who believe that going on a pilgrimage is true devotion, and who believe that the divine nature actually lives inside a physical idol, to ever truly look up to, communicate with, petition, or serve true believers in God."
Truth is so powerful that when it is impossible to dispute it, even the learned Brahmin cannot always hide it, even when admitting it destroys his own argument. On page 28, line 34, he writes:
"But it is enjoined to those who, from a defective understanding, do not perceive that God exists in everything, that they should worship Him through the medium of some created object."
By making this acknowledgment, the learned Brahmin has actually confirmed that all of my assertions are completely correct! The obvious conclusion is that he and all his followers must either immediately admit that their understanding is "defective," or they must forsake idolatry forever.
In my previous tract, I not only proved that the Veda commands men of understanding to adore the Supreme Being purely in spirit, and that it restricts the worship of celestial bodies and images to the ignorant. I also asserted that the Veda actively prohibits educated, intelligent men from worshipping any kind of physical figure. I will now repeat a few of the passages I quoted in my former publication to prove this assertion.
Here is the complete, simplified rewrite of the text you provided. It is written in clear, modern English, and I have made sure to keep every single argument, detail, and quote from the original text without summarizing it.
(Continuing from the previous section...)
In my previous tract, I quoted the following texts:
"He who worships any God other than the Supreme Being, and thinks that he himself is distinct from and inferior to that God, knows absolutely nothing. He is considered to be nothing more than a domestic beast owned by these gods."
"Even achieving a state as high as the god Brahma does not afford real, true bliss."
"Adore God alone. None but the Supreme Being is to be worshipped; a wise man should adore absolutely nothing except Him."
I also repeated this text from the Vedant:
"When the Veda declares that people who worship the celestial gods are simply 'food' for those gods, it is an allegorical expression. It simply means that these worshippers provide comfort to the celestial gods, just as food provides comfort to mankind. A person who has no faith in the Supreme Being is rendered completely subject to these lesser gods. The Veda affirms this."
Because I have already laid out these arguments, I presume I do not need to write a direct reply to the specific arguments the learned Brahmin used in his treatise to defend idol worship. Instead, I will simply offer some additional authoritative texts that exclusively confirm the rational worship of the true God and strictly prohibit the worship of celestial figures and their physical images.
I will start by quoting a few texts from the Veda:
"Men may acquire eternal happiness by obtaining a knowledge of the Supreme Being alone; there is absolutely no other way to salvation." (Sooctu)
"Everlasting happiness is allotted to those who acquire a knowledge of Him—the Ruler of intellectual power, who is eternal amidst the perishable universe, who is the source of sensation among all living creatures, and who alone assigns every object its specific purpose. But everlasting happiness is not allotted to those who do not possess that knowledge." (Katha Upanishad)
Furthermore, in the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th texts of the Cenopanishad, the Veda specifically denies the divinity of any specific being that men generally worship five times in a row! Instead, it affirms the divinity of only that Supreme Being who is beyond human description and comprehension, and who cannot be seen, heard, or smelled. In his famous commentary on these texts, Sankaracharya states that the Veda positively disavows the divinity of Vishnu, Mahadeva, Pavan, Indra, and all other gods specifically so that people will not mistakenly believe they are Supreme Spirits.
Again, the Veda says:
"Those who completely neglect meditating on the Supreme Spirit—whether they do this by focusing only on the outward ceremonies of religion or by living without any religious ideas at all—will assume the state of demons after death. They will be reborn as celestial gods or other created beings who are entirely surrounded by the darkness of ignorance." (Ishopanishad)
I hope it is not considered off-topic to mention here exactly how the Vedant views these "celestial gods" and how the Veda categorizes them among other created beings.
The Vedant (Chapter 1, Section 3, Text 26) states: "Vyasa affirms that celestial gods and heavenly beings are also required to try and attain a knowledge of the Supreme Being, because it is equally possible for them to desire spiritual absorption."
The Veda also declares in the Mundaka Upanishad:
"From Him—who knows all things generally and particularly, and who used His omniscience to create the universe—Brahma, everything that has a name and a shape, and all food are produced."
"From Him (the Supreme Being), the various celestial gods,* the Siddhas (beings slightly lower than celestial gods), mankind, beasts, birds, life itself, wheat, and barley are all produced."
*(Footnote: The Veda initially uses personification to describe the attributes and powers of the Deity, as well as celestial bodies and natural elements. In later passages, it continues this personification by treating them as if they were real, physical beings, describing them as having births, animation, senses, accidents, and the ability to be destroyed.)
In the Devi Mahatmya—a book that is as widely read by Hindus as a daily prayer book†—the creation of Vishnu, Brahma, and Mahadeva is explicitly affirmed (Chapter 1, Text 66).
(†Footnote: Pooja Patul.)
Manu, the greatest of all Veda commentators, says (Chapter 12, Text 85): "Of all duties, answered Bhrigu, the principal and most important duty is to use the Upanishad to acquire a true knowledge of the one Supreme Spirit. This is the most exalted of all sciences, because through that knowledge alone, eternal happiness is obtained."
At the end of his work on rites and ceremonies, Manu directs (Chapter 12, Text 92): "Even if the chief of the twice-born (Brahmins) neglects the ceremonial rites mentioned in the Shastras, he must remain diligent in attaining a knowledge of God, in controlling his physical senses, and in repeating the Veda."
The Kularnava Tantra says:
"Spiritual absorption is not achieved just by studying the Vedas or reading other Shastras. Absorption is achieved only by a true knowledge of the Supreme Being. O Parvati, except for that knowledge, there is no other way to absorption."
"Belonging to a specific caste or religious order will not cause eternal happiness, nor is studying the Darshanas (philosophies) or any other Shastras enough to produce absorption. A true knowledge of the Supreme Spirit is the only cause of eternal happiness."
The Mahanirvana Tantra says:
"A person attains happiness when he believes that everything—from the highest state of Brahma down to the lowest piece of straw—is an illusion, and that the one Supreme Spirit is the only true being."
"Those who believe that the divine nature actually exists inside an image made of earth, stones, metal, wood, or other materials will only reap distress from their religious disciplines. They absolutely cannot acquire absorption without a knowledge of the Supreme Spirit."
I am truly sorry to see that, despite all these authorities (and a thousand others like them) clearly and luminously teaching the sublime, simple, spiritual belief in and worship of One God, the learned Brahmin seems completely unimpressed. Instead, he shows immense zeal in trying to lead people into an idolatrous belief in the divinity of created, perishable beings.
The Immorality of Idol Worship
The idol worship currently practiced by our countrymen—which the learned Brahmin so zealously defends as promoting morality—is not only universally rejected by the Shastras, but it must also be viewed with great horror by basic common sense. It leads directly to immorality and destroys the comfort and safety of society.
Every Hindu who devotes himself to this absurd worship builds a couple of male and female idols (which are sometimes indecent in form) to represent his favorite deities. From infancy, he is taught and commanded to contemplate and repeat the histories of these deities and their companions. However, the actions attributed to these gods are nothing but a continuous series of debauchery, sensuality, falsehood, ingratitude, breach of trust, and treachery against friends.* *(Footnote: See Note at the end.)
There can only be one logical conclusion about the expected moral conduct of a person who is raised to revere such beings, who reminds himself of their actions almost every single day, and who is persuaded to believe that simply repeating the holy name of one of these deities†, or offering a tiny present to an idol or a priest, is enough to completely purify him, free him from all crimes, and guarantee his future eternal happiness.
*(†Footnote: See Note at the end.)
Custom vs. Faith
As for the "custom" or "practice" that the learned Brahmin constantly refers to as a defense for idolatry, I believe I have already explained this in the Preface to the Ishopanishad. I explained the accidental historical circumstances that caused idol worship to flourish across most of India. However, since the learned Brahmin did not bother to respond to any of my remarks on this subject, I will repeat a part of them here:
"Many learned Brahmins are perfectly aware of how absurd idolatry is, and they know the truth about the pure mode of divine worship. However, because they make their living and build their fortunes from the rites, ceremonies, and festivals of idolatry, they never fail to protect idol worship from all attacks. They advance and encourage it as much as they possibly can by intentionally keeping the knowledge of their own scriptures hidden from the rest of the people."
And again:
"However, it is obvious to anyone with common sense that 'custom' or 'fashion' is completely different from true divine faith. Divine faith comes from spiritual authorities and correct reasoning, while custom is merely the result of vulgar, popular caprice. How can a man claim to believe his religious books are inspired by God, but then completely ignore the direct commands in those very books, choosing instead to subject himself entirely to 'custom' and 'fashion'—things that constantly change based on popular whim? It must be noted that the very people who practice idolatry and defend it using the excuse of 'custom' actually violate their own customs almost every twenty years just to make things more convenient or to promote their own worldly advantages."
I provided specific examples of this in the Preface to the Ishopanishad, and I respectfully ask the learned Brahmin to recall them.
Every reader should notice that in his treatise (which he claims is written on the doctrines of the Vedant), the learned Brahmin generally fails to quote any authority to back up his assertions. Even when he does occasionally cite the Veda or the Vedant as his authority, he carefully avoids mentioning the specific text or section he is referring to! The validity of any theological debate depends heavily on scriptural authority. When no authority is provided, the public can easily judge how credible the arguments actually are.
However, I will still make a few remarks on the absurd and contradictory assertions that fill his treatise.
Contradictions Regarding the Nature of God
The learned Brahmin observes (Page 14, Line 14):
"But if the divine essence itself is being praised, rather than just its energy, it will be adored under the physical forms of Brahma, Vishnu, Indra, and other male deities."
But in another place (Page 30, Line 27), he says:
"So by paying adoration to any material object, whether animate or inanimate, the Supreme Being Himself is adored."
If his second assertion is true (that God Himself is adored simply by worshipping anything whatsoever), then there is absolutely no distinction between worshipping random visible objects and worshipping male deities. If that is true, then his first assertion—that the Supreme Being must be adored only through male deities—is an absurd, meaningless restriction.
The learned Brahmin states (Page 19, Line 31):
"If you believe on the authority of the Scriptures that there is a Supreme Being, can you not believe that He is united to physical matter?"
A belief in God is absolutely not connected to a belief that He is united to matter! People who have faith in the existence of the Almighty, and who possess common sense, have no problem confessing their ignorance regarding the exact nature of God's existence, specifically regarding His relationship to matter or its properties. How can he argue that believing God is united to matter is a necessary consequence of simply believing He exists?
The learned Brahmin then contradicts himself again on this exact point, saying (Page 38, Line 19):
"Because the divine essence is supernatural and immaterial, knowledge of it can only be acquired from revelations."
The learned Brahmin states (Page 18, Line 4):
"A quality cannot exist independently of its substance, but a substance can exist independently of any quality."
Anyone who possesses basic sensation knows perfectly well that a substance depends on possessing some kind of quality (or qualities) to exist, just as much as a quality depends on a substance. It is impossible to even imagine a physical substance that has been stripped of all qualities. You can strip it as much as you want, but the quality of "magnitude" (size/extension) must always remain. Therefore, I trust the public will realize that the learned Brahmin did not derive these bizarre doctrines from the Vedant.
He also states (Page 21, Line 4):
"In point of fact, if you admit that physical matter (with its twenty-four accidents) exists in human beings—as confirmed by universal experience—you can easily conceive that those exact same properties belong to the Supreme Being."
It might be easy enough for the learned Brahmin to conceive that his supposed deities possess the twenty-four properties peculiar to animals (which include all the sources of carnal, sexual pleasure). However, it is incredibly difficult—or rather, impossible—for a man who is untainted by idolatrous principles to ever ascribe all the properties he sees in himself to the perfect God.
The learned Brahmin draws an analogy between the operation of Vedic chants (charms) and the operation of magic. He says (Page 18, Line 1):
"Cannot the charms of the Vedas operate just as powerfully as the charms of magic in producing effects when the cause is not physically present?"
If the foundation of the Vedas is considered no stronger than the foundation of magic—which the learned Brahmin seems to believe—I am afraid that foundation is so slender that the doctrines of the Vedas are hardly worth discussing!
In Page 24, Line 10, the learned Brahmin states:
"The Vedant itself, when treating the several deities, declares them to be possessed of physical forms, and all their actions and enjoyments depend entirely on their corporeal (physical) nature."
But then (Page 21, Line 19) he says:
"Because the male and female deities, whose existence I am arguing for, are nothing more than accidents existing within the Supreme Being."
So, at one moment he claims these deities have physical, corporeal natures, and at another moment he declares they are merely "accidents" within God (which is completely inconsistent with the attribute of having a physical body). I am truly at a loss to understand how the learned Brahmin could allow such a dark, glaring contradiction into his "Lunar Light of the Vedant."
Worshipping God like an Earthly King
The learned Brahmin (Page 27, Line 6) compares the worship of the Supreme Being to serving an earthly king, saying:
"Let us drop this discourse about a Supreme and Invisible Being. Take an earthly king. It is obvious that to serve him, you must use the medium of physical materiality. Can you serve him in any other way than by attending to his physical person, praising his qualities, or using some similar method?"
People who believe that God is an almighty, omniscient, independent existence who pervades the entire universe and lacks absolutely nothing—and who also understand the feeble, dependent nature of earthly kings (who are liable to sudden ruin and constantly harassed by cares and wants)—should never, ever compare the contemplation of Almighty Power to the corporeal service demanded by an earthly king.
However, by using this exact analogy, the learned Brahmin and his brethren have successfully persuaded their followers to offer pecuniary (financial) vows to these supposed deities, just like offering presents and bribes to an earthly prince. Conveniently, it seems that only the learned Brahmin and his brethren have the exclusive right to collect these "presents"! Because this analogy has become the primary source of their comfortable livelihood, I will not say anything more about such a tender subject.
He further observes (Page 22, Line 27):
"Returning to the subject, you affirm that you admit physical matter exists in human beings because it is evident to your senses. But you deny it with respect to God because He is not evident to your senses," etc. "If this is your method of reasoning, it seems your faith is limited only to objects that are evident to your physical senses."
As far as my memory goes regarding the contents of my own publications (both in Bengali and English), I am certain I have never denied the materiality of God on the mere ground that He is not evident to our senses.
In my former treatise, I asserted that the nature of the Godhead is completely beyond the comprehension of our internal and external senses. I presume this assertion does not mean I am denying the physical materiality of God solely because He is invisible, nor does it mean I limit my faith only to objects that are completely evident to my physical senses.
Many things that are far beyond the limits of our physical senses to perceive—and beyond our practical experience to teach—can still be proven or made credible through logical inferences drawn from our actual experience. For example, the mutual gravitational pull of the earth and the moon toward each other, and the gravitational pull of both of them toward the sun, are facts that cannot be directly perceived by any of our physical senses. However, they can be clearly demonstrated by logic and reasoning drawn from our experience. Therefore, it is clear that a concept should only be denied when it contradicts both sense and reason, not merely because it cannot be seen with the physical senses.
Responding to the Brahmin's "Friendly Advice"
I must now address the "friendly advice" the learned Brahmin gave me (Page 23, Line 16):
"But at all events, divest yourself of the uneasy sensations you profess to experience when you see the worship paid to idols, which have been prepared at the expense and labor of another person."
I thank him for taking the trouble to offer me this counsel, but I must beg the learned Brahmin to excuse me when I say that I am completely unable to follow his advice. I have several reasons for this:
Natural Empathy: Feeling deep sympathy for the misery and distress of fellow human beings is, I presume, a natural reaction (rather than an optional choice) for anyone who is not completely overpowered by selfish motives.
Shared Disgrace: Because I am one of their countrymen, and because I belong to the most religious sect, I naturally share in the disgrace and ridicule they have brought upon themselves. By defying the authority of their own scriptures and worshipping idols (very often using the most shameful forms, the foulest language, and the most indecent hymns and gestures), they have humiliated our people.
Duty to Humanity: A strong sense of the duty that one human owes to another compels me to use my absolute best efforts to rescue them from this imposition and servitude, and to promote their true comfort and happiness.
The Equality of Worship
He further observes (Page 30, Line 16):
"In the same manner, the King of kings is served equally by worshippers who are acquainted with His real essence, and by worshippers who only recognize Him under the physical forms of the deities. However, in the future distribution of rewards, a distinction will be made."
Since the learned Brahmin openly confesses that the worshippers of figured deities are not promised the same reward as the adorers of the Supreme Being, it seems very strange that he persists in arguing that God is "truly worshipped" through the adoration of figured gods! If the worship were truly the same in both cases, then a perfectly just God would bestow the exact same reward on both. But since the rewards are not the same, the worship of figured deities absolutely cannot be considered equal to the pure adoration of God.
The Emperor Analogy
On the same page (Line 7), he compares God to a mighty earthly emperor, saying:
"Just as a mighty emperor travels through his kingdom disguised in the garb of a peasant to promote the welfare of his subjects, so the King of kings pervades the universe, assuming a divine or even a human form, for the exact same benevolent purpose."
This comparison is extremely objectionable, and the conclusion he draws from it is totally inadmissible. A human king is ignorant of things he cannot physically see, and he can easily be deceived about the secrets and private opinions of his subjects. Because of this, he might occasionally be forced to travel secretly through his kingdom to learn about their condition and personally promote their welfare.
However, there is obviously zero reason for an omnipotent (all-powerful) Being—whose omniscience (all-knowing nature) the learned Brahmin surely believes in—to ever assume a physical form just to acquaint Himself with human affairs or to accomplish a benevolent design for His creatures.
Images as Reminders of God
He again argues that these physical figures and idols are simply representations of the true God. He claims that looking at them serves to bring God to the worshipper's mind (Page 30, Line 5):
"They are like pictures that recall a dear and absent friend to your memory, or like worshipping the moon by looking at its reflection in various pools of water."
This observation leads me to believe that the learned Brahmin must have formed an incredibly strange and contemptible notion of the Godhead! It is almost impossible for a man who holds a proper, respectful idea of God's absolute superiority over all creatures to ever represent Him the way Hindus very often do: in forms so shameful that common decency prohibits describing them; or in ridiculous animal shapes, like the piebald kite called Kshyemunkuree, the bird called Neelkunth, or as jackals, monkeys (Hanuman), fish, hogs, or elephants; or by representing Him as a being who is entirely destitute of every virtue and completely abandoned to vice.* *(Footnote references regarding the animal forms: Hanuman is the monkey god. The fish is the first incarnation of Vishnu. The hog is the third incarnation of Vishnu. The elephant is Ganesha.)
It is equally difficult to believe that any rational human being could ever use such ridiculous, vile objects to bring the All-Perfect, Almighty Power to their recollection.
The Charge of Believing in Independent Existences
He further says (Page 31, Line 32):
"If anyone asserts that the case is otherwise—that the deities, mankind, the heavens, and other objects have an existence independent of God, that faith in God is sufficient without actual worship, and that the deities do not deserve reverence—how can that person affect to disbelieve the doctrine of independent existence, or assert that he is a believer in universality, or a follower of the Vedant?"
To clear myself of this gross but completely unfounded accusation (that I believe physical matter exists independently of God), I will repeat a few passages from my Abridgment of the Vedant.
(Page 6, Line 8): "Nothing bears true existence excepting God."
(Line 9): "The existence of whatever thing appears to us relies entirely on the existence of God."
Furthermore, I am completely confident that there is not a single assertion in any of my publications from which the learned Brahmin could justly infer that I believe the deities, mankind, the heavens, or other objects exist independently of God. By examining my works, the public will be able to judge just how far the learned Brahmin is willing to brave public opinion by inventing false arguments to defend idolatry.
The Church vs. The Idol
He again says (Page 34, Line 28):
"If God can be worshipped by practicing prescribed forms inside a church, a temple, or a mosque, how can He be dishonored by being worshipped under the form of a manufactured image?"
People who contemplate God in a church or a mosque, or who elevate their minds to the Almighty Power in any other appropriated place for the sake of setting a good example, never pay divine homage to the physical buildings themselves. However, people who pretend to worship God under the form of a physical image actually consider the image itself to possess a divine nature! At the exact same time, they inconsistently believe the image is imbued with highly immoral principles.
Furthermore, the people who promote image worship constantly spread anecdotes about the supposed divine power of specific idols to excite the reverence of the people (especially pilgrims). Using these superstitious ideas, they persuade the pilgrims to try and appease the idols with large financial sacrifices, and sometimes even by sacrificing their own lives. Having explored this subject so deeply, I hope the learned Brahmin will realize how inappropriate it is to draw an analogy between worshipping inside a certain physical object (like a building) and worshipping the physical object itself (like an idol).
Are Images Unpleasing?
As to his question (Page 34, Line 32): "Is the sight of the image unpleasing?"
My answer must be: Yes. It is extremely natural that a mind whose purity has not been corrupted by degrading superstition will find the sight of these images unpleasing, because they are so often hideous or indecent in description, and they naturally excite disgust in the mind of the spectator. A visit to Kalighat or Burhnugur* (which are only four miles from Calcutta) will sufficiently convince the reader of the highly unpleasant nature of their beloved images.
*(Footnote: Burhnugur is where there are twelve temples dedicated to Shiva.)
He asks again on the same page (Line 33):
"Will you treat a beloved friend with disrespect by seating him on a chair when he arrives at your house, or by presenting him with fragrant flowers and other offerings?"
I answer: No. But at the same time, I must point out that a true friend who is worthy of reverence would certainly not be pleased if you exhibited him in a physical form that would insult the decorous feelings of the public! He would not be pleased to be shown in the shape of a monkey, fish, hog, or elephant, or represented as a person destitute of all virtue and totally abandoned to vice. Furthermore, a friend would not believe his host possessed any common sense if the host completely ignored the actual guest just to go lay fruits and flowers in front of a picture of the guest!
The Greeks, the Romans, and Social Destruction
He says (Page 39, Line 23):
"In the accounts of ancient Greece, we read about the worship of idols and the practice of severe religious austerities. However, these acts have been completely condemned by more enlightened modern people."
I am truly glad to see that the learned Brahmin freely and plainly confesses that idolatry will be totally condemned as soon as human understanding improves! However, I must point out that while the idolatry practiced by the ancient Greeks and Romans was just as impure, absurd, and childish as the idolatry of modern Hindus, it was nowhere near as destructive to the comforts of life or as damaging to the very fabric of society.
Current Hindu idolatry forces people to follow incredibly strict dietary restraints and rules (which, according to the Mahabharata and other histories, were never actually observed by their ancient ancestors). This has subjected its unfortunate followers to total separation from the rest of the world, total separation from each other, and constant inconvenience and distress.
For example, a Hindu who claims to follow this strict purity* cannot even eat food cooked by his own brother if he is invited to his brother's house! And if someone simply touches him while he is eating, he must throw away the rest of his meal. Because they observe this highly peculiar form of idolatry—which directly contradicts the authority of their own scriptures—they hardly even deserve to be called social beings.
*(Footnote: A person of this description is distinguished by the name of Swayumpak, meaning one who is his own cook.)
The Charge of Infidelity
The learned Brahmin further says (Page 23, Line 3):
"If you affirm that you are not an infidel, but that your arguments are actually in conformity with the ancient philosophers who were ignorant of the Vedas," etc.
I am absolutely certain that a remark like this cannot apply to me. I have only subjected myself to this writer's remarks by translating and publishing the most important parts of the Veda itself, and by vindicating Vedantic theology! I have never, ever advanced an argument in a religious controversy that was not directly founded on the authority of the Vedas and their most celebrated commentators.
It is incredibly ironic that, even though the learned Brahmin and his brethren constantly use the names of the Vedas and other Shastras in their writing and verbal debates, they pay almost zero attention to those precepts in actual practice! This is true even regarding the most important matters. I will notice a few of these hypocrisies here:
Neglect of the True God: The adoration of the invisible Supreme Being is exclusively prescribed by the Upanishads (the main parts of the Vedas) and the Vedant. However, the learned Brahmin and his followers have totally neglected and actively discouraged this pure worship. Instead, they have completely replaced it with idol worship, which those authorities only permit for the deeply ignorant.
Suttee (Widow Burning): Angira, Vishnu, and the modern Raghunandan authorize a widow to burn herself voluntarily alongside her husband's corpse. However, in direct opposition to their own authorities, modern Brahmins allow a widow's relatives to literally bind the mournful, infatuated woman to the funeral pyre with thick ropes and bamboo poles the moment she expresses a wish to perform the dreadful sacrifice. The Brahmins eagerly help tie her down.
Selling Daughters: Accepting money or a present in exchange for marrying off a daughter is strictly prohibited by the Vedas and by Manu (Texts 98 and 100, Chapter 9). Yet, selling female children under the guise of "marriage" is practiced by nearly two-thirds of the Brahmins in Bengal and Tirhoot, and by their followers in general.
Polygamy: Yajnavalkya authorizes a man to marry a second wife while his first wife is still living, but only under specific circumstances of extreme misconduct or misfortune by the first wife (such as drinking wine, deception, extravagance, using abusive language, showing obvious hatred toward her husband, long incurable illness, barrenness, or only producing female children). In complete defiance of this restriction, some men marry thirty or forty women just to collect the dowry money, or simply to gratify their brutal, animalistic desires! I am told that within the last thirty or forty years, Madhosingh (the late Rajah of Tirhoot) felt so much compassion for these helpless women that he legally limited the Brahmins of that district to "only" four wives. Even though this regulation still falls far short of the written law and basic reason, it helps alleviate some of the misery these women face and slightly reduces domestic violence.
Caste Privilege vs. Merit: According to the authority of Manu (Text 155, Chapter 2), respect and distinction are owed to a Brahmin only in proportion to his actual knowledge. On the contrary, among modern Hindus, honor is paid exclusively to specific families of Brahmins (such as the Kulins), regardless of how completely void of knowledge or moral principle they might be. This massive departure from law and justice was instituted by a native prince of Bengal named Bullalsen about three or four hundred years ago. This innovation is probably the primary cause of the massive decay in learning and virtue that, sadly, we see today. Because whenever respect is based solely on birth, the desire to acquire knowledge and practice morality will rapidly decline in that country.
The "Indescribable" Nature of God
The learned Brahmin objects to the term "indescribable," even though it is universally assigned to the Supreme Being by the Veda and by Vedantic theology. He says (Page 37, Line 20):
"It is a wonderful, bizarre interpretation of the Vedant to claim that God is 'indescribable' but also 'existing'—unless, of course, He is viewed as the production of magic, existing in one sense but non-existent in another."
And again (Line 14):
"Therefore, anyone who asserts that the Supreme Being is indescribable but at the same time existing must actually conceive that He is mutable (changeable) just like the world."
To answer this, I refer the learned Brahmin to the 11th text of the third Brahmin of the 4th chapter of the Brihadaranyaka (the principal part of the Yajur Veda), exactly as it was commented upon by the celebrated Sankaracharya:
"After the Veda described God using various absolute and relative titles, it realized that it was completely incapable of giving a true, real description of the nature of the Godhead. Language can only convey a notion of things by using names they are already known by, or by describing their physical shape, their accidents, their genus, or their properties. But God has absolutely none of these physical circumstances! Therefore, the Veda attempted to explain Him using negative terms." (Meaning, it declared that whatever can be perceived by the human mind or physical senses is not God.)
"When the Veda assigns attributes like eternity, wisdom, and truth to God, it simply shows that it can only explain Him by applying the highest, most esteemed adjectives known to humanity. It does not intend to assert that this description is actually adequate. He is the only true existence amidst all dependent existences, and He is the true source of our physical senses."
Also, in the 3rd text of the Cenopanishad:
"Hence no physical vision can approach Him; no language can describe Him; no intellectual power can compass or determine Him. We know absolutely nothing about how the Supreme Being should be explained. He is beyond nature, which is already above comprehension. Our ancient spiritual parents have thus explained Him to us."
However, just because we acknowledge that we are ignorant of the exact nature and attributes of the Supreme Being, it does not mean we are equally ignorant of His existence! The wonderful structure and growth of something as tiny as a single tree leaf provides absolute proof of an Almighty Superintendent of the universe. Even the physical world gives us countless examples of things whose existence is completely obvious to our senses, but whose actual nature we cannot even begin to comprehend (such as the fundamental causes of heat and vision).
The Possibility of Adoration
The learned Brahmin attempts to prove that adoring the Deity is impossible, saying (Page 33, Line 15): "That which cannot be conceived cannot be worshipped."
If the learned Brahmin believes that adoration requires a human to fully conceive the exact nature, essence, and qualities of the Supreme Being, or that it requires offering physical flowers, leaves, and food to a physical picture of the Almighty Power, then I completely agree with him: that kind of worship is impossible!
However, if adoration simply implies elevating the mind to a firm conviction that the Omnipresent Deity exists (as proven by His wise and wonderful creations), continually contemplating the power displayed in those creations, and maintaining a constant sense of deep gratitude toward Him for giving us existence, sensation, and comfort—then I will never hesitate to assert that His adoration is not only possible and practicable, but it is actually the absolute duty of every rational creature! For further explanation on this, I refer the learned Brahmin to Text 47, Section 4, Chapter 3 of the Vedant.
Responsibility and Moral Agency
To his question (Page 47, Line 4): "What are you yourselves?" I suppose I can safely reply for myself: I am a poor, dependent creature; subject, just like everyone else, to momentary changes, and liable to sudden destruction.
At Page 45, Line 30, the learned Brahmin—if I rightly understand his point—insinuates that I have adopted the doctrines of those who deny that humans have free will or are responsible moral agents. I am completely at a loss to understand what part of my writings he drew this bizarre conclusion from. I have never held those opinions, and I have actually taken great pains to explain the specific passage in the Veda that people use to falsely claim that doctrine!
In Page 93 of the Preface to the Ishopanishad, I clearly stated: "When the Vedant declares that 'God is everywhere, and everything is in God,' it simply means that nothing is absent from God, and that nothing can truly exist except by the direct will (volition) of God." In that exact same page, I quoted the example of the most revered teachers of the Vedant doctrine, who, "although they declared their absolute faith in the Omnipresent God according to the Vedant, still assigned every individual creature the specific character and respect that creature had personally earned."
The Danger of "Dreaming"
I omitted to notice a very strange argument the learned Brahmin adopted (on Page 29) to defend idolatry. After acknowledging that a deficiency in judgment makes a person incapable of looking up to an Omnipresent Supreme Being (causing them to mistake a created object for the Creator), he actually insinuates that holding an erroneous, false belief is just as likely to lead to eternal happiness as knowing the actual truth!
He says (Line 5):
"And although a person, due to a deficiency in judgment, is unable to discover the real nature of a thing, does it follow that his error will prevent the natural effect from happening? When a man dreams he sees a tiger, is he not in just as much alarm as if he saw it in reality?"
Using this logic, he tries to claim that idol worship has a value equal to pure religion—a value it can never possibly possess. This argument might have succeeded in keeping some of his followers trapped in the delusive "dream" from which he so desperately wants them not to awake. However, I know that some of them have begun to genuinely inquire into the truth of the notions they were taught. They are not likely to fall for the false analogy he tries to draw in that passage. They will never believe that—no matter how powerful human imagination is, even under false impressions—future eternal happiness (which depends entirely on God alone) can ever be the result of an illusion. I strongly hope these truth-seekers will finally realize that the "system of dreaming" recommended by the learned Brahmin (which is so essential to his own financial interests and the power of his caste) can never bring them any substantial or eternal advantage.
The False Promise of Purification
As proof of the incredibly erroneous confidence people place in simply repeating a god's name to purify themselves from sins (which I noticed on page 168), I will quote the following passages:
"He who pronounces 'Durga' (the name of the goddess), even if he constantly practices adultery, plunders other people's property, or commits the most heinous crimes, is instantly freed from all sins." (Durga Nam Mahatmyu)
"A person who loudly pronounces 'Reverence to Hari,' even if he does it involuntarily while falling down, slipping, suffering from illness, or sneezing, completely purifies himself from the foulest crimes!" (Bhagavat)
"He who contemplates the Ganges river—whether walking, sitting, sleeping, thinking of other things, awake, eating, breathing, or conversing—is delivered from all sins." (Mahabharata)
The Immorality of the Gods
The circumstances I alluded to on page 168 regarding the highly wicked conduct of these supposed deities are perfectly familiar to every individual Hindu. However, those European readers who are not acquainted with the specific details of these stories might want to know them. Therefore, to gratify their curiosity and to prove that my assertion is accurate, I will mention a few specific examples and the authorities they come from.
Because I have already detailed the extreme debauchery and gross sensuality of Krishna and his fellow deities (like Shiva and Brahma) on pages 147, 148, and 150 of my reply to Sankar Sastri, I will not repeat them here. Instead, I refer my readers to that reply. I also refer them to the tenth division of the Bhagavat, the Hari-Bansa (the last division of the Mahabharata), the Nigams, and the various Agamas, all of which give highly detailed accounts of their lewdness and debauchery.
When it comes to falsehood and lying, their favorite deity, Krishna, is more conspicuous than all the rest.
Jarasandha, a powerful prince of Behar, heard about the melancholy murder of his son-in-law, which was perpetrated by Krishna. Jarasandha harassed Krishna and eventually drove him out of his native city (Mathura) using frequent military expeditions. In revenge, Krishna resolved to murder the prince using fraud and highly unjustifiable methods. To accomplish this, Krishna and his two cousins (Bhima and Arjuna) disguised themselves as Brahmins and entered Jarasandha's palace. They found the prince weakened by a religious fast and surrounded only by his family and priests. They challenged him to a duel. He fought Bhima (the strongest of the three), who conquered him and put him to death. (See Sabha Parva, the second book of the Mahabharata).
Krishna also persuaded his own cousin, Yudhishthira, to give false testimony under oath in order to accomplish the murder of Drona, their spiritual father! (See Drona Parva, the seventh book of the Mahabharata).
Vishnu and others formed a conspiracy against Bali, a mighty emperor. Finding Bali's power impossible to resist, Vishnu decided to ruin him using a cruel stratagem. Vishnu appeared to Bali in the shape of a dwarf, begging for alms (charity). Even though Bali was directly warned about Vishnu's true intentions, his high sense of generosity would not allow him to refuse a beggar's request. How did the "grateful" deity repay him? Vishnu not only used the promised charity to steal Bali's entire empire and claim it for himself, but he also inflicted the ultimate disgrace on Bali by putting him in bondage and confining him to Patala (the underworld)! (See the latter part of the Hari-Bansa, the last book of the Mahabharata).
When the great battle of Kurukshetra was decided by the fatal destruction of Duryodhana, the surviving soldiers of the rival army (led by Yudhishthira) returned to their camp to sleep for the night. They were sleeping under the personal care and direct protection of the god Mahadeva (Shiva). However, Mahadeva was quickly cajoled and manipulated by the flattery of Ashwatthama (a friend of the defeated Duryodhana). Mahadeva not only allowed Ashwatthama to slaughter the entire sleeping army that had trusted in his divine protection, but he actually gave Ashwatthama his own sword to help him accomplish the bloody massacre! (See Sauptika Parva, the eleventh book of the Mahabharata).
When the Asuras (demons) helped churn the ocean, they entrusted the resulting pitcher of the Water of Immortality to Vishnu. Vishnu immediately betrayed their trust by stealing it and delivering it to their step-brothers and mortal enemies, the celestial gods. (See Adi Parva, the first book of the Mahabharata).
Instances exactly like these could be multiplied beyond number! Crimes of an even deeper, darker dye could easily be added to this list, but I am unwilling to stain these pages by turning them into a vehicle for such horrific stories of immorality and vice.
May God speedily purify the minds of my countrymen from the terrible corruption that such tales inevitably produce. May He lead their hearts back to that pure, absolute morality which is completely inseparable from the true worship of Him!
Comments
Post a Comment