Shrimad Rajchandras Replay to Gandhiji Question

Author(s): Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram Agas
Publisher: Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/007522/1

Page #1
Shrimad Rajchandra's Reply) to Gandhiji's Questions Shrimad Raichandra Ashram Agas

Page #2
Shrimad Rajchandra's Reply To Gandhiji's Questions Published by : Manubhai B. Mody, President Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram Station Agas Post Boria - 388 130 Via Anand (Guj.) Also available at: Shri Paramsrut Prabhavak Mandal, Hathi Bldg., 'A' Block, II Floor, 18 Bhangwadi, 448 Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai-400002 First Edition AD 2000 Copies 3000 Vikram Year 2056 Cost Price Rs. 37- Sale Price Rs. 1/

Page #3
(3) Foreward Gandhiji had a long association with Shrimad Rajchandra, starting from his arrival in India as a barrister from England until the last day of Shrimad Rajchandra. This association with Shrimadji, both in person and by correspondence, had been very useful and beneficial to Gandhiji in the religious and spiritual matters, particularly during the time of his stay in South Africa when he was in great religious ferment & terpitude. From Durban in S. Africa, Gandhiji sent a long religious questionaire (as many as twenty seven questions) to Shrimad Rajchandra to obtain guidance from him, which he readily obliged with a prompt and detailed reply. This letter by Shrimadji is very useful to all of us-- murukshus & novice-even today. This booklet is a reproduction of that important letter, written by Shrimad Rajchandra in reply to Gandhiji's questions regarding soul, moksha & other crucial religious matters. Shrimadji's letter in original in Gujarati and its English version are given questionwise, in this booklet. The English traslation has been made available to us from Mani Bhuvan, Bombay and the authorities have given us their kind consent to publish it, for which we are thankful to them. -Manubhai B. Mody Shrimad Rajchandra's Reply to Gandhiji's Questions 1. pra--(1) AtmA zuM che? (2) te kaMI kare che? (3) ane tene karma naDe che ke nahIM ?" uTha-(1) jema ghaTapaTAdi jaDa vastuo che, tema AtmA jJAnasvarUpa vastu che. ghaTapaTAdi "anitya' che, trikALa eka svarUpe sthiti karI rahI zake evA nathI. AtmA eka svarUpe trikALa sthiti karI zake evo nitya' padArtha che. je padArthanI utpatti koI paNa saMyogothI thaI zakI na hoya, te padArtha 'nitya' hoya che. AtmA koI paNa saMyogothI banI zake ema jaNAtuM nathI; kemake jaDanA hajArogame saMyogo karIe to paNa tethI cetananI utpatti nahIM thaI zakavA yogya che. je gharma je padArthamAM hoya nahIM tevA ghaNA padArtho bheLA karavAthI paNa temAM je gharma nathI te utpanna thaI zake nahIM, evo saune anubhava thaI zake ema che. je ghaTapaTAdi padArtho che, tene viSe jJAnasvarUpatA jovAmAM AvatI nathI. tevA padArthonA pariNAmAMtara karI saMyoga karyo hoya athavA thayA hoya, to paNa te tevI ja jAtinA thAya, arthAt jaDasvarUpa thAya, paNa jJAnasvarUpa na thAya. to pachI tevA padArthanA saMyoge AtmA ke jene jJAnI puruSo mukhya jJAnasvarUpa lakSaNavALo kahe che, te tevA (ghaTapaTAdi, pRthvI, jaLa, vAyu, AkAzI padArthathI, utpanna koI rIte thaI zakavA yogya nathI. "jJAnasvarUpapaNuM' e AtmAnuM mukhya lakSaNa che, ane tenA abhAvavALuM' mukhya lakSaNa jaDanuM che. te bannenA anAdi sahaja svabhAva che. A tathA bIjAM tevAM sahastragame pramANo AtmAne "nitya' pratipAdana karI zake che. temaja teno vizeSa vicAra karyo sahaja svarUpa 1. The letter accompanying Rajchandra's replies is dated Bombay, Saturday, Aso Vad 6, 1950 (October 20,1894). Type setting by Descan CompuAct, Anand (Phone 55221)

Page #4
(4) nityapaNe AtmA anubhavavAmAM paNa Ave che. jethI sukhaduHkhAdi bhogavanAra, tethI nivartanAra, vicAranAra, preraNA karanAra, e Adi bhAvo jenA vidyamAnapaNAthI anubhavamAM Ave che, te AtmA mukhya cetana (jJAna) lakSaNavALo che; ane te bhAve (sthitie) karI te sarva kALa rahI zake evo 'nitya' padArtha che, ema mAnavAmAM kaMI paNa doSa ke bAgha jaNAto nathI, paNa satyano svIkAra thayArUpa guNa thAya che. A prazna tathA tamArAM bIjAM keTalAMka prazno evAM che ke, jemAM vizeSa lakhavAnuM tathA kahevAnuM ane samajAvavAnuM avazya che. te prazna mATe tevA svarUpamAM uttara lakhavAnuM banavuM hAla kaThaNa hovAthI prathama 'darzanasamuccaya' graMtha tamane mokalyo hato, ke je vAMcavA, vicAravAthI tamane kaMI paNa aMze samAdhAna thAya, ane A patramAM paNa kaMI vizeSa aMze samAghAna thAya eTaluM banI zake. kemake te saMbaMdhI aneka prazno UThavA yogya che, je pharI pharI samAdhAna prApta thavAthI, vicAravAthI samAveza pAme evI prAye sthiti che. (2) jJAnadazAmAM, potAnA svarUpanA yathArtha bodhathI utpanna thayelI dazAmAM te AtmA nijabhAvano eTale jJAna, darzana (yathAsthita nirdhAra) ane sahajasamAdhi pariNAmano kartA che. ajJAnadazAmAM krodha, mAna, mAyA, lobha e Adi prakRtino kartA che, ane te bhAvanAM phaLano bhoktA thatAM prasaMgavazAt ghaTapaTAdi padArthano nimittapaNe kartA che; arthAt ghaTapaTAdi padArthanAM mULa dravyano te kartA nathI, paNa tene koI AkAramAM lAvavArUpa kriyAno kartA che. e je pAchaLa tenI dazA kahI tene jaina 'karma' kahe che; vedAMta 'bhrAMti' kahe che; tathA bIjA paNa tene anusaratA evA zabda he che. vAstavya vicAra karyethI AtmA ghaTapaTAdino tathA krodhAdino kartA thaI zakato nathI, mAtra nijasvarUpa evA jJAnapariNAmano ja kartA ema spaSTa samajAya che. (3) ajJAnabhAvathI karelAM karma prAraMbhakALe bIjarUpa hoI vakhatano yoga pAmI phaLarUpa vRkSapariNAme pariName che; arthAt te karmo AtmAne bhogavavAM paDe che, jema agninA sparze uSNapaNAno saMbaMdha (5) thAya che, ane tenuM saheje vedanArUpa pariNAma thAya che, tema AtmAne krothAdi bhAvanA kartApaNAe janma, jarA, maraNAdi vedanArUpa pariNAma thAya che. A vicAramAM tame vizeSapaNe vicArazo, ane te paratve je kaMI prazna thAya te lakhazo; kemake je prakAranI samaja tethI nivRtta thavArUpa kArya karye jIvane mokSadazA prApta thAya che. 1. Q. (1) What is the Soul ? (2) Does it perform actions ? (3) Do past actions impede its progress or not? A. (1) As there are physical objects like a pot, a picce of cloth, etc., so there is an entity called the atman whose essence is knowledge. The former are impermanent. They cannot exist through all time in the same form. The atman is an imperishable entity which exists eternally in the same form. Anything which is not the product of a combination of other elements is imperishable. We cannot think of the atman as being such a product, for, no matter in how many thousand different ways we combine material substances, such combinations cannot possibly produce life and consciousness. Every one of us can know from experience that by combining several clements we cannot produce in the compound a property which is not present in any of those elements. We do not find knowledge to be the essence of physical substances. If we change the forms of such substances and combine them, or if they change and combine by chance, the products will be of the same kind as they are; that is, they will be of a material nature and will not have knowledge as their essence. It is not possible, then, that the atman, which the seers describe as having knowledge as its essential character, can be produced by any combination

Page #5
(6) of the elements (earth, water, air, space) of which physical substances like a pot, a piece of cloth, etc., are composed. The atman has knowledge as its essential character, whereas material substances are characterized by its absence. These are the eternal natures of the two. This and a thousand other reasons prove the atman to be imperishable. Further reflection on the subject enables us to realize that the atman from its nature is imperishable. There is, therefore, no error or logical difficulty in believing that the atman, the existence of which is the cause of our experiencing happiness and suffering which also withdraws itself from either, and which is conscious of something which thinks and impels, is characterized by awareness as its essential nature and that, in virtue of this nature, it is an imperishable entity which exists eteranlly; on the contrary, belief in the atman has this merit of accepting truth. (2) When the atman has attained a state of knowledge, the state resulting from a true understanding of its essence, it is the karta' of that state, the state of illumination (determination of what it truly is) and of the resulting state of pure awareness, which is its true nature. In a state of ignorance, it is the karta of the emotions of anger, love of honour, attachment, greed, etc., and, when enjoying the fruits of these emotions, becomes, as the occasion may require, the karta of physical objects like a pot, a piece of cloth, etc., that is, he is not the creator of the original substance of those objects, but is only the karta of the action of imposing some form on it. This 1. Karta-Author, Doer eri (7) latter state is described in Jainism as karma, and in Vedanta as illusion or in other similar terms. If we reflect carefully on the matter, we shall clearly see that the atman cannot be the karta of physical objects or emotions like anger, that it is karta only of the state of self-realization. (3) The karmas performed while in the state of ignorance are like seed in the beginning and grow into a tree in course of time; in other words, the atman has to suffer the consequences of those karmas. Just as contact with fire produces the experience of heat, the natural end of which is pain, so the atman, being the karta of emotions of anger, etc., has to suffer, as consequence, pain in the form of birth, old age and death. You should carefully reflect over this idea and ask me any question which may arise in your mind about it, for an understanding of the state from which the soul must withdraw itself and the effort to withdraw will bring deliverance to it. 2. pra(1) Izvara zuM che ? (2) te jagatakartA che e kharuM che ? u(1) ame tame karmabaMdhamAM vasI rahelA jIva chIe. te jIvanuM sahajasvarUpa, eTale parahitapaNe mAtra eka AtmatyapaNe je svarUpa che te IzvarapaNuM che. zAnAdi aizvarya jene viSe che, te Izvara kahevA yogya che; ane te IzvaratA AtmAnuM sahajasvarUpa che. je svarUpa karma prasaMge jaNAtuM nathI, paNa te prasaMga anyasvarUpa jANI, jyAre AtmA bhaNI dRSTi thAya che, tyAre ja anukrame sarvajJatAdi aizcaryapaNuM te ja AtmAmAM jaNAya che; ane tethI vizeSa aizvaryavALo koI padArtha, samasta padArtho nIrakhatAM paNa anubhavamAM AvI zakato nathI; jethI Izvara che te AtmAnuM bIjuM paryAyika nAma che, ethI koI vizeSa sattAvALo padArtha Izvara che ema nathI, evA nizcayamAM mAro abhiprAya che.

Page #6
(8). (2) te jagatakartA nathI; arthAt paramANu, AkAzAdi padArtha nitya hovA yogya che, te koI paNa vastumAMthI banavA yogya nathI. kadApi ema gaNIe ke, te IzvaramAMthI banyA che, to te vAta paNa yogya lAgatI nathI. kemake, Izvarane jo cetanapaNe mAnIe, to tethI paramANuM, AkAza vagere utpanna kema thaI zake ? kemake cetanathI jaDanI utpatti thavI ja saMbhavatI nathI. jo Izvarane jaDa svIkAravAmAM Ave to saheje te anaizvaryavAna Thare che, temaja tethI jIvarUpa cetanapadArthanI utpatti paNa thaI zake nahIM. jaDa, cetana ubhayarUpa Izvara gaNIe, to pachI jaDa, cetana ubhayarUpa jagata che tenuM Izvara evuM bIjuM nAma kahI saMtoSa rAkhI levA jevuM thAya che; ane jagatanuM nAma Izvara rAkhI saMtoSa rAkhI levo, te karatAM jagatane jagata kahevuM, e vizeSa yogya che. kadApi paramANu, AkAzAdi nitya gaNIe ane Izvarane karmAdinAM phaLa ApanAra gaNIe, to paNa te vAta siddha jaNAtI nathI. e vicAra para "padarzanasamuccaya'mAM sArA pramANo ApyAM che. 2. Q. What is God ? Is He the creator of the universe ? A. (1) You, I and others are souls suffering the bondage of karma. The soul's existence in its natural state, that is, in freedom from karma and purely as the atman that it is, is the state of being Ishvar'. That which has the aishvarya of knowledge, etc., may be described as Ishvar. This Ishvarhood is the natural state of the atman, which is not revealed when it is engaged in karmas. When the atman, however, realizes that being engaged in karma is not its real nature and fixes its attention on itself, then alone do omniscience, power, etc., manifest themselves in it and we can see nothing among all the objects in the universe with greater power 1. Ishvar=Ruler, God 2. Aishvarya-Power (9) than the atman's. It is, therefore, my positive belief that Ishvar is another name for atman and does not signify a different Bcing of greater power. (2) Ishvar is not the creator of the universe, that is, atoms, space, ctc., can be conceived only as imperishable cntities and not as created from some other substance. If it is stated that they came into being from Ishvar, that, too, does not seem likely; for, if we believe that Ishvar is a spirit, how can atoms, space, ctc., come into being from Him ? For it is impossible that matter can come into existence from that which is spirit. If Ishvar is regarded as material, He will then lose His Ishvarhood; also, a spiritual cntity like the soul cannot come into being from such an Ishvar. If we regard Him as being both matter and spirit, that only means that we are pleased to call the world, which is both matter and spirit, by another name, Ishvar. Instead of doing that, it is better to call the world the world; If we hold that atoms, space, etc., are imperishable entities and that Ishvar only awards the fruits of karma, this, too, cannot be proved. Convincing reasons have been given in support of this view in Shatdarshan Samuchchaya! 3. pra-mokSa zuM che? u -je krodhAdi ajJAnabhAvamAM, dehAdimAM AtmAne pratibaMdha che, tethI sarvathA nivRtti thavI, mukti thavI te mokSapada jJAnIoe kahyuM che. te sahaja vicAratAM pramANabhUta lAge che. 3. Q. What is moksha? A. While the atman is in the state of ignorance, 1 A philosophical treatise; Shrimad Rajchandra had earlier sent a copy of it to Gandhiji.

Page #7
(10) characterized by anger, etc., it is under the bondage of the body, and complete cessation of such a state, deliverance from it, is described by seers as moksha. A little reflection shows this to be logical and convincing. 4. pra--mokSa maLaze ke nahIM te cokkasa rIte A dehamAM ja jANI zakAya ? u~eka doraDInA ghaNA baMdhathI hAtha bAMdhavAmAM Avyo hoya, temAMthI anukrame jema jema baMdha choDavAmAM Ave, tema tema te baMdhanA saMbaMdhanI nivRtti anubhavamAM Ave che, ane te doraDI vaLa mUkI chUTI gayAnA pariNAmamAM varte che ema paNa jaNAya che, anubhavAya che. temaja ajJAnabhAvamAM aneka pariNAmarUpa baMdhano prasaMga AtmAne che, te jema jema chUTe che, tema tema mokSano anubhava thAya che; ane tenuM ghaNuM ja alpapaNuM jyAre thAya che tyAre, sahaje AtmAmAM nijabhAva prakAzI nIkaLIne ajJAnabhAvarUpa baMghathI chUTI zakavAno prasaMga che, evo spaSTa anubhava thAya che. temaja kevaLa ajJAnAdi bhAvathI nivRtti thaI kevaLa AtmabhAva A ja dehane viSe sthitimAna chatAM paNa AtmAne pragaTe che, ane sarva saMbaMghathI kevaLa potAnuM bhinnapaNuM anubhavamAM Ave che; arthAt mokSapada A dehamAM paNa anubhavamAM AvavA yogya che. 4. Q. Is it possible for a person to know for certain, while he is still living, whether or not he will. attain ntoksha. A. If our arms are tied with a rope wound several times round them and if the twists of the rope are loosened one after another, we feel the loosening of cach twist and in the end become conscious of the rope having been removed. In like manner as the innumerable bonds, the products of ignorance, which bind the atman loosen one by one, the latter becomes conscious of progressing towards moksha, and when the bonds are about to fall (11) off, the atman shines forth with the light of its essence and knows beyond doubt that it is about to be delivered from the bonds of ignorance. While still dwelling in this body, it comes out of the state of ignorance, etc., and becomes conscious of its pure essence and of its absolute otherness and freedom from all relations. In other words, it is possible to experience the state of moksha even while living. 5. pra--ema vAMcavAmAM AvyuM ke, mANasa deha choDI karma pramANe janAvaromAM avatare, patharo paNa thAya, jhADa paNa thAya; A barAbara che ? u--deha choDI, upArjita pramANe jIvanI gati thAya che, tethI te tiryaMca (janAvara) paNa thAya che, ane pRthvIkAya eTale pRthvIrUpa zarIra ghAraNa karI, bAkInI bIjI cAra iMdriyo vinA karma bhogavavAno jIvane prasaMga paNa Ave che; tathApi te kevaLa paththara ke pRthvI thaI jAya che, evuM kAMI nathI. paththararUpa kAyA ghAraNa kare, ane temAM paNa avyaktapaNe jIva, jIvapaNe ja hoya che. bIjI cAra indriyonuM tyAM avyakta(apragaTa)paNuM hovAthI pRthvIkAyarUpa jIva kahevA yogya che. anukrame te karma bhogavI jIva nivRtta thAya che tyAre, phakta paththaranuM daLa paramANurUpe rahe che, paNa jIva tenA saMbaMdhathI cAlyo javAthI AhArAdi saMjJA tene hotI nathI, arthAt kevaLa jaDa evo paththara jIva thAya che evuM nathI. karmanA viSamapaNAthI cAra iMdriyono prasaMga avyakta thaI, phakta eka sparzendriyapaNe dehano prasaMga jIvane je karmathI thAya che, te karma bhogavatAM te pRthvI AdimAM janme che; paNa kevaLa pRthvIrUpa ke paththararUpa thaI jato nathI. janAvara thatAM kevaLa janAvara paNa thaI jato nathI. deha che te, jIvane veSaghArIpaNuM che, svarUpapaNuM nathI. 5. Q. It is said that after his death, a man may, according to his actions, be reborn as an animal, a tree or even a stone. Is this a fact ?

Page #8
(14) bauddhanA chellA mahAvIrAdi mahAtmAo thayA pahelAM, veda hatA ema jaNAya che; tema te ghaNA prAcIna graMtha che ema paNa jaNAya che; tathApi je kaMI prAcIna hoya te ja saMpUrNa hoya ke satya hoya, ema kahI zakAya nahIM; ane pAchaLathI utpanna thAya te asaMpUrNa ane asatya hoya ema paNa kahI zakAya nahIM. bAkI veda jevo abhiprAya ane jaina jevo abhiprAya anAdithI cAlyo Ave che. sarva bhAva anAdi che; mAtra rUpAMtara thAya che. kevaLa utpatti ke kevaLa nAza thato nathI. veda, jaina ane bIjA saunA abhiprAya anAdi che, ema mAnavAmAM aDacaNa nathI; tyAM pachI vivAda zAno rahe ? tathApi e saumAM vizeSa baLavAna, satya abhiprAya konA kahevA yogya che te vicAravuM, e amane tamane saune yogya che. 8. Q. (1) What is Arya Dharma ? (2) Do all Indian religions originate from the Vedas ? A. (1) In defining Arya Dharma, cveryone has his own religion in view. Commonly a Jain describes Jainism, a Buddhist describes Buddhism and a Vedantin describes Vedanta as Arya Dharma. But scors describes only that Arya---noble-path as Arya Dharma which enables the soul to realize its true nature, and rightly so. (2) It is impossible that all religions had their origin in the Vedas. I know from experience that great souls like the (Jain) Thirthankars' have revealed knowledge of a thousand times deeper import than what the Vedas contain. I, therefore, believe that, since something imperfect cannot be the origin of a perfect thing, we are not justificd in asserting that all religions had originated from the Vedas. We may believe that Vaishnavism and other sects had their origin in the Vedas. It seems that the 1 Self-realized men whose teachings evolved into Jainism (15) latter cxisted before the time of the Buddha and Mahavira, the last teacher of Jainism; it also seems likely that they are really ancient works. But we cannot say that only that which is ancient is true or perfect, nor that what came later is necessarily untrue or imperfect. Apart from this, the idcas propounded in the Vedas and in Jain doctrines have existed from the beginning of time; only the outward forms changed. There is no totally new crcation or absolute destruction. Since we may believe that the ideas propounded by the Vedas and in the doctrines of Jainism and other religions have existed from the beginning of time, where is the room for controversy? All the same, it is only right that you and I and others should reflect and consider which of these systems of ideas has more power-truth in them. 9. pra-(1) veda koNe karyA? te anAdi che ? (2) jo anAdi hoya to anAdi eTale zuM? u-(1) dhaNA kALa pahelAM veda thayA saMbhave che. (2) pustakapaNe koI paNa zAstra anAdi nathI; temAM kahelA artha pramANe to sau zAstra anAdi che; kemake tevA tevA abhiprAya judA judA jIvo jude jude rUpe kahetA AvyA che, ane ema ja sthiti saMbhave che. krodhAdi bhAva paNa anAdi che, ane kSamAdi bhAva paNa anAdi che. hiMsAdi gharma paNa anAdi che, ane ahiMsAdi gharma paNa anAdi che. mAtra jIvane hitakArI zuM che ? eTaluM vicAravuM kAryarUpa che. anAdi to be ya che. pachI kyAreka ochA pramANamAM ane kyAreka vizeSa pramANamAM koInuM baLa hoya che. 9. O. (1) Who composed the Vedas ? Are they 'anadi ? (2) If so, what does anadi mean? 1 Without a beginning

Page #9
(16) A. (1) The Vedas were probably composed a long time ago. (2) No scripture, considered as a book, is anadi; but with respect to the ideas propounded in them, all scriptures are anadi, for there have been souls at all times who taught them in one form or another. It cannot be otherwise. The emotions of anger, etc., are anadi and so are those of forgiveness, etc. The way of violence, too, is anadi, as is the path of non-violence. What we should consider is which of these conduce to the welfare of the soul? Both classes of things are anadi, though sometimes the one and sometimes the other may be predominant. 10. pra--gItA koNe banAvI ? IzvarakRta to nathI ? jo tema hoya to teno kAMI purAvo ? u--upara ApelA uttarothI keTaluMka samAghAna thaI zakavA yogya che ke, IzvarakRtano artha jJAnI (saMpUrNajJAnI) evo karavAthI te IzvarakRta thaI zake; paNa nitya akriya evA AkAzanI peThe vyApaka Izvarane svIkAryuM tevA pustakAdinI utpatti thavI saMbhave nahIM, kemake te to sAdhAraNa kArya che, ke jenuM kartApaNuM AraMbhapUrvaka hoya che, anAdi nathI hotuM. gItA vedavyAsajInuM kareluM pustaka gaNAya che, ane mahAtmA zrIkRSNe arjunane tevo bodha karyo hato, mATe mukhyapaNe kartA zrIkRSNa kahevAya che, je vAta saMbhavita che. graMtha zreSTha che, tevo bhAvArtha anAdithI cAlyo Ave che, paNa te ja zloko anAdithI cAlyA Ave ema banavA yogya nathI; tema akriya IzvarathI paNa tenI utpatti hoya ema banavA yogya nathI. sakriya eTale koI dehadhArIthI te kriyA banavA yogya che. mATe saMpUrNa zAnI te Izvara che, ane tenAthI bodhAyelAM (17) zAo te IzvarI zAstra che, ema mAnavAmAM aDacaNa nathI. 10. Q. Who is the author of the Gita ? Is God its author ? Is there any evidence that He is ? A. (1) The replies given above partly answer this question; if by God we mean a person who has attained illumination-perfect illumination-then we can say that the Gita was composed by God. If, however, we accept God as being all-pervading, like the sky, eternally existing and passive, the Gita or any other book cannot have been composed by Him. For, writing a book is an ordinary activity undertaken at a patricular point in time and is not anadi. (2) The Gita is believed to be the work of Veda Vyasa and since Lord Krishna had propounded this teaching to Arjuna, He is said to be its real author, This may be true. The work is indeed great. The ideas it propounds have been taught from the time immemorial, but it is not possible that these same verses have existed from the beginning of time. Nor is it likely that they were composed by God who does nothing. They can have been composed only by an embodied soul, who acts. There is no harm, therefore, in saying that a perfectly illuminated person is God, and that a Shastra taught by him is one revealed by God. 11. pra-pazu AdinA yajJathI jarAye puNya che kharuM ? u-pazunA vadhathI, homathI ke jarAye tene duHkha ApavAthI pApa ja che; te pachI yajJamAM karo, ke game to IzvaranA dhAmamAM besIne karo. paNa yajJamAM je dAnAdi kriyA thAya che te, kAMIka puNyahetu che; tathApi hiMsAmizrita hovAthI te paNa anumodana yogya nathI.

Page #10
(18) 11. Q. Does any merit accrue from the sacrifice of animals or other things? A. It is always sinful to kill an animal to give it as an offering in sacrifice or injure it in any way, cven if this is done for the purpose of a sacrifice or living in the very abode of God. The practice of giving gifts at the time of a sacrifice docs cam some merit, but since this is accompanied with violence, it, too, descrves no commendation. 12. praha-je gharma uttama che ema kaho, teno purAvo mAMgI zakAya kharo ke? u0-purAvo mAgavAmAM na Ave, ane uttama che ema vagara purAve pratipAdana karavAmAM Ave, to to artha, anartha, gharma, adharma, sau uttama ja Thare. pramANathI ja uttama anuttama jaNAya che. je gharma saMsAra parikSaNa karavAmAM sarvathI uttama hoya, ane nijasvabhAvamAM sthiti karAvavAne baLavAna hoya te ja uttama, ane te ja baLavAna che. 12. Q. If a claim is put forward that a particular religion is the best, may we not ask the claimant for proof ? A. If no proof is required and if any such claim is made without proof in its support, reason and unrcason, dharma and adharma, everything will have to be accepted as "the best". Only the test of proof can show what is the best and what is not. That religion alone is the best and is truly strong, which is most helpful in destroying the bondage of worldly life and can establish us in the state which is our csscncc. 13. pra-khristI gharma viSe Apa kAMI jANo cho ? jo jANatA ho to ApanA vicAra darzAvazo. (19) u0-khristI gharma viSe sAdhAraNapaNe huM jANuM chuM. bharatakhaMDamAM mahAtmAoe jevo gharma zodhyo che, vicAryo che tevo gharma bIjA koI dezathI vicArAyo nathI, ema to eka alpa abhyAse samajI zakAya tevuM che. temAM (khistI gharmamAM) jIvanuM sadA paravazapaNuM kahyuM che; ane mokSamAM paNa te dazA tevI ja rAkhI che. jIvanA anAdi svarUpanuM vivecana jemAM yathAyogya nathI, karma saMbaMdhI vyavasthA ane tenI nivRtti paNa yathAyogya kahI nathI, te dharma viSe mAro abhiprAya "sarvottama te gharma che" ema thavAno saMbhava nathI. khristI gharmamAM meM je upara kahyA tevA prakAranuM yathAyogya samAdhAna dekhAtuM nathI. A vAkya matabhedavaze kahyuM nathI. vadhAre pUchavA yogya lAge to pUchazo, to vizeSa samAghAna karavAnuM banI zakaze. 13. Q. Do you know anything about Christianity? If so, what do you think of it? A. I know something in general about Christianity, Even a little study of the subject will show that no other country has gone so deep as India and discovered a religious path which can rival the one discovered by the great scers of India. Among the other religions, Christianity asserts the eternal subjection of the soul, cven in the state of moksha. It does not give a true description of the anadi state of the soul, of the law of karma or of the cessation of karma, and I am not likely therefore, to accept the vicw that it is the best religion. It does not seem to offer a satisfactory solution of the problems which I have mentioned. I am not making this statement in a sectarian spirit. If you wish to ask more questions on this, you may, and then it will be possible for me to resolve your doubts still further. 14. pra--teo ema kahe che ke bAIbala Izvaraprerita che; Isu te

Page #11
(20) Izvarano avatAra, teno dIkaro, che ne hato. u-e vAta to zraddhAthI mAnyAthI mAnI zakAya, paNa pramANathI siddha nathI. jema gItA ane vedanA IzvarapreritapaNA mATe upara lakhyuM che, tema ja bAIbalanA saMbaMdhamAM paNa gaNavuM. je janmamaraNathI mukta thayA te Izvara avatAra le te banavA yogya nathI. kemake rAgadveSAdi pariNAma ja janmano hetu che; te jene nathI evo Izvara avatAra dhAraNa kare e vAta vicAratAM yathArtha lAgatI nathI. Izvarano dIkaro che, ne hato, te vAta paNa koI rUpaka tarIke vicArIe to vakhate baMdha beseH nahIM to pratyakSa pramANathI bAghA pAmatI che. mukta evA Izvarane dIkaro hoya ema zI rIte kahevAya ? ane kahIe to tenI utpatti zI rIte kahI zakIe ? bannene anAdi mAnIe to pitAputrapaNuM zI rIte baMdha bese ? e vagere vAta vicAravA yogya che. je vicArethI mane ema lAge che ke, e vAta yathAyogya nahIM lAge. 14. Q. The Christians hold that the Bible is divinely inspired and that Christ was an incarnation of God, being his son. Was He? A. This is a matter of faith and cannot be proved rationally. What I said above concerning the claim that the Gita and the Vedas are divinely inspired may be applied to the Bible too. It is impossible that God, who is free from birth and death, will incarnate Himself as a human being; for it is the changes of attachment, aversion, ctc. which are the cause of birth and it does not appeal to reason that God, who has no attachment and aversion, will take birth as a human being. The idea that Jesus is, and was, the son of God may perhaps be acceptable if we interpret the belief as an allegory; otherwise, tested by the canons of reason, it is difficult to acccpt. How can we say that God, who is free, has or had (21) a son ? If we assert that He has or had one, what was the manner of the son's birth ? If we believe that both God and His son are anadi, how can we explain their being father and son ? These and other objections deserve examination. If we reflect over them, I think the belief will not be found acceptable. 15. prave-jUnA karAramAM je bhaviSya bhAkhyuM che te badhuM IsAmAM kharuM paDyuM che. u0-ema hoya to paNa tethI te banne zAstra viSe vicAra karavo ghaTe che. temaja evuM bhaviSya te paNa Isune IzvarAvatAra kahevAmAM baLavAna pramANa nathI; kema ke jyotiSAdikathI paNa mahAtmAnI utpatti jaNAvI saMbhave che. athavA bhale koI jJAnathI tevI vAta jaNAvI hoya, paNa tevA bhaviSyavettA saMpUrNa evA mokSamArganA jANanAra hatA te vAta, jyAM sudhI yathAsthita pramANarUpa na thAya, tyAM sudhI te bhaviSya vagere eka zraddhAgrAhya pramANa che. tema bIjAM pramANothI te hAni na pAme evuM dhAraNAmAM nathI AvI zakatuM. 15. Q. Were all the Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in Christ? A. Even if they were, that should only make us think about the two scriptures. Nor is the act of the prophecies having been fulfilled a sufficiently strong reason to justify us in asserting that Jesus was an incarnation of God, for the birth of a great soul can also be predicted with the help of astrology. Even if, however, someone foretold the event by virtue of his knowledge, unless it is established that person had perfect knowledge of the path to moksha, the fact of his having predicted a future event appcals only to faith as proof of a thing and we cannot believe that no reasoning on the opposite side can diminish its force.

Page #12
(22) 16. pra-"Isu khristanA camatkAra" viSe lakhyuM che. u0-kevaLa kAyAmAMthI jIva cAlyo gayo hoya, te ja jIva te ja kAyAmAM dAkhala karyo hoya, athavA koI bIjA jIvane temAM dAkhala karyo hoya, to te banI zake evuM saMbhavatuM nathI; ane ema thAya to pachI karmAdinI vyavasthA paNa niSphaLa thAya. bAkI yogAdinI siddhithI, keTalAka camatkAra utpanna thAya che, ane tevA keTalAka Isune hoya, to temAM taddana khoTuM che ke asaMbhavita che ema kahevAya nahIM; tevI siddhio AtmAnA aizvarya AgaLa alpa che, AtmAnuM aizvarya tethI anaMtaguNa mahat saMbhave che. A viSayamAM samAgame pUchavA yogya che. 16. A. In this question you ask about the miracles attributed to Jesus Christ. If it is said that he put a soul back into the body which it had left, or that he put another soul in its place, this could not possibly have been done. If it could be done, the law of karma would lose its meaning. Apart from this, mastery of yoga techniques enables a person to perform certain miracles, and if it is claimed that Jesus had such powers, we cannot assert that the claim is false or impossible. Such yogic powers are of no consequence compared to the power of the atman; the latter is infinitely greater than the powers attained by yoga. You may ask more questions on this subject when we meet. 17. pra-AgaLa upara zo janma thaze tenI A bhavamAM khabara paDe ? athavA agAu zuM hatA tenI ? u-tema banI zake. nirmaLa jJAna jenuM thayuM hoya tene tevuM banavuM saMbhave che. vAdaLAM vagerenA cihno parathI varasAdanuM anumAna thAya che, tema A jIvanI A bhavanI ceSTA uparathI tenAM pUrva kAraNa kevAM hovAM joIe, te paNa samajI zakAya; thoDe aMze vakhate samajAya. tema ja te (23) ceSTA bhaviSyamAM kevuM pariNAma pAmaze te paNa tenA svarUpa uparathI jANI zakAya; ane tene vizeSa vicAratAM kevo bhava thavo saMbhave che, tema ja kevo bhava hato, te paNa vicAramAM sArI rIte AvI zakavA yogya che. 17. Q. Can anyone remember his past lives or have an idea of his future lives? A. This is quite possible. One whose knowledge has become pure may be able to do so. We can infer the possibility of rain from certain signs in the clouds, similarly, from the actions of a soul in this life, we can understand, perhaps partially, their causes in its previous existence. We can also judge from the nature of the actions what results they are likely to have. On further reflection, we can also know what kind of a future existence the soul is likely to have or what kind of a past existence it had. " 18. pra-paDI zake to kone ? u- Ano uttara upara AvI gayo che. 18. Q. If yes, who can ? A. The answer to this is contained in the reply above. 19. prave-je mokSa pAmelAnAM nAma Apo cho te zA AdhAra uparathI ? u-mane A prazna khAsa saMbodhIne pUcho, to tenA uttaramAM ema kahI zakAya ke atyaMta saMsAradazA parikSINa jenI thaI che, tenAM vacano AvAM hoya, AvI tenI ceSTA hoya, e Adi aMze paNa potAnA AtmAmAM anubhava thAya che, ane tene Azraye tenA mokSa paratve kahevAya; ane ghaNuM karIne te yathArtha hoya ema mAnavAnAM pramANo paNa zAAdithI jANI zakAya.

Page #13
(24) 19. Q. You have given the names of some who have attained moksha. What is the authority for this statement ? A. If you have addressed this question personally to me, I may say in reply that one can to some extent infer from one's own experience how a person whose involvement in carthly existence is about to end is likely to speak or act, and on the basis of this one can assert whether or not such a person attained moksha. In most cases, we can also get from Shastras reasons in support of our conclusion. 20. pra-buddhadeva paNa mokSa nathI pAmyA e zA uparathI Apa kaho cho? u-tenA zAasiddhAMtonA Azraye. je pramANe temanAM zAstrasiddhAMto che, te ja pramANe jo temano abhiprAya hoya to te abhiprAya pUrvApara viruddha paNa dekhAya che, ane te lakSaNa saMpUrNa jJAnanuM nathI. saMpUrNa jJAna jo na hoya tyAM saMpUrNa rAgadveSa nAza pAmavA saMbhavita nathI. jyAM tema hoya, tyAM saMsArano saMbhava che. eTale kevaLa mokSa tene hoya ema kahevuM banI zake evuM nathI; ane temanAM kahelAM zAomAM je abhiprAya che, te sivAya bIjo temano abhiprAya hato, te bIjI rIte jANavAnuM ane temane kaThaNa paDe tevuM che; ane tema chatAM kahIe ke buddhadevano abhiprAya bIjo hato to te kAraNapUrvaka kahevAthI pramANabhUta na thAya ema kAMI nathI 20. Q. What makes you say that even Buddha did not attain moksha ? A. On the basis of the teachings of Buddhist scriptures. If his views were the same as these, then they seem to have been inconsistent with one another, and that is not a mark of perfect illumination. If a person has not (25) attained perfect illumination his attachments and aversions are not likely to disappear so long as he is in such a state; carthly cxistence is a necessary consequence. One cannot, therefore, claim such a person to have attained absolute moksha. Moreover, it is impossible for you and me to know from independent sources that the Buddha's views were different than those contained in the teachings attributed to him. Even so, if it is asserted that his views were in fact different and proof given in support of the assertion, there is no reason why we should not accept that as possible. 21. pra-duniyAnI chevaTa zI sthiti thaze ? u--kevaLa mokSarUpe sarva jIvanI sthiti thAya ke kevaLa A duniyAno nAza thAya, tevuM banavuM mane pramANarUpa lAgatuM nathI. AvA ne AvA pravAhamAM tenI sthiti saMbhave che, koI bhAva rUpAMtara pAmI kSINa thAya, to koI vardhamAna thAya; paNa te eka kSetre vadhe to bIje kSetre ghaTe; e Adi A sRSTinI sthiti che; te parathI ane dhaNA ja UMDA vicAramAM gayA pachI ema jaNAvuM saMbhavita lAge che ke, kevaLa A sRSTi nAza thAya ke pralayarUpa thAya e na banavA yogya che. sRSTi eTale eka A ja pRthvI evo artha nathI. 21. Q. What will finally happen to this world? A. It does not seem rationally possible to me that all souls will attain absolute moksha or that the world will perish completely. It is likely to continue to exist for ever in the same state as at present. Some aspect of it may undergo transformation and almost disappear, and another may grow, such is the nature of the world that, if there is growth in one sphere, there is decline in another. Having regard to this fact, and after deep reflection, it

Page #14
(26) seems impossible to me that this world will perish completely. By "world" we do not mean this carth only. 22. prava-A anItimAMthI sunIti thaze kharI ? u-A praznano uttara sAMbhaLI je jIva anIti icche che tene te uttara upayogI thAya ema thavA devuM yogya nathI. sarva bhAva anAdi che, nIti, anIti; tathApi tame ame anIti tyAgI nIti svIkArIe, to te svIkArI zakAya evuM che, ane e ja AtmAne kartavya che; ane sarva jIva AzrayI anIti maTI nIti sthapAya evuM vacana kahI zakAtuM nathI, kemake ekAMte tevI sthiti thaI zakavA yogya nathI. 22. Q. Will the world be morally better off in the future? A. It would not be proper to encourage any soul which loves immorality to take wrong advantage of the answer to this question. All modes in this world, including morality and immorality, have existed from the beginning of time. But it is possible for you and me to eschew immorality and accept morality, and it is the duty of the atman to do that. It is not possible to assert that immorality will be given up by all and morality will prevail, for such an extreme state cannot come about. 23. pra-duniyAno pralaya che ? u-pralaya eTale jo "kevaLa nAza" evo artha karavAmAM Ave to te vAta ghaTatI nathI, kemake padArthano kevaLa nAza thaI javo saMbhavato. ja nathI. pralaya eTale sarva padArthonuM IzvarAdine viSe lInapaNuM, to koInA abhiprAyamAM te vAtano svIkAra che; paNa mane te saMbhavita lAgatuM nathI, kemake sarva padArtha, sarva jIva evAM samapariNAma zI rIte pAme ke evo yoga bane ? ane jo tevAM samapariNAmano prasaMga Ave to pachI pharI viSamapaNuM thavuM bane nahIM. avyaktapaNe jIvamAM viSamapaNuM (27) hoya ane vyaktapaNe samapaNuM e rIte pralaya svIkArIe, to paNa dehAdi saMbaMdha vinA viSamapaNuM zA Azraye rahe ? dehAdi saMbaMdha mAnIe to sarvane ekeMdriyapaNuM mAnavAno prasaMga Ave; ane tema mAnatAM to vinA kAraNe bIjI gationo asvIkAra karyo gaNAya, arthAt UMcI gatinA jIvane tenA pariNAmano prasaMga maTavA Avyo hoya te prApta thavAno prasaMga Ave. e Adi dhaNA vicAra uddabhave che. sarva jIvaAzrayI pralaya saMbhavato nathI. 23. Q. Is there anything like total destruction of the world? A. If by pralaya is meant total destruction, that is not possible, for complete destruction of all that exists is impossible. If by pralaya is meant thc merging of cverything in God, the belief is accepted in some doctrines but that does not seem possible to me. For, how can all objects and all souls arrive in an identical state so that such a thing may happen ? If they ever do, then diversity cannot develop again. If we accept the possibility of pralaya on the supposition of unmanifest diversity in the souls and manifest sameness, how can diversity cxist except through connection with a body? If we believe that such connection exists (in the state of pralaya), we shall have to believe further that all souls will have one sense only and in doing so we shall reject, without reason, the possibility of other modes of existence. In other words, we shall have to suppose that a soul which had attained a higher state and was about to be free for ever from the contingency of existence with one sense only, had none the less to be in such a state. This and many similar doubts arise. A pralaya involving all souls is impossible.

Page #15
(29) (28) 24. pra-abhaNane bhaktithI ja mokSa maLe kharo ke? u0- bhakti jJAnano hetu che. jJAna mokSano hetu che. akSarajJAna na hoya tene abhaNuM kahyo hoya, to tene bhakti prApta thavI asaMbhavita che evuM kaMI che nahIM. jIvamAtra jJAnasvabhAvI che. bhaktinA baLe jJAna nirmaLa thAya che. nirmaLa jJAna mokSano hetu thAya che. saMpUrNa jJAnanI AvRtti thayA vinA sarvathA mokSa hoya ema mane lAgatuM nathI; ane jyAM saMpUrNa jJAna hoya tyAM sarva bhASAjJAna samAya ema kahevAnI paNa jarUra nathI. bhASAjJAna mokSano hetu che tathA te jene na hoya tene AtmajJAna na thAya, evo kAMI niyama saMbhavato nathI. . 24. Q. Can an illiterate person attain moksha through bhakti alone ? A. Bhakti is a cause of knowledge and knowledge of moksha. If by an illiterate person we mean one without knowledge of letters, it is not impossible that he may cultivate bhakti. Every soul has knowledge as its essence. The power of bhakti purifies knowledge, and pure knowledge becomes the cause of moksha. I do not believe that, without the manifestation of perfect knowledge, absolute moksha is possible. Nor need I point out that knowledge of letters is contained in perfect (spiritual) knowlcdge. It cannot be true that knowledge of letters is a cause of moksha and that, without it, selfrealization is not possible. 25. pra-1) kRSNAvatAra ne rAmAvatAra e kharI vAta che? ema hoya to te zuM? e sAkSAt Izvara hatA, ke tenA aMza hatA ? (2) temane mAnIne mokSa kharo? u-(1) banne mahAtmApuruSa hatA, evo to mane paNa nizcaya che. AtmA hovAthI teo Izvara hatA. sarva AvaraNa temane maTyAM hoya, to teno mokSa paNa sarvathA mAnavAmAM vivAda nathI. Izvarano aMza koI jIva che ema mane lAgatuM nathI, kemake tene virogha ApatAM evAM hajAro pramANa dRSTimAM Ave che. Izvarano aMza jIvane mAnavAthI baMdha mokSa badhA vyartha thAya; kemake Izvara ja ajJAnAdino kartA thayo; ane ajJAnAdino je kartA thAya tene pachI saheje anaizvaryapaNuM prApta thAya ne IzvarapaNuM khoI bese, arthAt UlaTuM jIvanA svAmI thavA jatAM Izvarane nukasAna khamavAno prasaMga Ave tevuM che. tema jIvane Izvarano aMza mAnyA pachI puruSArtha karavo yogya zI rIte lAge ? kemake te jAte to kaMI kartAhartA TharI zake nahIM. e Adi viroghathI IzvaranA aMza tarIke koI jIvane svIkAravAnI paNa mArI buddhi thatI nathI, to pachI zrIkRSNa ke rAma jevA mahAtmAne tevA yogamAM gaNavAnI buddhi kema thAya ? te banne avyakta Izvara' hatA, ema mAnavAmAM aDacaNa nathI. tathApi temane viSe saMpUrNa aizvarya pragaTyuM hatuM ke kema ? te vAta vicAravA yogya che. (2) 'temane mAnIne mokSa kharo ke ?' eno uttara sahaja che. jIvane sarva rAga, dveSa, ajJAnano abhAva arthAt tethI chUTavuM te mokSa che. te jenA upadeze thaI zake tene mAnIne ane tenuM paramArtha svarUpe vicArIne svAtmAne viSe paNa tevI ja niSThA thaI, te ja mahAtmAnA AtmAne AkAre (svarUpe) pratiSThAna thAya tyAre, mokSa thavo saMbhave che. bAkI bIjI upAsanA kevaLa mokSano hetu nathI; tenA sAthanano hetu thAya che, te paNa nizcaya thAya ja ema kahevA yogya nathI. 25. Q. (1) Rama and Krishna are described as incarnations of God. What does that mean? Were they God Himself or only a part of Him ? (2) Can we attain salvation through faith in them? A. (1) I, too, am convinced that both were souls of great holiness. Each of them, being an atman, was God. If it is a fact that all the coverings over their atman had

Page #16
(30) fallen off, there need be no dispute about their having attained absolute moksha. I do not think that any soul can be a portion of God, for I can think of a thousand reasons against such a belief. If we believe a soul to be a portion of God, the belief in bondage and moksha will have no meaning. For then God Himself will be the cause of ignorance, etc., and, if that is true, He ceases to be God. In other words, in being regarded as Lord of the soul God actually loses something from His status. Moreover, if we believe that the soul is a portion of God, what motive will a person have to strive for anything? For in that case the 'soul cannot be regarded as the karta of anything. In view of this and other objections, I am not prepared to believe any soul to be a portion of God; how, then, can I believe that such was the case with great and holy souls like Rama and Krishna ? There is no error in believing that these two were unmanifest God, but it is doubtful whether perfect Godhood had become manifest in them. (2) The question whether we can attain moksha through faith in' them can be easily answered. Moksha means absence of or deliverance from all forms of attachment, ignorance, etc. It can be attained when we cultivate faith in a person whose teaching will enable us to win such freedom from attachment and ignorance, and, reflecting on our true essence, come to have the same faith in our atman that we have in the teacher and identify ourselves with his personality. Worship of any kind other than this cannot win absolute moksha. It may help one to win the means of moksha, but even that cannot be asserted with certainty. (31) 26. pra--brahmA, viSNu, mahezvara, te koNa ? u-sRSTinA nurUSa Na guNa gaNI te Ape rUpa ApyuM hoya to te vAta baMdha besI zake tathA tevAM bIjAM kAraNothI te brahmAdinuM svarUpa samajAya che. paNa purANomAM je prakAre temanuM svarUpa kahyuM che, te prakAre svarUpa che, ema mAnavA viSemAM mAruM vizeSa valaNa nathI. kemake temAM keTalAMka upadezArthe rUpaka kahyAM hoya ema paNa lAge che. tathApi ApaNe paNa teno upadeza tarIke lAbha levo, ane brahmAdinA svarUpanA siddhAMta karavAnI jaMjALamAM na paDavuM, e mane ThIka lAge che. 26. Q. Who were Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva ? A. If people believed in three gunas' as the cause of creation and personified them [as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva], this or similar explanations may make the belief plausible. But I am not particualrly disposed to believe that they are what the Puranas describe them to be, for some of the descriptions appear to be allegories intended for religious instruction. Even so, I think it would be better that we, too, try to profit from the instruction they contain rather than attempt in vain to ascertain the principles embodied in the personification of Brahma, and so on. 27. pra-mane sarpa karaDavA Ave tyAre mAre tene karaDavA devo ke mArI nAkhavo ? tene bIjI rIte dUra karavAnI mArAmAM zakti na hoya ema dhArIe chIe. u-sarpa tamAre karaDavA devo evuM kAma batAvatAM vicAramAM paDAya tevuM che. tathApi tame jo 'deha anitya che' ema jANyuM hoya, to pachI A asArabhUta dehanA rakSaNArthe, jene dehamAM prIti rahI che, evA sarpane, tamAre mAravo kema yogya hoya ? jeNe Atmahita icchavuM hoya 1 Modes of cosmic energy

Page #17
(32) teNe to tyAM potAnA dehane jato karavo e ja yogya che. kadApi Atmahita icchavuM na hoya teNe kema karavuM? to teno uttara e ja apAya ke, teNe narakAdimAM paribhramaNa karavuM; arthAt sarpane mAravo evo upadeza kyAMthI karI zakIe ? anAryavRtti hoya to mAravAno upadeza karAya. te to amane tamane svapna paNa na hoya e ja icchavA yogya che. 27. Q. If a snake is about to bite me, should I allow myself to be bitten or should I kill it, supposing that, that is the only way in which I can save myself? A. One hesitates to advise you that you should let the snake bite you. Nevertheless, how can it be right for you, if you have realized that the body is perishable, to kill, for protecting a body which has no real value to you, a creature which clings to it with love ? For anyone who desires his spiritual welfare, the best course is to let his body perish in such circumstances. But how should a person who does not desire spiritual welfare behave ? My only reply to such a question is, how can I advise such a person that he should pass through hell and similar worlds, that is, that he should kill the snake ? If the person lacks the culture of Aryan character, one may advise him to kill the snake, but we should wish that neither you nor I will even dream of being such a person.