Part II

Hinduism is a class in itself in the comity of religions. To find in Hindu literature evidence of revelation as understood in traditional Divine religions is a difficult task. This is so, mainly because on the one hand the concept of revelation is wholly confined to the Vedic teachings, while on the other, God is mentioned to have manifested Himself in human form to instruct mankind.

Though in Christianity too, Jesus(as) is described in a manner somewhat similar to that of Krishna(as), the similarity however is superficial. In the personification of Jesus Christ, God the father remains in command of the universe, and a manifestation of His sonship somehow displays itself in the human image of Jesus. Again in the case of Christianity, there is a third person entitled the Holy Ghost who is neither Christ, nor God the father, but is an integral part of the Trinity in its own right.

Hinduism however, is not clear concerning the manifestation of Brahma in the person of Krishna. Did he rule the heavens and the earth from his heavenly seat even when Krishna remained on earth, or was it Krishna who as God personified governed the universe during his human phase? Or was Krishna merely an apparition or icon while God remained in command in the heavens like He ever was? Questions such as these remain unanswered.

Again as far as revelation is concerned, Christianity is completely at one with the belief of traditional religions concerning the nature of revelation from on high. In Hinduism, however, the mode of revelation is not shared by traditional religions. To fulfil the role of an exemplar, God manifests Himself in human form. He does not have to employ a messenger to fulfil this task.

The case of the ancient rishis who are said to be the recipients of the Vedas is different. “Rishi” is a Hindu term for a religious divine who severs all ties with the material world and submits completely to the will of God. Despite the fact that the Vedas are believed to be Divine teachings, there is no clear account of the rishis having received revelation as a well-defined verbal message. The question whether the inspiration of rishis can genuinely be entitled as revelation will perhaps forever remain moot. What we know from Hindu sources is based entirely on their belief. Although different ages are mentioned by different scholars, they are unanimous in their claim that the rishis are the most ancient of all human beings.

This description of Hinduism is in all probability born out of human fancy. Man always interpolates, misconstrues or misappropriates Divine teachings after the prophets have come and gone. No wonder then that the messages of the Hindu prophets were also distorted by the future generations of those who followed. When we suggest that the Vedas must have been interpolated, we do not mean that all the Vedic teachings underwent a complete man made transformation. This is never permitted to happen to Divine scriptures by God. There is always retained some of the original truth, untouched and unadulterated. It is in the light of this that a careful study of every religion at its source is always rewarding. A careful scrutiny of the source material of Hinduism reveals it to be no different from other Divinely revealed religions in fundamentals.

With a slight twist in the kaleidoscope, the perception changes dramatically. Enough evidence can be presented from the Mahabharat and Bhagavad Gita that Krishna(as) never claimed Godhead for himself, nor did he ever claim immortality. Krishna(as) can easily be identified as just another prophet of God, no different from those who appeared before or after him throughout the recorded history of religion.

As portrayed in his authentic biographies, Krishna(as) is known to have been born on earth, around 1458 BC, like any other human child, to Basudeba and his wife Deboki. They named him Kinai (Kinhai). The name “Krishna” was given to him later, meaning “the enlightened one”. He is known to have led an ordinary child’s life with an exceptional flare of the supernatural (which is also related concerning many other prophets of God by their followers). He lived like humans, acted like humans and attended the call of nature like humans. During his childhood, he occasionally took childish licences, like stealing a kilo or two of butter, or at least that is what is claimed by the Hindu analysts. We believe however that it was no crime on his part, children who are kind of heart do similar things in their own right for the sake of their poorer playmates. Such a child in the circumstances described generates love rather than abhorrence. All this is but human, in no way different from the birth and lifestyle of other prophets of God. He grew up to a strong adulthood and acquired and displayed outstanding qualities of leadership. In the battlefield he led great armies to epoch-making victories. In ordinary life, he rose to the exalted position of a great spiritual exemplar and performed his role as a reformer, the like of which had seldom been seen in India. He admonished people to become righteous and to eschew evil. To him it is important to destroy evil-minded people who want to wipe out religion and to promote Godlessness.

As far as his physical description goes, we do find some oddities. The image of Lord Krishna as portrayed by Hindu artists depicts him as having four arms instead of two and is also shown bearing wings. He is often portrayed standing with a flute pressed against his lips. Again, some comely maidens rather colourfully dressed are shown to throng around him. These are gopis. Gopi is a term applied to such womenfolk who tend the cows. It is a term similar to that of a shepherdess. It should be remembered here that the title of Krishna himself was that of Gao’pal which means “the tender of cows”. This, when read together with the Biblical accounts of Israelite prophets as shepherds tending the sheep of the house of Israel, makes the similarity between the two abundantly clear. As India was a country of cows instead of that of sheep, the common people are referred to as cows. Hence for Krishna to be entitled a tender of cows, is quite understandable. Likewise, reference to his disciples as gopis presents no mystery either.

Other episodes woven around the image of Krishna can also be read as parables and allegories rather than matter-of-fact statements. As regards the image of Krishna possessing four arms and wings, it can be symbolically interpreted to mean that highly ranked servants of God are gifted with extra faculties. The Holy Quran too, mentions wings in relation to the Holy Prophet(sa) of Islam. He is enjoined by God to lower his wing of mercy over the believers. Similarly, when angels are mentioned as bearing different numbers of wings, it is their attributes which are referred to, and not physical wings.

But it often happens that religious allegories and parables are taken too literally by the followers of religions and thus their underlying significance is altogether missed. The image of Lord Krishna and what is shown to be around him, is no exception.

Krishna is also called Murli Dhar which means a flute player. The flute here, is evidently a symbol of revelation because the tune that the flute emits is not emitted by the flute itself. It only transmits that which is being breathed into it. Hence, it was Lord Krishna himself who has been depicted as a flute played by God. Whatever tune God played into him he most faithfully transmitted to the world. Thus the reality of Krishna can be seen as no different from that of any other messenger of God who, as a faithful custodian of Divine messages, passes them on to the world unchanged. The flute thus becomes a most expressive symbol of the integrity of prophets assuring the world that they say nothing from themselves, other than what has been revealed to them from on high.

Let us now turn to another fundamental feature of Hinduism, which is shared only by a few other religions, the most well-known among them being Buddhism. We refer to the doctrine of reincarnation. This doctrine is entwined with two other Hindu beliefs relating to the eternity of the soul and that of the matter on the one hand, and the eternity of the Supreme God and other lesser gods on the other. According to this philosophy, life on earth is not generated as a completely new creation. Every living thing that exists, though not eternal in itself, is composed of eternal constituents. The mother earth to them is only a mixing laboratory where soul and parts of matter are moulded together to give birth to a myriad of living forms. Thus they believe in the creative faculties of God only as those of an apothecary or a pharmacist. He does not possess the power of a Creator who can create something out of nothing.

Their vision of the universe envisages three levels of existence. The first and the highest is occupied by Brahma the chief god, along with many other lesser ones. They perform various functions in the universe for which they are suitably equipped. Some are responsible for maintaining the raising of clouds or the creating of thunderbolts. Some others are responsible for the administration, maintenance and command of natural phenomena. They enjoy a measure of comparative freedom within their own respective domains and seldom come to clash with each other. But when they do, woe to the universe. Storms are raised in heaven and furies are let loose upon the earth. It always pays to be on the right side of these gods or goddesses, otherwise their displeasure could cost the mortals most dearly. There are gods and goddesses of wealth, there are gods and godesses of fertility, there are gods and goddesses of health, longevity and what not. The mythical gods who occupy this level enjoy eternity.

The second, or the middle order of existence comprises soul and matter. It is they who, when combined together, make the lowest order of existence which relates to life on earth. According to this Hindu philosophy, it is Brahma, the supreme among gods, who alone possesses the power to bind souls to matter for the creation of life on Earth.

How and when this exercise began and to what purpose, is discussed at length in the Hindu philosophical literature with reference to the Vedic teachings. They believe that the beginning of life on earth did not take place in the manner as prescribed by the modem scientists. It did not originate with the appearance of the most rudimentary organisms and bio-units, in the primordial soup of the oceans or upon the surface of rocks a billion years ago. Thus writes Professor J. Verman, in his book The Vedas:

‘ … those scholars whose minds have been fed with the spurious Darwinian theory of evolution, find it difficult to understand this secret of revelation. However, we have overwhelming evidences to show that man’s earlier stage was a better one, and there is no ground to believe that the pre-historic men were necessarily primitive. The Vedic rishis were not simple minded people. They were poets, visionaries, and spiritualists, all the three in one. Their students who too were rishis by their own rights, were capable of understanding the real import of the mantras the moment they heard them … we are also told that there was a gradual deterioration of the psycho mental powers of the people. The generation of the seers also started disappearing.’1

Thus according to his understanding of the Divine scheme of things, the earth is created eternally, again and again and yet again, so also is the life on earth. At the birth of every new earth, a new world is born. In the beginning of the creation of the world, Brahma reveals the Vedas, the constitution of the universe, to the rishis, on the basis of which they prepare laws to govern the actions of other men on earth. So life began with the human beings rather than with other forms of life preceding them.

Another passage from the same book further elaborates the role of the four rishis sitting on the roof of the world and what they were to bequeath to the future generations of man:

‘ … four seers, viz. Agni, Vaayu, Soorya and Angiraa, who were really men of great intellectual excellence and spiritual eminence, being moved by the soothing and enchanting scenes of the creation, while looking around from the roof of the world, from the holy region of the celebrated Maanasarovara lake in Trivishtapa (modem Tibet), the land of the gods, across the Himalayas, the prime source of the great rivers like Ganga, Sindhu, Shatadru and Brahmaputra, surrounded by the majestic snow-capped peaks and the fascinating natural phenomena, their hearts filled with ecstasy and rapture, their senses sublimated, their souls elevated and exalted, their minds filled with quest for knowledge, in a poised receptive state of awareness, went deep into meditation and exerted themselves. Then they saw into the spheres of reality, different from the physical universe and heard the divine eternal, speech-potent sound from within, and had simultaneously, the vision of the truth … ’2

Thus, the Vedic teachings as understood by the Hindu pundits, would have us believe that life did not evolve, but devolved. Human generations which were to be born in a distant future from the time of the great four pioneer rishis were destined to deteriorate in all their faculties in comparison to the earliest men. This declining graph in human faculties also covers their moral behaviour. In the Hindu philosophy of Karma and reincarnation, it certainly augers ill for the future of the human race. According to Professor Verman:

‘Destroying future life means, preparing to be born among species of living beings inferior to human beings. This is the fruit of action, this is the punishment for bad actions. The punishment comes in the form of deprivation of the various human faculties and organs of sense and actions. This is the doctrine of karma, and this is the system how the divine jurisprudence functions; this is called the rule of law in nature.’3

We believe that by attributing this doctrine to the Vedic teachings, the Hindus have done no justice to the honour of the Vedas. If such statements are to be taken seriously, the story of the origin of life will have to be rewritten altogether. In the new vision of the origin of species, Karma would certainly play the most pivotal role. The struggle for existence, survival of the fittest and the genetic mutations which the evolutionists so fervently talk about, would be rejected outright as mere figments of science fiction without an iota of substantial evidence to support it. The only key that would remain to unlock the riddle of life would be Karma.

Following this cue we can safely infer that life began its journey with the creation of holy men of the highest order, but as future generations were born, they began to deteriorate mentally, physically and spiritually. It did not take them very long to fill the earth with sin. With sin, comes Divine punishment and they rapidly began to lose their human status. They must have been deeply dismayed and shocked to watch the transformation of humans into animals of the lower order, but they had only to blame their own sins. The law of Karma must operate and the sins must take their toll. Hence it should not have been an uncommon experience with them to witness the birth of numerous new animal species instead of normal human babies during the course of reproduction.

But perhaps this is not how the Hindu religious scholars envisage the origin of species and how Karma operates. In the absence of a clear-cut statement on this point, one can only attribute to them some possible interpretations within the framework of their overall belief. Perhaps they envision the unfolding of the mysteries of life on earth in a different pattern. As man began to deteriorate during his journey away from the time of the four rishis, his reproductive faculties began to dwindle and an epidemic of sterility broke out. Rapidly the number of humans began to reduce and surprisingly a myriad of various animal species began to spring forth from the surface of earth.

The earth split open here and there, as the elephants and the lions erupted. So also appeared the cats, the dogs, the hyenas and the wolves. From water emerged the fish in all shapes and colours, in multiple measure and sizes while the turtles did not lag far behind. Suddenly the insects invaded the animal kingdom, like locusts appearing from nowhere. Underneath such visible forms of life, the invisible kingdom of bacteria and viruses must have proliferated far more rapidly. But alas, despite all the attempts and warnings of the four rishis, man refused to submit and continued to rebel against the Vedic teachings. As a natural consequence of their sin, reincarnation of humans into lower forms of animal species must have run amok as if with a spirit of vengeance.

Finding no more space on the flat surface of the earth or in the depth of oceans, man began to be born within the human gut as well. What of the roundworms, the flatworms, the tapeworms and the threadworms—who would not even take pity on infants—there were an untold number of other viral or bacterial guises in which the erstwhile humans must have invaded the human body in the blood stream, in the capillaries, in the cellular tissue of flesh and the vital organs. The lymph would not be spared, or the bone marrow for that matter. What an ingenious plan to have man punished by his own hands. Yet, he would not see.

An extremely interesting scheme of things no doubt, in support of which Professor Verman claims to possess ‘overwhelming evidence’! The only little snag we find in this scheme is the fact that humans continue to become more sinful with the passage of time, yet they are not diminishing in number. On the contrary, their population is exploding.

This takes us back to the ancient time when life just began with the creation of four rishis and a myriad of common men. If man was at his best in spiritual and social conduct at the time, then there was no question of his transmigration into the lower species after that generation had died. The scheme of Karma guarantees that as long as this state of piety was maintained by man, no animal species could have been created. They could only be created as a result of punishment to a sinful generation of humans.

Professor Verman seems to have an answer to this dilemma. Human generations, as they moved away from the pious generation of the rishis, began to disintegrate in their character. Evidently therefore, the moment man became sinful, the gates for the creation of other animal species were flung wide open. From then on, there was no dearth of sinful human souls to be condemned to the rank of subhuman species during their reincarnation.

But such a scheme could only work if the total population of humans at that time were a billion or more times greater than their number today. The total number of animals belonging to all the species of life runs into trillions upon trillions upon trillions. Hence, it can be safely inferred that all these animals from bacteria upwards must have been human once. That being so, the human population, at the time of the great holy rishis must have been astronomical, defying all calculations. In such a case, this earth had to be a billion times more massive than it is today to accommodate the entire human populace of God-fearing ancient followers of Vedic Dharma.

Incidentally, scientists also inform us that the land of Tibet, where the four great rishis are related to be sitting at the beginning of time, was not yet created. It came into being much later—a billion years ago, as a result of continental drift and the subsequent collision between their plates. This clash of claims, between the geologists and the Vedic authorities, casts some shadow of doubt on the scenario of the four rishis, serenely watching the world go by from their lofty post on the Tibetan high planes. But of course the Hindu scholars, like Professor Verman, have a right to dismiss this geological yarn to be as hollow and devoid of sense as the theory of evolution. This too, should be chucked into the rubbish bin of scientific hallucinations into which the theory of evolution had been earlier dumped. Turning again to the issue of the human populace, which sprang from the holy loins of the great rishis, it must have swelled to enormous dimensions because it was they who were to be the great-forefathers of all the animal species to follow. It would be their sinful souls who would be demoted to the rank and file of the lower animal kingdom. The size of the human population at that time had to comprise the total number of animal species which were to be born after. One is indeed confounded to visualize such a colossal number of humans squirming, wiggling waggling like mountains of worms on the surface of this tiny planet Earth. All that could be surveyed from any rooftop anywhere, call it Tibet or the Himalayas, would be humans, humans everywhere, and not a morsel to eat.

Re-examining the issue of Karma, let us now return to a purely academic discussion. The fate of every generation of life hinges entirely upon the Karma of its previous generation. The soul in itself is a neutral entity; so also is the matter to which it is bonded. As such the real question which Hindu sages try to resolve, relates to the wisdom behind the creative policy of God. If He is a just God, they argue, why should He display partiality to some over others? It is to answer this apparently unanswerable question, that they present the philosophy of the eternal unending circle of deeds and corresponding rewards or punishments. For the transmigration of souls it is this priniciple which works as an ongoing circle of cause and effect, crime and punishment, goodness and reward. As against this view, the image of God perceived by other major religions of the world is that of an All-Powerful Supreme Being, who can create at His own Will whatever He pleases. As such, He is the Supreme proprietor of all creation, enjoying absolute liberty to dispose of them as He pleases. His hands are free. He can make whatever He likes. The principle of justice in relation to the choice of His creation does not apply. However, by virtue of being All-Wise, All-Fair and All-Powerful, He provides to perfection all that is needed by any animal species, internally and externally. Thus an amoeba could be as happy and content within his tiny insignificant domain as a great king sitting on his majestic throne.

Such is not the freedom which can be justifiably enjoyed by the supreme god of Hindu mythology. Not being their creator, he has no right to interfere with the freedom of the soul and matter subjecting them to his slavery. There is also the question of choice at every act of creation. Why should one be made better than another, or placed higher in the order of creation? Why should one be born in the stately palace of a king or be delivered in the gloomy emptiness of a pauper’s shack?

It is this dilemma which necessitates the provision of some manner of justification for God in relation to His multifarious scheme of creation. The Hindu philosophy resolves this question by suggesting that God never takes an arbitrary decision in His capacity as a Creator. Contrary to the rest of the world’s religions, they see the earth as a place of punishment and reward. The conduct of life on earth, according to this philosophy, will directly bear upon the future shape to be granted to it in its next incarnation. The supreme god Brahm adjudges every act of life during its sojourn on earth. The future rests upon its own Karma.

Life and death are interwoven as parts of an eternal scheme of goodness and reward, crime and punishment. But the problem is that, when the soul is picked by God from its abode in space and brought down to Earth to be bonded with matter in the form of some species of life, it is at that instant that a term of imprisonment is imposed upon it without a previous Karma. It is this first imprisonment which constitutes a glaring violation of justice and fair play on the part of God Himself, justly warranting His own incarnation into the lowest forms of animal species.

Returning to the discussion of how Karma works, it should be understood that it is an extremely intricate scheme which takes into account even the minutest variations in the good or bad conduct of life on earth. These variations could help God to pronounce a punishment to be harsher or milder or a reward to be lesser or greater.

Every crime would not necessarily result in the transformation of every sinful human into another animal. A person who was a king during his previous incarnation for instance, could be turned into a poorly beggar during the next. Likewise, a beggar could be transformed into a Royal Highness during his next incarnation, all depending upon their respective bad or good conduct in the sight of God, during their previous term of life on earth.

As already explained, depending on the merit of each case a species can be transmigrated into any other during its reincarnation. A human in his previous incarnation could as well be turned into a worm in his next. An unpleasant surprise indeed, but one should thank one’s own sinful stars for that.

Where does the chain begin? That is the real question—an insoluble eternal enigma. If every reincarnation requires a previous incarnation then how would the chain begin? Surely, it cannot be done by simply pushing the cause and effect chain further back in time. This would require all life forms with their respective Karmas to be eternal. A proposition which even the most zealot of the Hindu pundits could not endorse because the eternity of animal life would render the act of creation redundant and meaningless. The only other alternative is to perceive Karma, and its consequences in the form of a chain which is linked together in a circle. But this is not possible either, because even such an unending circle of Karmas and their resultant reward or punishment, cannot be possible without a beginning and an end. An eternal circle of cause and effect can only be logically entertained if it comprises identical links. If there is a change in the nature of links, the beginning and the end can immediately be identified. Links which show for instance, a downward or upward trend of deterioration or improvement cannot be organized into an eternal circle.

Let us return our gaze once again to the Vedic scenario of the beginning of life and the origin of species. If it is a circular chain, as the Hindu theologians insist, then after the deterioration has reached its maximum, the chain must become unidentifiable from the links which mark its beginning. After the human species has been wiped out from the face of the earth, all that is left is the animal life of lower order, constantly sliding down the scale because of their persistent sinfulness. The only task left now would be to link them to a new beginning of life on earth, so that the circle is completed. Life on earth according to the Vedic teachings, as we have already seen, always begins with the four rishis reclining on the Tibetan roof of the world. How on earth could the vermin and insects and centipedes and rats and skunks (the end products of the sinful humans), be hooked on to the lofty start of life in the holy personages of the four rishis to complete the circle! The circle of transmigration we have just described, can neither be linked onto its beginning nor can it be described as eternal, because eternity demands an unbroken continuity.

If the end of the chain has to be linked on to this beginning, the consequences are too horrendous for anyone to visualize. Imagine a serpent sitting coiled with its tail held in its mouth. No sane observer can call it an eternal circle with no beginning, no end. A tail is a tail, even if securely pressed under the teeth. This circle will have a head and it will have a tail; it will have a beginning and it will have an end. No man with the slightest respect in his heart for the great rishis (four in number) would permit himself to envision their rebirth out of a tail made up of the lowliest forms of animal existence.

We do sincerely hope that no Hindus, educated or uneducated, subscribe to this bizarre fantasy of an eternal circle. Nature debunks this notion absolutely. There is not the least evidence to support it.

The issue of Karma should also be examined from another angle. The term Karma applies to all actions for which the actor is answerable, i.e. he will be rewarded if the action is good, and punished if it is bad. This requires that the Divine Will must be clearly expressed, regarding the goodness or badness of actions, otherwise no one can know as to what God approves or disapproves. It is for this specific purpose that the four great rishis are placed in the beginning of mankind. If Vedic teachings had not been revealed to them, humans could not learn what was good or bad for them, hence they could not be held accountable for their Karmas. Thus the principle of Karma can only be applicable to humans alone, who are provided with a clear charter of do’s and don’ts by the pioneer four rishis.

When it comes to animals, other than humans, the problem becomes rather complicated. Do all species have their own well-defined books based on Divine law? If not, how would they conduct themselves and how could their Karma be adjudged? Will their intuitive behaviour replace the Divine teachings? If it is the intuitive behaviour which fills the void of Divine teaching among animals, then how can they exercise any free choice?

Again, in humans, the Divine teachings are vouched through the human agency (the four rishis were no doubt human). But it is somewhat difficult for one to perceive the office of prophethood being discharged by animals. Every species has its own limited sphere of understanding, with a specific ingrained way of life. If prophets are to be sent to them, they must be sent separately to each species. If animal rishis are to be born among them they have to be born equally among the lions, the brown bears, the white bears, the hyenas, the reptiles, the fishes of all sorts and the birds of all feathers. Can one imagine for instance a prophet crow or a rishi wolf?

But that is not all. If instincts replace the Divine teachings and works as the animal code of life, then the same question of choice in relation to the instinctive animal behaviour will have to be raised and answered. Can they accept or reject instinctive trends? It is instinctive to a horse to eat grass or grain, could a horse possibly defy this Divine injunction? In case he chooses to be wicked, can he possibly change his diet from vegetable to flesh, thus blatantly violating the Divine law of instinct? In such a case, of course that horse could justifiably be punished by God for being a wicked horse. Perhaps the most likely punishment for him during his next incarnation would be a transformation into a donkey or a dog. What if that donkey also persists in the misconduct which was responsible for his degenerate birth and chooses to remain carnivorous, relishing dog meat more than green grass. What would be his next incarnation one wonders—maybe he would be turned into a dog, left at the mercy of other wicked donkeys—God knows best.

We are building this hypothetical scenario, only to bring to the surface the underlying absurdities in the philosophy of reincarnation, based on the current Hindu understanding of Vedic teachings. It is farthest from our intention to hurt anyone’s sensibilities.

The same hypothetical illustration applies to the entire animal kingdom. If a lion, for instance, will be adjudged goody-goody and noble only if he remains true to his instinct, then his disregard for the sanctity of life will be a sure sign of his nobility. If on the other hand he abandons eating flesh, showing a wanton disregard of his noble instinct, then such a beastly vegetarian lion is likely to be demoted during his reincarnation to, maybe, a carrion eating vulture. Thus the beasts of the jungle could only be adjudged gentlemen by God, if they continue to follow their ungentlemanly instincts.

It should have become apparent by now, that in no way can intuitive animal behaviour be treated as a Divine code of life, as long as the animals are deprived of the freedom of choice. If, however, the advocates of The Vedas insist that the instinctive animal behaviour is a substitute for a Divine law, then all animals must be promoted to the human rank during their next reincarnation because they follow their instincts meticulously—much better than humans ever follow Divine laws. It is an extremely dangerous proposition. It would lead inevitably to the total extinction of non-human life, culminating in a most gigantic explosion of human population, pushing man back to the beginning of time. Will there be any food for them to survive, or will they turn to cannibalism as a last resort? Allah knows best.

To the good fortune of the human race, however, no plan of Karma can conceivably work among the non-human animals. Once condemned to be animals, souls can in no way regain their lost human heights ever again. Thus the scheme of Karma would swing the fate of man from one extreme to another. Which of the two would he opt for if ever he were to make a choice? Neither, of course, if he has an iota of wisdom. Not to be is the only sensible option.

We consider it proper to observe here that the Hindu doctrine of transmigration of the soul also offers a third option, but only for the insignificant few. Such humans as lead a life of perfection, like the four ancient rishis for instance, are not recycled immediately, but there is a long intervening period of relief for their souls. This is the vision of Hindu Nirvana or heaven. But this period of rest, even if it runs into millions of years, must come to an end. At last, such souls having enjoyed their Nirvana must return to earth for reincarnation.

But this critical appraisal of Hindu mythology has been carried too far afield. The Hindu religious scholars may claim the right to divorce their faith from reason as has been often done by the followers of some other religions. In that case, despite anything proved to the contrary, they would still maintain that somehow a balance is juggled by God between various animal species, and they are all judged by some invisible system of Karma.

Each individual belonging to any species of life is judged in accordance with its Karma. If a man misconducts himself, he would also be transmigrated into an animal of a lower order during his next visit to earth. Likewise, an animal with good conduct could be raised to the status of a human in his next incarnation. A well-behaved dog for instance, could be born into the house of his earlier master as the master himself, while the wicked master could be reborn in his own house as a dog to his new human master (ex-dog).

It is evident that this philosophy has its internal logic. Although God appears to be an absolute dictator Who despite having no right subjugates free soul and free matter to an eternal chain of slavery, He does so on the basis of a system of justice. He presses soul and matter together, always as a reward or a punishment for their Karma in their previous earthly sojourn. Also as already mentioned, there remains a chance, however thin, for a soul to gain Nirvana which is a temporary deliverance from material bondage. Hence what we despise as death could in fact be a great benefactor which liberates the soul from body, its corporal partner. For how long shall the separated couple enjoy their deliverance from each other, is a question which will be decided in relation to their conduct during their wedded life on earth. If they had conducted themselves ideally—the physical body taking good care of the soul and the soul discharging its responsibilities to the physical body—the longer would be their reward of separation. No different would be the fate of married couples. The noblest among them who have the ideal relationship as husband and wife, most satisfied with each other’s pleasant loving company, would no doubt be awarded the Nirvana of the highest order. This means that their souls will be separated not only from their bodies but also from each other for an extremely long time bordering on eternity. The sinful couples, however, may be despatched to earth soon after they both finally die, to yet another even longer spell of each other’s company of sinful carnal pleasures! Good Heavens! What a Hell on Earth and what a Heaven in heavens!

To a scientist, the Hindu philosophy of life, death, and eternity may appear devoid of sense and reason, yet it cannot be denied that this philosophy has a special charm about it which keeps many a modem man and woman enchanted by it, without bothering about its rationale. The most powerful attraction it possesses lies in the hope that one would return to this miserable earthly life again. Man is the strangest of all the living paradoxes. All his life he continues to complain against the strings of miseries attached to life, hoping for death to sever them, yet how he longs to return to the same earthly dungeon again!

The imprisonment of life and the bondage of sorrow are in fact one and the same thing. How can deliverance from sorrow be possible without death? Yet how he yearns at the same time to pay an unlimited number of visits to the same wretched abode. Evidently, the charm of this philosophy lies in the universal love of life ingrained in the fibre of the living.

Yet, those infatuated by this promise of another tomorrow, should not forget that human society as a whole has substantially deteriorated in moral and religious conduct. For such as these to entertain the hope to be reborn as humans yet again, is a dream most unlikely to be fulfilled. If the Vedic philosophy of Karma is right then most probably the majority of the humans of today will be reborn tomorrow as monkeys, wild boars, crocodiles or mere worms. To live again is good indeed but will it be worth the risk at such a price?

Returning to the issue of the four rishis—the recipients of the Vedas—if one accepts the time scale in which they are fitted, they must have been born aeons before life began on earth, in an age when the earth’s atmosphere was empty of oxygen. What Karma preceded their promotion to the rank of rishis, is the question. Who could survive in an oxygen-free atmosphere generation after generation after generation and what did they feed upon is no less an important question. All that polluted the oceans and the air was rudimentary forms of viruses and bacteria. Either the first generation of these holy men survived on this staple food or maybe human life began on earth not with holy men but with holy viruses and pious bacteria. If the time calculations regarding the appearance of the four rishis or other holy men on earth is erroneous, if they did not appear on earth as early as maintained by some scholarly pundits then the beginning of life on earth and the Vedas had to have happened much later. Their appearance upon earth could not be possible before the Tibetan archipelago came into being. In fact the entire Indian subcontinent was shaped similar to what we find it today, some time between twenty million and forty million years ago. Although India had been carved into a sub-continent around one hundred and sixty million years ago it had yet to begin its merger with the rest of Asia. It was this merger which in fact was responsible for the eruption of the Himalayas and other great mountains including the Tibetan archipelago. It matters little when exactly Tibet was created within this time scale. The evidence of fossil remains proves beyond a shadow of doubt that life had begun some eight hundred million years before the creation of the Indian subcontinent. Whoever and whatever they were who sat on the top of the Tibetan plateau could not have been human because humans appeared on earth much later. At that time the most advanced form of life that had evolved was dinosaurs. Evidently one cannot conceive a dinosaur rishi by any stretch of one’s imagination. Hence, if the Vedic teachings in their interpolated form as we find them today are to be taken literally, then the rishis and their holy companions must have landed on earth from some alien planet. But this solution, if at all worthy of being called a solution, would create a far more intricate and utterly absurd problem to solve. The story of Karma will have to begin not with the four rishis but with the weird and varied forms of life emanating and evolving from the first bio units on earth a billion years ago.

An unprejudiced appraisal would clearly reveal that the doctrines of Karma and reincarnation are the products of a decadent age of Hindu philosophy. It must have happened when the Hindu theologians attempted to find answers philosophically to the enigma of life and death, reward and punishment, by themselves, without enlightenment from on high. Still, it is not impossible to trace the elements of Divine revelation in the Vedas. The elements of ignorance which we find therein today must have been the product of human interpolation from that which was interpolated into the Vedas by the human hand.

Before ending this discourse, we would like to examine the nature of yoga, and where it fits into the vast intricate network of Hindu philosophy. It is of special interest to the main subject of discussion, because it is widely claimed that through deep contemplation, a yogi can reach the fountainhead of knowledge and truth within himself. However, it is not at all easy to determine with any measure of certainty whether the yogic system is Hindu in origin or Buddhist. It is an instrument of learning which at least Lord Krishna is never reported to have employed.

But that is not all there is to yoga. Apart from its meditational value, yoga is also a highly developed physical science, which attempts to promote the latent qualities of human physique to their maximum. Miraculous deeds are reported to have been performed. It is even claimed that through yoga one can reach a state of almost perfect hibernation, whereby the metabolism is brought to a near standstill and life seems to hang by its finest thread. Some yogis, having mastered the art of yoga, are said to have lived for days submerged under water. Some reports even speak of their uncanny ability to de-materialise at one place and materialise at another. Some exaggeration indeed!

Yet some other special powers developed through yogic practices, cannot be waived off as mere exaggeration. For instance, some yogis are known to have held their breath for so long, that an ordinary man would die many a death during the same period without breathing. Again, yoga is a form of exercise which helps to improve the quality of human physique in every sphere of its functions. It is also acclaimed as an excellent remedy for the alleviation of physical and psychic tensions. We have briefly discussed the yogic potential for improving the physical qualities of man and developing some latent possibilities in him, which otherwise would remain dormant. The same can also be spiritually enhanced by disciplining the human ways and conduct of life.

Now we explore these possibilities with reference to the yogic system. The yogis claim that they can reach the fountainhead of inner truth merely through the instrument of contemplation and inspirational yogic practices. How far they are right or wrong, is only a matter of opinion. Unless an inner truth, discovered with the help of yogic practice, is presented to the world as a solution for human problems, one is not in a position to accept or reject this claim. The maximum that can be granted in this regard is the fact that yoga in itself is an excellent code of exercise.

Buddhism

The general impression that prevails in the world about Buddhism is that it is a philosophy of life which, though counted among religions, does not prescribe to the existence of God. This impression is only partially correct. Even in contemporary Buddhism, it is wrong to say that none of the Buddhists believe in God or gods. Although the predominant sects, Mahayans and Theravadins, are known to believe only in the ultimate inherent wisdom in man which Buddha(as) perfected, they too believe in many superstitions and demonic figures which substitute God for them. This impression of the Buddhists’ negation of God is also wrong on another count. An exploration of early Buddhist sources as we shall demonstrate, reveals ample proof that Buddhism began like any other Divinely revealed faith with its emphasis on the Unity of God.

As for the position of Buddha (563-483 BC) among the Buddhists, although he is not directly worshipped as a deity, there is very little difference between the veneration shown to the Buddha by the Buddhists and the manner of worship of God found in other religions. They revere him and pay homage to him, bow to his images and statues and prostrate before them like the adherents of any other idolatrous religion in the world.

In fact, despite the denial of God by most Buddhists, deep within their hearts there seems to be lurking a desire to worship something. It is this which is manifested in their veneration of Buddha. The same unquenchable innate thirst for God etched deep upon the human soul urges them to worship Him, or something, if not Him. So it is to fill this void that the Buddhists worship the Buddha without formally recognizing him to be a god.

It must also be mentioned here that in the Tibetan form of Buddhism not only is the existence of superhuman deities or demons a part and parcel of their faith, but also they certainly believe in communication with them. The selection of a new Panchen Lama for instance, requires many rites and rituals to be performed, to obtain guidance from gods as to which one of the newborn Tibetan children should be the future Panchen Lama.

Among the so-called atheistic Buddhist sects, it is commonly alleged that Buddha himself denied the existence of God. They support their claim by pointing at the hostility shown to Buddha by the contemporary Hindu pundits. That hostility, they maintain, was largely due to the contempt shown by Buddha to their gods. The Buddhists in general do not bother to analyse the real factors at work which generated misunderstandings leading to the persecution of Buddha. It is quite sufficient for them to believe that Buddha must have rejected the idea of God in totality.

However, as we shall presently establish by re examining some facts of history and some important relevant passages in the Buddhist sacred literature, it can be clearly shown that Buddha(as) is absolved from all such allegations. Yet it must be said, at the very outset, that the historical evidence to which the adherents of both view points refer, is in itself meagre. This difficulty, however, can be offset to a large degree by having recourse to other circumstantial evidence.

The Buddhist philosophy, teachings and practices remained to be transmitted only verbally for almost five hundred years after Buddha, except in the case of inscriptions on the rocks and stupas made during the illustrious reign of Ashoka (273-232 BC). Ashoka, it should be remembered, appeared some three hundred years after his spiritual master, Buddha(as). This fact in itself is of vital importance because these writings can certainly serve the purpose of judging Buddha’s philosophy and way of life from the vantage point of Ashoka. Moreover, at a time when nothing of Buddhism was committed to writing, it was Ashoka alone who left behind a written account of what he understood to be Buddha’s teachings. Again, his authority as a true representative of Buddha has never been challenged. What remains therefore, is simply a case of different interpretations.

As far as the story of Buddha is concerned, although it too was committed to writing many centuries after his demise, it has been unanimously accepted by all researchers without serious disagreement. This knowledge seems to have been passed on from generation to generation. Hence the personality of Buddha and his lifestyle appear to have a continuity, beginning from Buddha himself to the present day.

From this, it is reasonable to conclude, that an understanding of Buddha and Buddhism which accords with these two sources i.e. the life of Buddha and the writings on the stupas, should have the stronger claim to acceptance. Against this, such views as are clearly at variance with them may safely be rejected. However, if the early sources seem to contradict each other, caution has to be applied in accepting one and rejecting the other.

A close examination of Buddha’s biography reveals that in his lifestyle, he was not any different from other prophets of God, who appeared in different parts of the world. There is a universality about the character and style of prophets which can also be discerned in the life of Buddha.

Coming to the issue of the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism, the problems begin with different interpretations of what he is known to have said or done. We disagree with the commonly held view that Buddha was an atheist. We maintain that Buddhism was a Divinely revealed religion. We emphasize the fact that the founder of Buddhism was certainly not an atheist, but was a man commissioned by God Himself, to deliver His message in the style that all other messengers were raised.

Most scholars who write about Buddhism are out of their depth in trying to justify the placing of Buddhism among the great religions of the world. To do that they have to change the universally accepted definition of religion so that it also accommodates Godless philosophies and religions. Why should a code of conduct which starts its journey with a denial of God be admitted into the comity of religions, is the question. As far as our view is concerned, no such objection can be raised on this count. We on our part reject the premise that Buddhism had no Divine origin. To support our contention we shall have recourse to the same well-established sources as the Buddhists themselves rely on and demonstrate that our interpretations have a stronger basis for acceptance. We repeat that Buddhism is no oddity among religions; on the contrary, its fundamental characters are at one with the rest of the Divinely revealed faiths.

The erroneous popular belief in the Godless origin of Buddhism was spread largely by the Western scholars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Their knowledge of Buddhism was largely based on the translations of Buddhist literature from the Pali language by Buddhist scholars who had permitted their own biased, godless philosophy to influence their translations. Few among them understood the Pali language, which is the language of the source material. Moreover, instead of drawing their own inferences directly from a study of reliable Buddhist sources, they leaned entirely on the beliefs about Buddhism prevailing among the major Buddhist sects.

Contrary to this general trend of Western scholars, a solitary voice in India was raised by Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) of Qadian (1835-1908), who presented a diametrically opposed view. He maintained that Buddha(as) had firm belief in the existence of God who Himself had raised him as His messenger with a specific mission to perform. He demonstrated that Buddha(as), like all other prophets of God, also believed in the existence of Satan, as well as in heaven and hell, in angels and in the Day of Resurrection. Hence, the allegation that Buddha(as) did not believe in God is pure fabrication. What Buddha rejected was Vedanta (i.e. doctrines and beliefs found in the Hindu sacred books, the Vedas). He rejected the belief in corporeal manifestations of gods as found in Hinduism. He was severely critical of the Brahmans and regarded them to have corrupted their Divine teaching through their distorted interpretation.

The voice of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) was not to remain solitary for long. Soon, other voices from among the second generation of Western scholars and researchers on Buddhism began to follow suit. The most prominent among them was the great French scholar Dr Gustav Le Bon (1841-1931) who writes:

Unfortunately, the study of Indian monuments has been completely neglected by European scholars. The specialists of Indian studies, through whom we have come to learn of Buddhism, had never visited India. They had only studied this religion in books; an unfortunate twist of fate made them chance upon the works of philosophical sects written five or six centuries after the death of Buddha, these being absolutely alien to the religion practised in reality. The metaphysical speculations which had so astonished Europeans by their profoundity were in fact nothing new. Ever since the books of India have been better known, these have been found in the writings of philosophical sects which had developed during the Brahmanic period.4

So far, Dr Le Bon seems to be perfectly right in his criticism, but as is apparent from the following text, he himself committed the same mistake of not deriving the concept of true Buddhism, strictly as it is presented by the writings on the stupas—which never mention Buddhism as polytheistic. In the words of Dr Le Bon:

It is not in the books, but in the monuments that one should study what Buddhism used to be. What the monuments tell us differs strangely from what certain books teach us. The monuments prove that this religion, which modern scholars want to see as an atheistic cult, was, on the contrary, the most polytheistic out of all the cults.5

It is this last part of his statement which is false as will be presently shown.

After Dr Le Bon, another renowned scholar, Arthur Lillie drew a completely different conclusion from his careful study of the inscriptions on Ashoka’s stupas. He amply quotes them in his book, India in Primitive Christianity. It should be noted that these inscriptions were not etched solely on the stupas which were specifically built for this purpose, they were also discovered upon the faces of huge rocks situated on highways and trade routes. We present below two examples of such inscriptions from Lillie’s translations.

On the Eastern bank of the river Katak, twenty miles from Jagan Nath, there is a rock by the name of Pardohli upon which is written:

‘Much longing after the things (of this life) is a disobedience, I again declare; not less so is the laborious ambition of dominion by a prince who would be a propitiator of heaven. Confess and believe in God (ls’ana) who is the worthy object of obedience. For equal to this (belief), I declare unto you, ye shall not find such a means of propitiating heaven. Oh strive ye to obtain this inestimable treasure.’6

Is’ana, mentioned in this inscription is the name of ShivDevta—God. (See The Sanskrit/English Dictionary by Shivram Apte).

‘Thus spake Devanampiya Piyadasi: “Wherefore from this very hour, I have caused religious discourses to be preached, I have appointed religious observances that mankind, having listened thereto, shall be brought to follow in the right path, and give glory to God7 (ls’ana).”’8

From these references it becomes obvious that the early sources portray Buddha(as) as a dedicated believer in God (may He bless his soul).

The second source material in order of credibility and authenticity, is such Buddhist literature as came into being five hundred years after Buddha. This too contains enough evidence to indicate that Buddha was neither an atheist nor an agnostic but was indeed a believer in God. We specifically refer to the Theravada texts known as Tripitaka (Three Baskets), which as the name suggests, are divided into three sections. The first part is called Vinaya-Pitaka (Rules of Conduct), the second is called Sutta-Pitaka (Discourses on Truth) and the third is called Abhidhamma Pitaka (Analysis of Religion).

In Sutta-Nipta there is The Chapter on Going to the Far Shore,9 in which the goal of conquering death is expressed. Buddha explains that birth and death do not mean anything to those who have overcome their ego thus becoming at one with God. These passages may have been misunderstood and confused with the Brahman concept of Mukti (redemption), but it is not right. Buddha clearly speaks of only those who have already reached the other side of the barrier here on earth before their death. This simply means that according to him, no man could have access to the hereafter, unless he had experienced it during his life here on earth, a teaching close to the Quranic precept. He preached that by being at one with God, man rises above life and death and becomes eternal.

At the end of the chapter, Pingiya, a follower of Buddha describes the excellence of his master which becomes instrumental in converting him to Buddhism. Having already expressed that he was enfeebled by old age and close to dying, Pingiya concludes his discussion with the following statement:

‘Assuredly I shall go to the immovable, the unshakeable, the likeness of which does not exist anywhere. I have no doubt about this. Thus consider me to be one whose mind is so disposed.’10

This illustrates the hope and expectation of a disciple of Buddha, that after his death he will meet his Lord, who is described as immovable, unshakeable and without likeness. This is a description of God in full agreement with that found in other scriptures.

There is another interesting account giving further information about Buddha’s beliefs found in Sutta-Pitaka—the second part of the Tripitaka texts, subdivided into five books containing many of the Buddha’s dialogues. The president of the Pali Text Society of London, Mrs T.W. Rhys Davids has translated some of these dialogues into English and her translation can be found in a series of books entitled Sacred Books of the Buddhists. Dialogue number thirteen of the second volume entitled Tevigga Sutta, deals specifically with the question of how man can be led to God.

In response to this question, Buddha first rejects the suggestion that anyone among the Hindu clergy of his time was capable of leading man to God, then he answers the question as he understood it himself. The background of how and where this dialogue took place is quite interesting.

It is said that once upon a time there used to be a famous Brahman village by the name of Manasakata. This village was situated at a most scenic spot of the country beside a beautiful river. Its fame had reached far and wide because it was the centre of Brahmanic religious controversy. Five of these Brahmans were especially distinguished and led the school of their respective religious ideology. It so happened that Buddha also alighted by the same river along with his chosen disciples. The news spread and people began to pay him visits to enlighten themselves on Buddha’s doctrine and hear about Buddhism from his own lips. Once, Vasettha and Bharadvaga of the same village, while taking a walk after their bath in the river, began to debate a religious doctrine. Neither of the two could convince the other of the correctness of the opinions of their respective gurus. Vasettha, the young Brahman, suggested that it should be taken to the court of Buddha. This agreed upon they proceeded to present the issue to Buddha seeking his wise council. During the meeting, Bharadvaga, the young Brahman, remained silent and Vasettha asked the questions. Before responding to the question, Buddha posed some counterquestions.

First he asked, ‘Did any Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas, ever see Brahma face to face?’ The answer was ‘No’. Then Buddha asked Vasettha if any of the Brahmans or their pupils of the previous seven generations had seen Brahma, and the answer was again, ‘No’. Then Buddha asked them if they themselves claimed that they had ever seen Brahma. Again the answer was, ‘No’. Then he asked Vasettha that if a man, born and brought up in Manasakata was asked the way to Manasakata, would that man be in any doubt or difficulty in answering that question. Vasettha answered:

‘Certainly not, Gotama! And why? If the man had been born and brought up in Manasakata, every road that leads to Manasakata would be perfectly familiar to him.’

‘That man, Vasettha, born and brought up at Manasakata might, if he were asked the way to Manasakata, fall into doubt and difficulty, but to the Tathagata,’ (the fully enlightened one, meaning himself), ‘when asked touching the path which leads to the world of Brahma, there can be neither doubt nor difficulty. For Brahma, I know, Vasettha, and the world of Brahma, and the path which leadeth unto it. Yea, I know it even as one who has entered the Brahma world, and has been born within it!’11

Buddha’s argument was that the residents of Manasakata should clearly know the roads leading to Manasakata. Any claimant belonging to God, must also know the path leading to Him, but it would only be possible if he had come from God and had known Him personally. But the answers to the counter questions of Buddha clearly showed that none of the gurus had either seen God or had any personal knowledge of Him. Hence, the identity of God was completely outside and beyond their understanding. Up to this point of the dialogue, Buddha’s arguments may have been misunderstood by some to mean that Buddha was declaring there was no God because nobody had met Him. Indeed, the translator in her introduction has suggested that the whole line of argument followed in this discourse is:

‘ … only an argumentum ad hominem. If you want union with Brahma—which you had much better not want—this is the way to attain to it.’12

But this analysis of the discourse shows a total failure on the part of the author to understand what Buddha positively proves. It illustrates how some researchers have been influenced by the beliefs of the Buddhist monks who had misread Buddha’s heroic campaign against his contemporary order of the Brahmans. What he categorically rejected were their superstitious beliefs in godlike figures, which they had neither seen nor heard from. But Buddha’s answer did not end there. He went on to claim that for the Tathagata, there could be no such difficulty in pointing out the way to God. He went on to claim that he himself was the one who could lead man to God because he had been in communion with Him and had come from Him.

It should by now have become obvious that Buddha did have faith in the existence of one Supreme God and it was from Him that he claimed to have come. He knew Him better than the villagers of Manasakata knew their own village or the roads leading to it. Here Buddha asserts for himself a life of constant communion with God, a state which stands higher in order of nearness to Him than mere revelation. Many great prophets have made similar claims of witnessing a life of eternity with Him here on earth, even before death transports them to the otherworldly life. They, all the Divine messengers, share this eternal state of communion with Him, Buddha being no exception. Buddha referred to God as Brahma, because this was a familiar term to the Hindus, who applied it to the Supreme God among their gods. As the dialogue continues, the position is made even clearer.

‘When he had thus spoken, Vasettha, the young Brahman, said to the Blessed One:

‘So has it been told me, Gotama, even that the Samana Gotama knows the way to a state of union with Brahma. It is well! Let the venerable Gotama be pleased to show us the way to a state of union with Brahma, let the venerable Gotama save the Brahman race!’13

Having heard Vasettha, Buddha does not reject his prayer and aspirations with reference to Brahma as unreal and meaningless; a definite proof of his approval of whatever he spoke of the Brahma and His communion with His chosen ones.

For people who respond to the call of God, irrespective of their caste, the path to God is made easy for them. For one who fears God, all human passions such as anger, jealousy, prejudice etc., cease to dominate him. When one transcends them, one is likely to imitate Godly attributes and acquire them. This whole dialogue is worthy of special attention by those who want to understand Buddha’s attitude towards Him.

So why should Buddha have been misunderstood by his own followers? An answer to this question may lie in earlier Buddhist history and the conflict between the newly emerging religion of Buddha and the older religious order of Brahmanism. They attributed to Buddha their own views, not a rare phenomenon with religious clergy, or they might have misunderstood him in good faith. When Buddha waged war against the prevalent idolatry, to which the Brahmans of the time were entirely dedicated, he was accused of denying the existence of God. This propaganda, carried out by a powerful class of Brahmans, was so loudly proclaimed that the voice of Buddha was drowned in their tumultuous antagonism.

Considering the difficulties of communication and lack of writing facilities, it is not at all unlikely that this propaganda not only found favour with the Hindus, but also influenced the followers of Buddha. Ultimately, they themselves began to believe that Buddha’s rejection of the Hindu gods was total. Thus Gotama Buddha’s denial of the gods of the Brahmans was overgeneralized and led many to maintain that he did not believe in any God.

As far as their allegiance to Buddha is concerned, it remains untouched. They had accepted Buddha as an all wise teacher, so kind, so loveable, so humane. We are talking of an age when literacy was at its lowest level. The common people would often make their decisions on hearsay, hence the followers of Buddha themselves could have been carried away by this Brahmanic propaganda. But it created little effect upon their loyalty to him. For them it was sufficient that Buddha was the perfect source of wisdom. As such they revered him and continued to follow him with all their heart, as their beloved and all-wise master. Slowly and imperceptibly, however, this so-called Godless master of theirs began to be revered as God himself.

It had not happened for the first time in the history of religions. How often oracles had been transformed into gods and humans raised to the level of deities! In the case of Buddha however, all the forms of their love and attention remained centred upon Buddha as a human paragon of perfection and he was not literally raised to the mythical concept of godly figures. For them, it was sufficient to place the Brahmans on one end of the spectrum and Buddha on the other. To them the Brahmans stood as oracles of legends and myths, while Buddha personified truth, wisdom and rationality. Thus, gradually Buddhism acquired a character where the belief in a legendary god had no role to play. Whatever the urge in human nature there is for believing in God, it was progressively filled with the image of Buddha. So Buddha, who in the eyes of his followers of the fourth century, had started his journey as just a source of absolute wisdom, began to rise to a status much higher than can be filled by an ordinary secular philosopher. In his case, he did not remain a mere symbol of mundane wisdom for long, but began to command such high respect and veneration as is commanded by God, or gods, among religions.

We are not talking here of a short period of a few years. It might well have taken centuries for the shadow of atheism to have cast its ominous spell over a large part of the Buddhist world. Again, it may also have taken centuries for the Buddhists to ultimately build a god out of Buddha, without naming him so. The manner in which we suggest the transformation of Buddhists took place from believing in God to a Godless people, is not merely conjecture. A study of Buddhist sources, as we have demonstrated, fully supports the view that Buddha(as) was a believer in One Supreme Creator. What he rejected was polytheism. This is the true image of Buddha which survived untarnished for the first three centuries despite the best efforts of his enemies. Here we take the reader’s mind once again to the age of the great Buddhist monarch Ashoka, who ruled a vast Buddhist empire which extended beyond the boundaries of India covering the whole of Afghanistan. It is he who possesses the most authentic and unquestionable authority on the teachings and the ways of Buddha’s life. There is no shadow of doubt that what he portrayed Buddha to be was simply a messenger of God who founded his teachings upon Divine revelation. Whatever he conveyed to mankind was only what he was commissioned to, by their Supreme Creator. It is this verdict of Ashoka which 1s indelibly etched upon the rocks of history.

Renunciation of the world and the severing of worldly ties is considered as the ultimate means in Buddhism for the complete liberation of self from anguish and misery. It takes an ascetic to understand the problems associated with the conflicts between the soul and the mundane temptations of life. Unless one is endowed with exceptional qualities of patience and resolution, this challenge seems insurmountable. But in this lies the only hope offered by Buddhism. A total renunciation of all that life is made of and a total withdrawal from the allurements of life is the only path to Nirvana, the eternal peace.

The complete denial of all passions is therefore claimed by the Buddhists to be the absolute truth. The greed for material wealth, for power, or even for the love of others, when unfulfilled, results in the agony and frustration of the deprived. Similarly, hatred also plays havoc with one’s peace of mind. All these forces weaken the spiritual powers of man. This also emphasized that because man’s intrinsic nature cannot be changed and his lust for evermore cannot be stilled, full contentment and satisfaction can never be achieved without severing all ties with matter.

This for the Buddhists is a starting point upon a long journey of denial to reach the ultimate goal of redemption. He has to deny all that life requires for its comfortable existence in a material sense. It is a struggle of denial relating to all the five senses. A denial of what the eyes require, and what the ears crave for, a denial of touch, taste and smell, a denial of all which agitates human hearts. They seek to avoid all dangers of addiction by avoiding all situations in which there is a threat to man becoming involved and enslaved by material influences. In short, the Buddhist concept of peace through denial is simply another name for escapism. To live is the problem, to die is the solution.

Peace can be of two types. Death can also be classed as peace; to draw a line between peace and death is not an easy task. For instance, a compromise with defeat and resignation to a state of dishonour can serve as a case in point. The contentment of victory and the calm of surrender, though similar, are in reality poles apart. One is life and the other is death. The identification and classification of religions, at times, becomes difficult because of this attendant confusion. Each religion seemingly invites to the same ultimate goal of peace and contentment. Yet there are some which prefer a peaceful surrender to death rather than to die for a noble cause and there are those who raise the banner of a holy war to be fought against evil at all costs. All challenges to absolute morality are taken on bravely and roundly defeated. The calm that ensues is the true Nirvana.

Religions such as the decadent form of Buddhism admonish their adherents to find peace in the haven of escape. They teach escapism from all temptations which may lure them to their natural desires, urges and cravings. A Buddhist would withdraw to the safety of his inner self—a state described vaguely by some as an emptiness—by others as something which is eternal and possesses the qualification of being without substance. Are they talking of God? One may wonder! But opinions differ. Most believe that it is a state shared and understood only by those who reach it. If it is not an ultimate return to God, and most Buddhist scholars will refrain from admitting the existence of God in any form, then the only valid definition for this emptiness is absolute annihilation and total death.

In short, all natural urges related to the five senses which constitute life are denied with a finality for gaining absolute peace or Nirvana. Of course, all the adherents cannot reach that goal simultaneously, but all true adherents are required to continue to endeavour to achieve it step by step, as they advance to the precipice of annihilation.

To illustrate this point further, let us relate an episode which we find so befitting in helping the reader to understand the specific point we are raising. There used to be a beggar in Kashmir, who was half mystic and half beggar. He begged for the barest necessities of his life and no more. He was often found lost in contemplation and reverie, delving deep into his own self in search of something. Once a sage walked past him and suddenly noticed that he was no longer the same person, because he was bubbling with joy and dancing with ecstasy.

‘Baba why this great transformation? You do not seem to be the same pauper any more. Whatever have you achieved?’ were the questions. ‘Have you chanced upon a treasure?’

‘Yes,’ was the answer. ‘A priceless, peerless treasure! Why should not one exult at the fulfilment of all one’s desires?’

Having received this reply, the sage inquired, ‘You are clothed in the same rags and tatters, covered from head to foot in dust like you ever were, how then can you claim that all your desires are fulfilled?’

The beggar dismissed him with a wave of his hand, staring at him with a gaze of profound wisdom and said, ‘Remember this, that one’s desires are only fulfilled when he is left with no desires. Such is my great moment of liberation. Off you go and leave me to dance.’

A beautiful answer, leaving the sage absolutely nonplussed. But looking at it once again, one is bound to admit that the answer of the beggar was as beautiful as it was empty. No change had taken place beyond the confines of his limited personal world. The world around was the same miserable world of sorrow, suffering and pain. The world around him was the same world of tyranny, oppression and despotism. He still needed something to live by—food, water and air were as indispensable to him as they ever were. Of desires one may get rid, but not of needs.

Whatever change was brought, was brought about within himself. But who knows whether it had come to stay forever. Maybe it was just a brief moment of triumph. Maybe on a chilly night with freezing cold, he would desire to have some warmth around, some clothes, some shelter, some hearth. Maybe if he fell ill, he would feel the need of a healer and pray for one. With what surmounting resolve would he conquer such challenges of the hard realities of life? Only a Buddhist sage would know the answer. It was only a subjective feeling of fulfilment and no more. In truth it was an absolute resignation to the state of helplessness—call it peace or call it death, by whatever name you may, it is not entitled to be called true Nirvana.

The search for peace through complete denial of all that relates to life and supports it, seems to have taken hold in both the major Indian religions, Hinduism and Buddhism. This is tantamount to denying the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. In application to the human pursuit of peace, this can only mean surrender and acceptance of defeat.

Here we are not discussing the teachings of the founders of Hinduism or Buddhism, but are merely examining the philosophies that have resulted after thousands of years of decadence. Both have moved far away from their Divine origin. In fact they have followed the same course as is followed by mysticism or Sufis in other major religions of the world. In their case, the latter do not break their ties with a belief in God; instead within the framework of a Divine religion, they carve their own domain of subjective spiritual experiences which result from inspiration rather than revelation.

In the case of yogic philosophy in Hinduism and Buddhism, both are completely broken away from their traditional teachings without a trace of the original to be found in them. As against revelation, which was the ultimate source of enlightenment of Buddha, the emphasis during the later ages kept shifting from revelation to inspiration, contemplation and reverie. In a strange way, despite the fact that Buddhism at its beginning was at complete odds with Hinduism, both joined forces later in the philosophy and practices of yoga.

It is amazing that the first mention of yogic teachings is only found in the Tantras, the so-called religious documents, which were compiled at least five hundred years after Buddha(as). These documents were only for the eyes of a few who comprised the supreme Buddhist hierarchy and were kept under strict secrecy from the common people. To doubly reassure their secrecy they were written in such cryptic language and terminology as would be impossible for an ordinary person to understand. Much later, the contents of the Tantras became accessible to scholars who were horrified to find this so-called sacred literature to be extremely profane and indecent. There are mentions of demons and frightful phantom images. They are also full of vulgar language speaking of obscene and sexual desires in a manner as jars the human sensibilities. As such, the yogic teachings as contained in the Tantras have no connection whatsoever with the holy words of Buddha(as).

Maybe all the talk of demonic nonsense and sexual vulgarity are symbols and allegories. Perhaps no living monks share the secret of such cryptic language. Maybe the Buddhist hierarchy of two thousand years ago were the only people who invented this jargon and understood its meaning. But they are long dead and with them has died the age of the Tantras. Yoga however, has outlived the cryptic in the Tantras. There are scholars who still understand and implement the subtle science of yoga contained in the Tantras.

It is hard indeed to draw a clear-cut line between the yoga as understood and practised in Hinduism and the yoga as understood and practised in Buddhism. If there are any minor differences, they merely belong to nomenclature. Call them Hindu hermits or Buddhist ascetics, the reality of their withdrawal from the world, for the sake of God, will not change. Give them any name possessing the same meaning, it would not make the slightest difference to their holy identity. Whatever they find and whatever they consider enlightenment to be, neither has ever been able to change the face of the world with their subjective experiences. It is a dishonour for Buddha(as) and Krishna(as) to be counted in this category. They were revolutionaries—like all other prophets of God, whose philosophy of the spiritual and moral revolution sprang forth from the fountainhead of revelation. They gave a call for a noble struggle against falsehood and evil. They sounded the bugle for a heroic strife in life which was not just subjective. It was an outward, outgoing holy war, which came into headlong clash with the forces of darkness. A dire struggle for the survival of the fittest ensued. The life histories of Buddha(as) and Krishna(as) clearly present them as belonging to this category. They are only warriors, not suicidal escapists. Their faiths were products of revelation. Their teachings gave birth to inspirations, but were not born out of them.

The understanding of the majority of present day Buddhists appears to be that their religion is just a wisdom, budhi, discovered by Buddha through meditation. All that is claimed of their philosophy is that it was an inspiration of Buddha.

From the vantage point of those who believe in God, inspiration is nothing but a psychic experience in which many a time one feels spiritually elated. During this phase of elation, one experiences a sense of peace which seems to be the very ultimate of tranquillity. Returning from this ecstatic state to normal life, one has a strong impression of having gained something which might well have been the very purpose of life—the goal which mankind is striving to reach.

This psychological experience is all that they can boast of as spiritual enlightenment and redemption from the bondage of matter. Even at its very best, it cannot change any objective realities or reform the wicked people. It cannot transfer a jot from the world of the unknown to the world of the known—it cannot change darkness into light. Never has inspiration been able to retrieve the unknown events buried in the graves of history, nor has it ever been able to leap into the future to catch a glimpse of events to come.

If the philosophy of absolute self-negation is followed to its logical conclusion, it will inevitably lead to the extinction of the human race. To ascribe this inspirational jibberish to the Divinely enlightened wisdom of Buddha(as) does him no honour; this is not the Divine cup of revelation from which he drank deep and became immortalised!

Confucianism

Confucianism is a treasure house of profound wisdom. A study of this religion reveals that rationality, revelation and knowledge go hand in hand in leading man to truth. Although many Chinese consider it to be a religion on the pattern of other Divinely revealed religions of the world, there are others among them who view it as a mere philosophy. In Japan, for instance, Confucianism has no geography of its own. The followers of Taoism, Shintoism and Buddhism equally believe in Confucianism as a philosophy compatible with their own. Hence they coexist in a diffused form, unheard of in the case of other religions of the world.

When we speak of Confucianism being treated as a mere philosophy, we particularly have in mind the question of the existence of God. Few followers of Confucius (550-478 BC) today have a clear belief in any Divine existence. Yet they believe in the world of spirits and souls, and some even practise ancestor worship. However we believe that a reappraisal of the currently popular understanding of Confucianism is vital.

Examining the early texts upon which Confucianism is founded, there is no doubt that this religion too is squarely built on a sound belief in the existence of God. It owes much of its philosophy and wisdom to revelation, rather than to the contemplations of wise men.

The extent to which this religion has deviated from its original course can be measured by the currently popular spirit-worship, so commonly found among the adherents of Confucius today. In the source material of Confucius however, there is not the slightest hint of any such superstitious beliefs and practices. Evidently therefore, as happened in the case of other religions, Confucianism also drifted away from its original sources with the passage of time. Many superstitions and erroneous practices crept into it at the cost of the belief in one Supreme God. A tragedy, alas, which is repeated only too often.

As for ancestral worship, they do not treat them as gods or saints, yet, many beg favours from them. But in Japan this worship does not have the same meaning as understood elsewhere. It is merely an expression of respect and loyalty to the memory of the dead. Not everyone begs for things from the souls of the dead, and do not treat them as independent gods. A perfect symmetry and coordination in the laws of nature prove beyond a shadow a doubt that if this universe is created, it must have been created by a single Supreme Being. There is not an iota of trace of two or three creative hands at work in nature. It is quite logical to conclude from this that the deep innate desire to believe in something must have been created for the purpose of creating a linking bridge between the Creator and the creation. When this communion is not established the absence of Divine revelation leaves a void which must somehow be filled by that fundamental urge. It is that urge that creates gods for itself whether they are souls, spirits, ghosts or other ethereal beings. Hence to believe in superstitions is not accidental. The phantom figures of gods found among the superstitious people are like the images of ghosts born during the absence of light.

This decadent trend gradually pushes the image of God out of the arena of religious beliefs. The belief in God requires reformation in one’s conduct and consequent accountability, while the spirits, ghosts and other ethereal beings demand no submission to any moral religious code.

From an in-depth study of classical Confucian literature, it is not difficult to prove that Confucianism is not a man-made philosophy at its origin. It did embrace the idea of one immortal God, from Whom its teachings originated and Who is believed to govern the universe. “Heaven” is a manifestation of that God, and as such sometimes He Himself is referred to as Heaven. Confucianism considers true knowledge to consist of understanding the attributes of God and adopting them in one’s own conduct. This brings man closer to eternal truth and serves as a source of knowledge for his benefit.

The history of Confucianism and Taoism goes as far back as the time of Fu Hsi, (pronounced as Foo She)(c. 3322 BC), who was both a king and a great sage. Once, in a vision, he saw a horse dragon rising from the Yellow River which had a diagram on its back. This is not the only incident of Chinese history regarding a prophet learning things through his vision. Prophet Yu (c. 2140 BC) is also recorded benefitting from Divine revelation. In the vision of Fu Hsi he had the opportunity to study the diagram. The diagram consisted of eight sets of three male and female lines. The combination of these trigrams into upper and lower pairs provides sixty-four hexagrams. The significance of each hexagram is depicted by its name and is related to the particular arrangement of male and female lines. It is reported of a sage, King Wan (c. 1143 BC), that he was the first to write down the interpretations of these hexagrams. His son, Cheu Kung (c. 1120 BC), added to these explanations and later Confucius added his commentary to it in the form of appendices. This was the development of Fu Hsi’s vision into the Book of Changes known as I Ching (or Yi King).

An understanding of the principles of this theory (the theory of the eight trigrams) influenced the growth of many a science and discipline in Chinese life pertaining to all fields of human interest. It is said that in China this philosophy played a vital role in the development of agriculture, industry, medicine, economy, politics and many other fields of knowledge. One Chinese scholar, Chou Chih Hua, writes in his book Acupuncture and Science14, that the theory of eight trigrams has the same relationship with Chinese medicine as mathematics has with European science. According to the book History of Medicine of China15, Fu Hsi, the prophet who formulated the theory of the eight trigrams through revelation, also discovered the science of medicine and acupuncture. However, some believe that this knowledge was developed in a later period by the sage King Huang Ti, who in turn had derived his knowledge from the I Ching.

Master Sun’s Art of War, which also uses the I Ching, is famous in the military world. Military people throughout the ages have given importance to this book, which has been translated into six different languages. Chinese logicians and the various ancient classical schools of thought also based their theories on the principles outlined in the Book of Changes. To a minor degree the Book of Changes has also influenced the Western world, where the I Ching has gained in popularity, although some use it only as a kind of oracle for fortune telling.

According to Confucianism, formal academic study is not essential for the attainment of truth. God Himself is Truth, so whatever He creates He blesses it with this same quality central to His own identity. Thus human nature and eternal truth have become synonymous in Confucianism.

Mencius (372-289 BC) was a Chinese philosopher, theorist and educationalist. He was also a very religious man and a prominent personality among the followers of Confucius. He left a great impression on Chinese philosophy, so much so that some consider him to be a prophet. Explaining a way of reaching eternal truth, he is reported to have said:

‘Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and knowledge are not infused into us from without. We are certainly furnished with them. And a different view is simply from want of reflection. Hence it is said, “Seek and you will find them. Neglect and you will lose them.”’16

Here, the external source being denied by Mencius is not revelation. Rather, he points out that our moral qualities, which are an essential element of our being, do not come to us from outside. Mencius expressed the view that sensory experience does not give us a new message by itself. In the mirror of sensory experience, the human mind can see the external images of its inner nature. Thus he does not deny the benefit of objectivity, what he denies is its independent potential in leading man to truth. All the same he admits that objective experience can be greatly helpful in guiding us to the innate fountainhead of eternal truth. Mencius further expounded that nature, by which he means the entire cosmos, itself is not eternal but created for us by “Heaven” and “Heaven” is a sensible Creator. Explaining this, Mencius said:

The term “Heaven”, as understood by Mencius is a Conscious Being and it is interchangeable with our term of God. Heaven may be seen to symbolize the active and conscious creative principles of God. Thus he says:

Classical Confucianism, undoubtedly, presents man as a creation of God rather than just a product of unconscious nature. For Confucius, the ultimate goal in attaining knowledge of one’s own nature is to attain harmony with God, and this is the ultimate of man’s vision of heaven. This belief is quite similar to the Quranic teaching in presenting man as having been created according to God’s attributes.

… and follow the nature (attributes) of Allah after which He fashioned all mankind …19

Confucius further propounded that man has to make a conscious effort to first gain knowledge of this image of God, latent within his nature, and then to develop within himself attributes that accord with this image. If he does not make this conscious effort, then there is no guarantee that man’s moral development will, as a matter of course, be in the image of God.

According to Confucian understanding, knowledge as an entity does not exist in isolation from man’s actions and character (his virtue, dignity and propriety). The two are deeply linked, as the following reference reveals:

‘The Master (Confucius) said, “When a man’s knowledge is sufficient to attain, and his virtue is not sufficient to enable to hold, whatever he may have gained, he will lose again.

When his knowledge is sufficient to attain, and he has virtue enough to hold fast, if he cannot govern with dignity, the people will not respect him.

When his knowledge is sufficient to attain, and he has virtue enough to hold fast; when he governs also with dignity, yet if he try to move the people contrary to the rules of propriety:- full excellence is not reached.”’20

It is also evident that Confucius was convinced that man’s Creator has great influence over him and that He alone was worthy of his worship. This is revealed by the following tradition:

‘Wang-sun-Chia saying, (to the Master Confucius): “What is the meaning of the saying, It is better to pay court to the furnace than the southwest comer?” The Master said, “Not so. He who offends against Heaven (God) has none to whom he can pray.”’21

To offend against the creative principles of God is to act contrary to the inner nature of man, which God has designed to be a reflective mirror of His own attributes. The one who turns away from God has none else to turn to.

The above quotes serve to illustrate that at its source, Confucianism cannot be treated as a man-made philosophy. At its core, it contained the essential belief in an externally existing Creator, whose ways are to be revered and emulated. They further illustrate that mere knowledge, devoid of the essential ingredients of seeking God and putting into practice His ordinances, was considered to be of no value.

Furthermore, as will become evident from the quotes furnished below, Confucianism presents God (or Heaven) as a Being Who takes an active interest in the welfare and development of mankind. The necessity of upholding the value of Truth is established by God, through His choice of suitable people to establish truth for the guidance of man.

The Chinese sages can be considered to be the equivalent of prophets as mentioned in the Quran or the Bible, i.e. men who are representatives or messengers of God. We find this similarity expressed in a statement attributed to Confucius.

‘He said, “After the death of King Wan, was not the cause of truth lodged here in me (Confucius)?

If Heaven had wished to let this cause of truth perish, then I, a future mortal, should not have got such a relation to that cause. While Heaven does not let the cause of truth perish, what can the people of K’wang do to me?”’22

Here Confucius expresses his complete conviction that the eventual transcendence of truth was assured by an unchanging decree of God in whose safe hand he was a mere instrument. God does not allow those He has directly guided to perish without having accomplished their task of establishing truth, even though they may stand alone against seemingly all-powerful odds. This is exactly the picture given of the prophets in the Bible and the Quran. Those who are worthy to be chosen for such tasks are men who have excelled in emulating God’s attributes.

‘Confucius said, “Great indeed was Yaou as a sovereign. It is only Heaven that is great, and only Yaou corresponded to it. How vast was his virtue! The people could find no name for it.”’23

In other words, through emulating God, his qualities became so great that people could not find adequate words to describe him:

‘Chang said, “I presume to ask how it was that Yaou presented Shun to Heaven, and Heaven accepted him; and that he exhibited him to the people, and the people accepted him.”’24

Again these verses make it clear that Heaven is not the cosmos, nor the inner micro-universe of a person, but an active and conscious being, synonymous with the term God. As Heaven chooses sages according to certain criteria, so God chooses the prophets. Our proposition that Chinese sages are considered to have the same qualities as those of the prophets of the Bible and the Quran, has been well served by the references presented above.

A further study of the Confucian text illustrates that revelation was not only a means of establishing the true philosophy of life, but was also of practical value in guiding man’s actions in everyday life. We have already mentioned Fu Hsi’s vision and its application in a practical way to many aspects of Chinese civilization—an influence that lasted for many millennia. Below we present some other examples where revelation played a role m influencing the material well-being of a nation:

‘“ … When the king speaks, his words form the commands for them; if he do not speak, the ministers have no way to receive their orders.” The king on this made a writing, and informed them, saying, “As it is mine to secure what is right in the four quarters of the empire, I have been afraid that my virtue is not equal to that of my predecessors, and therefore have not spoken. But while I was respectfully and silently thinking of the right way, I dreamt that God gave me a good assistant, who should speak for me.” He then minutely described the appearance of the person, and caused search to be made for him by means of a figure throughout the empire. Yue, a builder in the country of Foo-yen, was found like.

On this the king raised and made him his prime minister, keeping him also at his side.

He charged him, saying, “Morning and evening present your instructions to aid my virtue … ”’25

Here, it is claimed that the King had no way of knowing how, or by whom, his difficulties of government could be overcome, but he was granted an answer by God through a dream.

“Be not like those who reject this and cling to that; Be not like those who are ruled by their likings and desires;”

“I am pleased with your intelligent virtue, Not loudly proclaimed nor pourtrayed, Without extravagance or changeableness, Without consciousness of effort on your part, In accordance with the pattern of God.”

And your engines of onfall and assault, To attack the walls of Ts’ung.”’26

This illustrates the process by which God chooses His servants, who are to represent His cause. First, God guided and instructed King Wan, who responded by putting His advice into practice and thus rose in status in the eyes of God.

The concluding verses of the above quote are reminiscent of David in the Bible who was also a prophet and a king. Just as David was given permission to attack his enemies, who sought to wipe out the cause of truth, so too was King Wan. A comparative study of religious history reveals other similarities between the experiences of King Wan and the Prophet King David(as), but we shall not enter into this lengthy discussion here.

With the help of the references quoted above, it should become amply clear that in the Chinese religions and philosophies, revelation has a significant place and is an important means of attaining the truth. Many other examples from the Chinese classics also demonstrate that Confucianism cannot be considered merely a man-made philosophy of life, which has no belief in an external God. On the contrary, God is an intrinsic part of this faith and whatever was received through dreams and visions, is most definitely attributed to communication from God.

Taoism

All Chinese religions are derived from the same ancient source of spiritual and religious experiences of the great Chinese sage prophet Fu Hsi. In the subsequent ages, many a great sage and thinker pondered over the works of Fu Hsi and studied them in-depth. Based on their study they presented to the Chinese people new philosophies, sciences, religions and moral teachings. Among them are King Wan, his son Cheu Kung and Lao-tzu, all held in great esteem by the Chinese people of all ages. The way of life presented by Lao-tzu (6th century BC), a contemporary of Confucius, is known as Taoism.

In Taoism, eternal truth is embodied in a being known as Tao whose attributes are spiritual and holy rather than material. Tao can be aptly defined as a personification of eternal virtues. They are precisely the same attributes as ascribed to God in Islam and other Divinely revealed religions. Taoism teaches man to completely submit to Truth (Tao), and to strive to modulate Tao. Tao is the model, and Taoism is the way to gain nearness to this model.

The same is the treatment in the Holy Quran regarding the relationship between God and man:

The hues of God! And who is more beautiful in hues than God?—and Him alone do we worship.27

In Islam God is described and introduced through His attributes and the goal set for Muslims is to emulate them to modulate their lives. The description of Tao, presented by Lao-tzu, is quite similar to the attributes of God mentioned in the Quran. He writes:

‘The great Tao is vast. He is on the left and He is on the right. All creatures depend upon Him, and the care of them tires Him not. He brings creation to completion, without seeking reward. He provides for all His creation, but requires nothing for Himself, so He may be considered small. All creatures turn to Him for their needs, yet He keeps nothing for Himself, thus He may be named ‘the Supreme’. He does not consider Himself great and because of this He is truly Great.’28

‘Looked for but not visible, such a Being may be colourless. Listened for but not heard, such a Being may be called Silent. Grasped for but not caught, such may be called Concealed. No one can comprehend the ultimate source of these three qualities, but they are found in one Being. Though not luminous yet below Him there is no darkness. Being infinite He cannot be described. All His shapes keep returning to nothingness, thus we can say He is Shapeless; His image is without form. He is beyond comprehension (being the rarest of things). Try to reach His beginning, no beginning can be seen. Seek His end, no end can be perceived. Therefore, follow the ancient ways and improve your present.’29

‘He is indivisible and His true nature cannot be grasped. All creation originates from Him. He existed before heaven and earth were created. He is One and alone without form or sound. He exists independently without any support. Nothing changes in Him. He is in constant motion, but never tires. He can be called the Begetter of the universe.’30

The description of Tao given in the above passages is also found in different verses of the Quran, which when read together, reproduce everything covered by the above quotes. The image of God thus described in the Holy Quran, is summed up by the founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the late Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad(as) of Qadian (India), in the following words:

‘He is near yet far, distant yet close … He is highest of high, yet it cannot be said that there is anyone below Him farther than He. He is in heaven, but it cannot be said that He is not on Earth. He combines in Himself all the most perfect attributes and manifests the virtues which are truly worthy of praise.’31

In short, like Confucianism, Taoism too at its source believed undoubtedly in a living, personal God to be the Eternal Truth. In the original works of Taoism or Confucianism, it was not considered sufficient just to gain an intellectual understanding of Tao, but the entire goal of life was set to mould one’s character and actions according to the concept of Tao.

However, in the source material of Taoism, as quoted above, the belief in Tao as an eternal intelligent creator has over the ages been obscured. But the idea of revelation itself is still retained, though only under the guise of inspiration. A conspicuous shift from Divine revelation to inspiration without a Divine origin, marks the trend among the spiritual thinkers of the later ages until no trace of Divinity is left in their writings. Inspiration to them became purely an internal phenomenon, which through deep contemplation and meditation could lead to the fountainhead of truth within oneself.

To delve deep into one’s nature can of course lead to the discovery of inner truth, but the Tao experience of inspiration as quoted in the authentic Taoist works is not entirely internal. With them inspiration has its own limitations—it cannot lead to objective truth which lies beyond the reach of the person who undergoes an inspirational experience.

The very foundation of Taoism is based on the great vision of Fu Hsi. The definition of inspiration however extended, can in no way be applied to that vision. When interpreted, it comprises such fountainheads of knowledge as were to give birth to many highly evolved and complex Chinese philosophies and sciences much later in time.

This is sufficient to illustrate the case in point. Inspirations cannot give birth to prophecies; no way can they lead to such future events as stand witness to the existence of an All-Knowing Supreme God by their realizations.

Zoroastrianism

In Persian history, the most noteworthy contribution to religious philosophy is made by Zoroastrianism. According to this philosophy, not only are truth and goodness eternal, but falsehood and evil also share eternity with them. Both have separate gods who have their own independent orders of management. There is a god of goodness, Ahura Mazda, also known as the god of light and there is a god of evil, Ahraman, also known as the god of darkness; each has his own well-defined role to play. All activity within the universe results from the collision and interaction of these two combatant gods, who are eternally locked in a grim battle of survival and supremacy.

The powers of the god of goodness are constantly endeavouring to dominate those of the god of evil. Like a see-saw, the outcome of this struggle is always changing sides sometimes in favour of goodness and sometimes in favour of evil. Thus Zoroastrian philosophy presents a simple explanation for the coexistence of evil and suffering, goodness and happiness, by attributing their origin to two different sources. All the ills in the world—pain, grief, distress, ignorance and suffering—are believed to ensue when the god of evil gains the upper hand.

It should be noted that what Zoroaster(as)32 (c. sixth century BC) really taught was that the force of good and evil coexist to enable man to exercise his free will. Thus, man would ultimately be judged in accordance with his good or bad intentions and deeds. Zoroaster(as) also taught that the universe was created by the god of light and that the forces of good will ultimately prevail.

One can safely deduce from an in-depth study of Zoroastrianism that what was later referred to as an independent God of darkness, was only identical to the concept of a devil found in traditional religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It seems that at some stage the followers of Zoroasteras began to misunderstand his philosophy of good and evil, and took them to be the manifestation of two independent, conscious supreme beings who coexisted eternally. This is the essence of the Zoroastrian concept of dualism. A second glance at Zoroastrian philosophy can lead a careful observer to the conclusion that it is only a matter of different terminology which creates a false parallax between them.

The role ascribed to Satan in other religions is ascribed to Ahraman in Zoroastrianism. Most likely the adherents of Zoroastrians of later ages got the concept of Satan mixed up with the idea of an independent god of evil, believed to be the supreme master of the forces of darkness. This one blunder on their part led to yet another blunder. Ahraman, the ‘God of Evil’, is portrayed as sharing eternity with the One and Only Supreme Creator.

It is hard to identify the age when this erroneous belief crept into Zoroastrian doctrines but one thing is certain that Cyrus (c. 590-529 BC), an exemplary pupil of Zoroaster(as), was far from being a dualist. The lofty position he held in Zoroastrianism was even higher than that held by Ashoka in Buddhism.

To judge Zoroastrianism through the mirror of Cyrus, therefore, would be no less reliable than judging Buddhism through the mirror of Ashoka. The monotheism of Cyrus can be proved from the tribute paid to him in the Old Testament (Isaiah 45:1-5). It is impossible to conceive “the God of Israel” to have praised Cyrus in such high terms if he were a dualist. Thus spoke prophet Isaiah:

“Thus says the LORD to His anointed, To Cyrus, whose right hand I have held—

I will give you the treasures of darkness And hidden riches of secret places, That you may know that I, the LORD, Who call you by your name,

I have named you, though you have not known Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other;

Cyrus the great is also remembered in the Cyrus legend as a tolerant and ideal monarch who was called ‘father of his people’ by the ancient Persians. In the Bible an outstanding homage is paid to him as the liberator of the Jews captive in Babylonia.

In short, the figure of Cyrus has survived throughout history as a man of exceptional qualities. He built a vast empire the like of which was seldom created by other warriors of heroic fame. Among the emperors, he is the only one who escaped censure by all the historians who ever wrote about great men of history. None could ever find a speck of a blemish in his character as a man or in his conduct as a monarch. He became the epitome of the greatest qualities expected of a ruler. In wars he was bold and dauntless, in conquest magnanimous. His unshakeable belief in the Unity of God must have sprung from Zoroaster’s himself.

Zoroastrianism in all its features is closest to Judaism and Islam. Hence its precept of goodness and evil, light and darkness had to be the same as it was in Judaism and Islam. ‘Ahraman’ is very likely therefore, another name for Satan and no more.

The only question which remains to be resolved is, why do the Zoroastrians find the idea of duality so fascinating that once it took root into their doctrine, it continued to flourish securing a permanent place for itself? It must have happened during the phase of intense philosophical activity when the question of evil and suffering specifically bothered their thinkers. This is a problem which has been plaguing man since time immemorial. Many religious intellects in different ages have offered different explanations to justify their belief in a good God. In Athens too, during the same general age, this question had engaged the attention of many ethical, religious or secular thinkers. For them it was not too difficult to resolve the question, because the majority of Athenians believed in mythical gods for whom it was not rare to tell lies or play tricks upon humans or even gods. The concept of such trickster gods is fully endorsed by the Illiad of Homer.

Yet among them, there was born in 470 BC a monotheist philosopher whose name was Socrates. He was a prophet among philosophers and a philosopher among prophets. He believed in the unshakeable Unity of God. Of His absolute goodness he did not entertain the slightest doubt. This is what he pronounced during his last speech before the Athenian senate. He believed in God, the possessor of absolute goodness, not merely through his intellectual and metaphysical exercise, he believed because he had personally known Him as such, right from the early days of his childhood. Nay, he was brought up in the very lap of God with His personal love and care. This was Socrates who also tackled this question with profound logic but it is a logic largely spent on proving the impossibility of any evil originating from God. When it came to the issue of evil and suffering in the world, he dismissed them as human errors, logically impossible to have emanated from Him. He had to be good, He was good and He could not be anything but good. Hence, evil must have been generated by earthly people, God having no share in their defiled practices. His answer was simple but left room for others to assail him philosophically so that ultimately he could be driven to an indefensible position. The Zoroastrian thinkers in Iran however, could not be satisfied with this answer. They probed the question and further enquired as to who those evil men were and who had created them. If it were God, He had to be ultimately responsible. Thus to break His ties with evil altogether, the Zoroastrian intellects must have devised the existence of another creator beside Him. One was referred to as the god of goodness and the other as the god of evil; both enjoyed their godhead in their exclusive areas of light and darkness.

Incidentally, it should also be mentioned here that all Zoroastrians do not subscribe to this so-called Zoroastrian doctrine of duality. There are those, though small in number today, who strongly defend the cause of Unity within Zoroastrianism. Most of these unitarians must have been powerfully pulled towards Islam as it entered Persia. It should be remembered that apart from duality and the consequent fire worship, the rest of the Zoroastrian faith is much closer to Islam than to any other faith.

In Zoroastrianism, God—referred to as Ahura Mazda—is described exactly in the same terms and with the same attributes as in all other major religions. Thus by blaming all the evil and suffering upon the scapegoat Ahraman, the Zoroastrian thinkers thought they had ultimately resolved the dilemma. But it was not to be so. Socrates, also a contemporary of theirs, might have heard of it or thought of it himself, yet he rejected it and faithfully adhered to the Unity of God. This Zoroastrian excuse, though it seems to solve one problem, creates an even more defiant one. To that we shall turn later but presently it must be remembered that evil in itself has no independent existence which needs to be created.

In reality however, evil is only another name for the absence of goodness. Its absence only becomes conspicuous when light and shade play hide and seek. Yet shade is not a substantial thing. It is only light that matters and seems to create shadows. Shadows however are not created by light but are the name for its absence. They are born whenever light is obstructed. There was no need therefore for the Zoroastrians of later ages to create a devil of their own by the name of Ahraman. Likewise it is goodness alone which needs to be created, sin will by itself appear whenever goodness is eschewed. Thus if Ahraman is the god of darkness, he himself is the outcome of the negation of light and virtue, and not a creator of them.

In the light of what has passed, we can safely conclude that Zoroaster(as) believed in the God of goodness and in Him alone. He was a recipient of revelation from Him. For him knowledge and eternal truth were directly bestowed by revelation, not merely deduced through logic or inspiration.

Returning once again to the Zoroastrian solution of the dilemma of the existence of suffering and evil, let us examine this philosophy once again in depth. How did suffering come into being? Whatever is the meaning of suffering? If there was a separate god who contrived evil and another who fashioned goodness, then what will be the final outcome of their strife to gain victory over the other? Who will win and why? Although the Zoroastrians seem to entertain the hope of a final victory of goodness, their philosophy does not offer any explanation as to why the power of goodness must prevail. If the two gods are independent, but one is weaker than the other, then the powerful God must have annihilated the weaker since time immemorial. Thus with the passage of time goodness should have finally prevailed over the forces of evil. Since this is not the case, both the gods could have been equally balanced in their respective powers, engaged in an endless game of see-saw. In that case the hope for the ultimate victory of goodness over evil is impossible to entertain.

Another important question to which we feel the need to return, is the question of suffering. As has already been demonstrated, the dualist philosophy of Zorastrianism despite its apparent advantage fails to resolve the dilemma. Dualism when examined in depth is found to be absolutely inadequate in solving the mystery of suffering in the scheme of creation by a Benignant Creator. This question we propose to take up in the following chapter independently on its own merit.

The Question of Suffering

When we explore the history of evolution in search of the causative factors which gave birth to the sensory organs as life evolved, we can safely conclude that right from the beginning they have always been the sense of loss and gain. We identify the journey of evolution to be a long procession of some obscure realisation of gains and losses which gradually evolved the sensory organs to register the presence of pleasure and pain, comfort and suffering. If we look back at the lower forms of life, at the first few rungs of the ladder and compare them with the higher forms of life near the top, it is not difficult to recognize that in real terms the evolution is the evolution of consciousness. Life is constantly spiralling up from a lesser state of consciousness to a higher state with continuously sharpening faculties of awareness.

The awareness of gain and loss is rather vague and obscure in the beginning, and we cannot locate a definite seat for this awareness in the anatomy of rudimentary organisms. But we know from their reactions to the surrounding elements and situations that they do possess some defused sense of awareness. It is this diffused inexplicable sense which is employed somehow by the Creator to initiate the sense of perception in life. This sense of perception gradually developed and created its own seats in the organism of life. It is these seats which got precipitated ultimately into what we know now as sensory organs. The creation of the brain was not a separate and unrelated incident. No development of sensory organs could be meaningful without a corresponding development of a central nervous system and a simultaneous evolution of the brain, which could decipher the messages transmitted by the sensory organs. Evidently therefore, the brain developed as an essential counterpart of the system of perception. The more evolved the consciousness becomes, the more intense grows the sense of loss and gain felt by specific nerve centres which translate the awareness of loss as suffering, and gain as pleasure, to the mind through the brain.

The less developed the consciousness, the smaller is the awareness of suffering. The same goes for happiness. Thus, the sensory provisions for the recognition of suffering and happiness are indispensable to each other. It is quite likely that if the level to which suffering can be experienced is reduced, its opposite number, the capacity to feel pleasure and happiness, will also be lowered to the same degree. The two seem to participate equally in propelling the wheel of evolution; both possess equal significance. One cannot be done away with alone without the other, thus nullifying the entire creative plan of evolution.

We understand from the Holy Quran, that God did not create suffering as an independent entity in its own right, but only as an indispensable counterpart of pleasure and comfort. The absence of happiness is suffering, which is like its shadow, just as darkness is the shadow cast by the absence of light. If there is life, there has to be death; both are situated at the extreme poles of the same plane, with innumerable grades and shades in between. As we move away from death, we gradually move towards a state of life which is happiness; as we move away from life, we move away with a sense of loss and sorrow towards death. This is the key to understanding the struggle for existence, which in turn leads to a constant improvement in the quality of life and helps it to achieve the ultimate goal of evolution. The principle of the “survival of the fittest” plays an integral role in this grand scheme of evolution.

Blessed is He in whose hand is the kingdom, and He has power over all things; It is He Who has created death and life that He might try you—which of you is best in deeds; and He is the Mighty, the Most Forgiving.34

The answer to the question ‘Why is there suffering?’ is clearly implied in this vers·e in its widest application.

The profound philosophy of life and death, the innumerable shades in between, and the role they play in shaping life and improving its quality are all covered in the above verse. It is the very scheme of things that God discloses here. We know that life is only a positive value, and death merely means its absence, and no sharp border exists separating one from the other. It is a gradual process, the way life travels towards death and ebbs out, or from the other direction we view death travelling towards life gaining strength, energy and consciousness as it moves on. This is the grand plan of creation, but why has God designed it so? ‘That He might try you—which of you is best in deeds’, is the answer provided by the Holy Quran.

It is the perpetual struggle between life and death that subjects the living to a constant state of trial, so that all who conduct themselves best survive and gain a higher status of existence. Herein lies the philosophy and the machination of evolution as described in the verses above. It is this constant struggle between the forces of life and the forces of death which provide the thrust to the living to perpetually move away from death or towards it. It may result either in the improvement or deterioration in the quality of existence in the wide spectrum of evolutionary changes. This is the essence and spirit of evolution.

Suffering could only be considered objectionable if it were created as an independent entity with no meaningful role to play in the scheme of things. But without the taste of suffering or an awareness of what it means, the feeling of relief and comfort would also vanish. Without an encounter with pain and misery, most certainly, joy and happiness would lose all meaning. Indeed the very existence of life would lose purpose, and the steps of evolution would stop dead in their tracks.

Thus in the evolution of our five senses, the awareness of loss and gain has played an equally essential role like the two wheels of a wagon; remove one, and the other would also lose its meaning. The very concept of the wagon would be grounded. The struggle between life and death, which produces suffering, is also the means of creating pleasure. It is the primary motivating force which fuels the carriage of evolution to move forward eternally.

During the long history of evolution, disease has arisen from various causes, directly or indirectly related to developmental changes. Environmental variations, the struggle for existence, mutations and accidents, have all jointly or severally played their part. Disease, defects and shortcomings all have a role to play in effecting improvement. This is how various animal species went on evolving unconsciously it seems, but certainly with a direction, which appears to follow a consciously designed course towards greater consciousness.

Let us now try to conceive another scheme in which the element of suffering is set aside by the application of a hypothetical rule: all forms of life must be equally provided with an equal share of happiness with no portion of suffering at all. Perhaps then we shall be able to eliminate suffering altogether from afflicting life. There would be absolute equality and everyone would be placed on a level platform, but how and where should we introduce this new scheme? Alas! Wherever we attempt to introduce it in the long chain of evolution, we are bound to come across insurmountable problems. These new rules either have to be introduced at the very beginning of creation or not at all. To apply absolute equality at any following stage would be impossible without creating insoluble contradictions. We shall thus need to return to the point where life started.

We must go back all the way in the history of life; all the way to the very beginning and start to build the ladder of evolution anew, rung by rung. But try as we may, we are bound to get stuck at the very first step, the starting point of life. We would not be able to take a single step forward because an equal distribution of happiness and total absence of suffering would entirely eliminate the impetus for evolution. There would be no struggle for existence, no natural selection, no survival of the fittest. Not a single progressive step would be taken by the first, most rudimentary forms of life.

Picture the stage of life represented by the three earliest life units known to man, i.e. bacteria with nuclei, bacteria without nuclei and pyro-bacteria (born by the energy of fire). In this imaginary system there would be no competition for food or survival, because all are equally provided for; there would be no suffering either. As a consequence, in that hypothetical revised plan of creation, life would certainly remain stationary and stagnant, forever fixed at its earliest rudimentary form. The creation of man would remain a far cry from the point of its ancient beginning. Therefore the real question is whether to choose a system with suffering as its integral part, perpetually spiralling evolution in the greater interest of life, or to abandon the plan altogether for the fear of unavoidable suffering. In the final analysis therefore, the only question we are left with is, ‘To be or not to be’?

The rudimentary forms of life, if they had a brain to think, would much rather wish ‘not to be’ than ‘to be’ in such meaningless drudgery of existence.

Suffering is also associated with the idea of retribution and punishment. Glimpses of retribution can be witnessed in the animal kingdom only in a narrow and limited application. They can be observed in the behaviour of many animals of land, sea and air. Elephants and buffaloes are notorious for their propensity towards revenge. This gradually developing trait of life is inevitably linked up to the gradual synthesis of choice. To do something or not to do something can either be an intuitive compulsion or a calculated decision of mind. We are not yet certain about how far the element of choice plays a role in animal conduct, but we know that choice begins to play a vital role in the decision-making process of humans. Whether one moves towards light or darkness, towards life or death, is most often a conscious decision on the part of man. If therefore, as a natural consequence of man’s wilful actions, a reward is provided or penalty exacted, none else is to be blamed but man himself.

Sometimes people may suffer without realizing that they themselves are to be blamed—that there is a general principle of retribution operative in nature known as nemesis. They may have earned that suffering advertently or inadvertently, without identifying the cause. It is so because every fault does not result in an immediate punitive consequence. It often happens that nature executes justice against transgression imperceptibly.

However this is not the whole problem. It is far too complex, vast and intricate and needs to be further illustrated with the help of specific scientific examples, hypothetical or real. There are some very difficult cases to explain, like those of children born with certain congenital defects. Why are they made to suffer? It cannot be said that it is through any fault of theirs. If there is any fault it might have been of their parents, yet that may not have been intentional on their part. In this context the term “fault” should be understood in its widest application, covering even accidental occurrence of congenital diseases. Such faults are far from being conscious crimes. Whatever the nature of the particular cause of some defect, one thing is certain that the poor innocent child who is born with any disadvantage is not responsible for the cause of this suffering in any way.

The solution to the understanding of this problem lies in the realization that all suffering cannot be categorized as punishment, nor all happiness as reward. There is always a small percentage of individuals who will seem to suffer as though without justification. However, a closer more careful examination of such cases would reveal that there is no question of wilful injustice involved. They are merely an unavoidable by-product of the wide plan of creation, but they also play a meaningful role in the general advancement of human society.

One must not forget that ‘cause and effect’ is one thing and ‘crime and punishment’ is quite another, however closely they may seem to resemble each other. It is correct to say that a crime may work as a cause and every punishment that may ensue would be an effect of that causative crime. But it is not correct to claim that every suffering is a punishment of some crime committed before. It is wrong to say that all healthy babies are healthy because they are rewarded for some act of goodness of their parents. So also it is wrong to maintain that every unhealthy baby is punished for an unidentified crime of its parents or forefathers. Health and disease, ability and disability, fortune or misfortune, congenital advantages or disadvantages are themselves but indispensable to the grand scheme of things, in which they play a causative role. They are distinctly apart from the phenomenon of crime and punishment, goodness and reward. As we have discussed above, suffering, like happiness, is an essential prerequisite for life to evolve and in the course of evolution it is not related to the phenomenon of crime and punishment at all. Suffering in its causative role produces a wide spectrum of useful effects which amply justify its existence.

Suffering has been a great teacher, cultivating and culturing our conduct. It develops and refines sensibilities, teaches humility and in more than one way, prepares humans to be able to turn to God. It awakens the need for search and exploration and creates that necessity which is the mother of all inventions. Remove suffering as a causative factor in developing man’s potential and the wheel of progress would turn back a hundred thousand times. Man may try his hand at altering the plan of things, but frustration would be all he will achieve. Thus, the question of apportioning blame for the existence of suffering upon the Creator should not arise. Suffering, to play its subtle creative role in the scheme of things, is indeed a blessing in disguise.

The secret of all scientific investigation and discovery lies in a constant quest for the relief of pain and discomfort. The motivation behind scientific exploration and discovery is based less on a desire to gain luxuries than on a need to escape pain. Luxury itself is, after all, a further extension of the same tendency to move away from a state of discomfort to a state of comparative ease.

Let us once again examine the scenario of the ‘innocent sufferers’, the newborn babies with congenital defects or those falling ill at a later age with typhoid or some other disabling disease, rendering them blind, deaf and dumb, or even partially or totally paralysed for life. Worse still may be the case of those, whose central nervous system is damaged by mishaps during birth, resulting in mental disorders. Is the question valid: Why this particular child, A or B? Why not another, say for instance C or D? Would not the same question repeat again and yet again: Why C or D? Why not E or F and so on? The only valid question therefore, would be: Why anyone at all? Hence the only option the Creator is left with is either to create all babies equally healthy or equally unhealthy. This leads us to the realization that the health of a baby itself is merely of relative value. Perhaps it is hard to find any two babies equally gifted with the health of mind and heart and all the physical organs alike. To resolve the question of suffering, there is another valid question to be raised against the Creator. If one child is born with pinhole eyes and a large ugly nose and other disproportionate features, will he not suffer all his life comparing his disadvantages with the advantages of other more fortunate fellow human beings?

Inequality of health and looks will continue to irritate most individuals and will even agonise some at finding themselves to be at a disadvantage in comparison to others. Does it not warrant in the name of absolute justice and fair play that God should create every human exactly alike in health and looks? Widen the area of comparison by bringing into play the faculties of head and heart and disposition and the contrast between those who have advantages and those who have disadvantages will become even more pronounced. In the absence of extreme cases even the mild cases will appear offensive to the sense of justice. One has to begin somewhere to create variety and diversity to break the monotony. Wherever there is variety and diversity, comparative suffering and happiness are bound to be generated. To object against the plan of things in the name of compassion for disabled children is one thing, but to replace the plan with a more just and compassionate viable plan is quite another. One may try one’s hand at altering the scheme for aeons of time but one will still not be able to replace the plan of God’s creations for a better one. In other words, we shall be again reverting to the question of why any disease and suffering at all; why should they be inevitable? One answer to this question, we have already given above.

Let us examine the same question from yet another perspective: from the viewpoint of an atheist as well as from the viewpoint of a believer in God.

For the atheist, strictly logically speaking, there should be no problem to be resolved—there should be no question to be answered. They do not owe their existence to any creator, and no creator is accountable before them if they find any distortion in the random unrolling of creation. For every suffering, every misery, every unequal distribution of happiness, nothing but chance is to be blamed and that realization ends the age-old debate. Chance being the creator, or nature, as we may call it, being unconscious, deaf and dumb, blind and chaotic cannot be blamed for any flaw in what is born out of chaos. The outcome of chance, without a creator, has to be blind and disorderly, without reason, without design, without direction.

For those who believe in God, the Creator, there should be no problem either, because they see enough direction, balance and purpose in creation, to submit to the wisdom of the plan in its totality. An odd thorn jutting out here and there from a most artistically arranged, colourful and fragrant bouquet of flowers will not provide sufficient cause for the rejection of the bouquet, or will it?

If the atheist’s scepticism is correct, then death seems to be the only solution for the drawn out misery of the innocent sufferers. If the believer’s scenario of creation is right, then death again acquires the role of a redeemer, but in a completely different way. For them, death acts only as a gateway to the life after death, which will usher the innocent sufferers into an era of unlimited reward. If they could only dream of what rewards were waiting for them in the Hereafter as compensation for their transient misery on earth, they would smilingly jog along despite suffering as though it were mere pinpricks or an odd thorn on the way to an eternal life of comfort and happiness.

Some people may not accept this and may still insist that they are not satisfied because there is no God and no life of reward or punishment after death. For them there is no value in this answer. If so, then the question should not be discussed at all. The question, they should remember, can only be discussed in relation to the role of God as Creator. The question of morality, the right and wrong of something, arises only with the belief in the existence of God. If there is God, then the suggestion of a possible compensation presented above cannot be dismissed merely with a scornful chuckle. If there is no God, then we cannot blame Him or anyone else for any chance suffering that we may encounter. We must then take life and all that pertains to it merely as an accident without meaning, without direction, without goal. Suffering has to be accepted as a part of nature, as something that cannot be done away with and cannot be run away from. Either way, one must learn to live with suffering.

Of course, suffering is a vital constituent of the motive force of evolution. However the question of balance between suffering and the pleasure derived from the consciousness of existence, remains to be decided. If, in this simple equation, suffering offsets the deep-rooted satisfaction born out of the awareness of one’s existence, then most people would rather die than live to suffer. If most of those who suffer would much rather lose conscious identity of existence than compromise with unhappiness, then the very wisdom of such a plan would be called into question. But that, which we actually observe in real life, is exactly the opposite of what is suggested above. Life dearly clings to the very awareness of its existence, sometimes even at the price of immense misery and unhappiness. That is the predominant rule with minor exceptions too insignificant by comparison.

Again we should remember that the perspective of suffering is variable. It constantly keeps changing when viewed from different angles of observation. Those who are healthy themselves perceive the state of a subnormal child as that of extreme suffering, but those who are placed at an even lower level of deprivation than the subnormal child in question may look up to him with envy.

On a much wider canvas, each form of life is either superior or inferior to the forms of life below or above it respectively. Throughout the process of evolution our awareness of values has kept changing as they evolved from lower to higher orders. The stages that occur in the upward spiralling course of evolution, when looked down upon from a higher vantage point, appear to be at a disadvantage. The higher forms of life cling dearly to the greater awareness of values which they have gained over millions of years of evolution. Any reversal or loss of such values and faculties would inevitably result in suffering, which by itself is indispensable for the promotion of the same values. Consider the state of worms in comparison to some higher forms of life, and compare yet again the state of those higher forms of life in comparison to the more advanced animal species placed even higher in the ladder of evolution. They all are certainly not equally gifted. The worms that thrive on the product of organic decay and filth could not by any means perceive themselves to be at par with the freely roaming wild horses, grazing in prairies on tender grass. Yet they cannot perceive themselves at a disadvantage either. Theirs are two different worlds, different faculties, different requirements and different aspirations—if aspirations could be attributed to worms at all!

Thus this imbalance does not suggest that they have been the target of any injustice. Visualize, for instance, the case of a few happy healthy worms. They all seem to be perfectly adjusted to their environment which in turn is well adjusted to them. They are fully content with the faculties they are provided with, and are incapable of yearning for things beyond the scope of their senses. Yet, if a human child were to be offered to exchange his suffering state of life with that of a happy contented worm, would he not rather die than to accept this option of living the lowly existence of a worm?

The very awareness of one’s life and the higher status one occupies in the grades of life is sufficient in most cases to offset the disadvantage of suffering. It transpires that suffering is after all a relative state. The source of suffering is embedded in the sense of deprivation. It is the awareness of loss of some familiar cherished values which generate a sense of pain. It can only happen when one has already tasted the pleasure of such values or has observed others enjoying them. The loss of such values once enjoyed or the knowledge of others possessing them, while one cannot, are two powerful factors which generate pain. But the lack of such values, the nature of which one does not perceive cannot cause suffering. What is pain after all, if not mere signals of a variety of losses? Despite the fact that we cannot always relate all our varied encounters with pain to specific bereavements, an in-depth study would always reveal that every sense of pain is inseparably connected with a corresponding sense of loss.

The creation and evolution of sensory organs owe their existence to interminably long encounters with loss or gain. They are the two most potent creative factors created by God. All the five senses which we possess are the products of our awareness of them, as discussed before, which during a billion years of our evolution, gradually materialised into sensory perceptive mechanisms. Suffering and happiness could not by themselves have created the mechanism of consciousness. To register their presence without such mechanisms, they themselves would cease to be. How then can nothingness create anything? Unconsciousness cannot design and create consciousness even in trillions of years. It has to be a conscious Creator to endow death with consciousness and create life out of it. The Most Masterly Creator seems to have employed pain and pleasure in an, as yet, unknown manner to create the very organs which perceive them. Remove the pain as an instrument in the making of this masterpiece of creative wonder and life will be rendered into a senseless mass of vegetation, not even aware of itself. Are a few odd cases of misery and deprivation too big a price to pay for the prodigious marvel of consciousness?

Let us remind the reader that Islam defines evil only as a shadow created by the lack of light. It is not a positive existence in itself. We can imagine a source of light (a lamp or the sun), but we cannot imagine any object as a source of darkness. The only way in which an object becomes a source of darkness is through its ability to obstruct light. Likewise, it is only the absence of goodness that constitutes evil. The grades of evil are only determined by the opacity of the obstructing medium.

Likewise, it is the awareness of possession which constitutes happiness. Any loss or threat of loss to possession constitutes pain or agony. But they must coexist in an equation of positive and negative poles. Remove one, and the other will disappear. Hence no one on earth can interfere with the creative design of pain, pleasure, goodness and evil and succeed in altering the plan of things. It is beyond the reach of human compassion to efface suffering without effacing life itself.

1 VERMAN, J. (1992) The Vedas. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD, New Delhi, p. 6

2 VERMAN, J. (1992) The Vedas. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD, New Delhi, p. 4

3 VERMAN, J. (1992) The Vedas. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD, New Delhi, p. 24

4 LE BON, G., GUIMET, E. (1992) Mirages Indiens: de Ceylan au Nepal, 1876-1886. Chantal Edel et R. Sctrick, Paris, p. 241

(This passage have been faithfully translated from Dr Le Bon’s original book which is in French.)

5 LE BON, G., GUIMET, E. (1992) Mirages Indiens: de Ceylan au Nepal, 1876-1886. Chantal Edel et R. Sctrick, Paris, p. 240

(This passage have been faithfully translated from Dr Le Bon’s original book which is in French.)

6 LILLIE, A. (1909) India in Primitive Christianity. Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & Co, London, p. 85

7 The usage of the word God in singular is highly significant.

8 LILLIE, A. (1909) India in Primitive Christianity. Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner & Co, London, p. 86

9 NORMAN, K.R., (1992) The Group of Discourses (Sutta-Nipata). Vol. II. The Pali Text-Society, Oxford, pp. 112-129

10 NORMAN, K.R., (1992) The Group of Discourses (Sutta-Nipata). Vol II. The Pali Text Society, Oxford, p. 129

11 MAX MULLER, F. (1881) The Sacred Books of the East. Vol. XI, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 186

12 MAX MULLER, F. (1992) Dialogues of The Buddha I. The Pali Text Society, Oxford, p. 299

13 MAX MULLER, F. (1881) The Sacred Books of the East. Vol. XI, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 186

14 CHOU, C.H. [year unknown] Acupuncture and Science. 1st ed. Shi-Wei Typographic Co., Ltd., Taiwan

15 ZHENG, M.Q. , LIN, P.S. [year unknown] History of Medicine of China. Shang Wu Printing and Publishing House, Taiwan, pp. 2-3

16 LEGGE, J. (1985) The Four Books. The Great Leaming, The Doctrine of the Mean, Confucian Analects and the Works of Mencius. 2nd ed., Culture Book Co., Taiwan, p. 862

17 LEGGE, J. (1985) The Four Books. The Great Leaming, The Doctrine of the Mean, Confucian Analects and the Works of Mencius. 2nd ed., Culture Book Co., Taiwan, p. 863

18 LEGGE, J. (1985) The Four Books. The Great Leaming, The Doctrine of the Mean, Confucian Analects and the Works of Mencius. 2nd ed., Culture Book Co., Taiwan, p. 544

19 Translation of 30:31 by the author.

20 LEGGE, J. (1985) The Four Books. The Great Leaming, The Doctrine of the Mean, Confucian Analects and the Works of Mencius. 2nd ed., Culture Book Co., Taiwan, pp. 354-355

21 LEGGE, J. (1985) The Four Books. The Great Leaming, The Doctrine of the Mean, Confucian Analects and the Works of Mencius. 2nd ed., Culture Book Co., Taiwan, pp. 152-153

22 LEGGE, J. (1985) The Four Books. The Great Leaming, The Doctrine of the Mean, Confucian Analects and the Works of Mencius. 2nd ed., Culture Book Co., Taiwan, pp. 231-232

23 LEGGE, J. (1985) The Four Books. The Great Leaming, The Doctrine of the Mean, Confucian Analects and the Works of Mencius. 2nd ed., Culture Book Co., Taiwan, p. 632

24 LEGGE, J. (1985) The Four Books. The Great Leaming, The Doctrine of the Mean, Confucian Analects and the Works of Mencius. 2nd ed., Culture Book Co., Taiwan, p. 793

25 LEGGE, J. (1865) The Chinese Classics. Vol. III, Part I, The Shoo King. Triibner Co., London. pp. 248-252

26 LEGGE, J. (1871) The Chinese Classics. The She King, Part III. Decade of King Wan Book I, Vol. IV, Part II, Triibner and Co., London.pp. 452-454

27 Translation of 2:139 by the author.

28 DAN, L (1969) The Works of Lao Tzyy. Truth and Nature. The World Book Company, Ltd. Taipei, Taiwan, China. Ch. 34, p. 17

29 DAN, L (1969) The Works of Lao Tzyy. Truth and Nature. The World Book Company, Ltd. Taipei, Taiwan, China. Ch. 14, p. 6

30 DAN, L (1969) The Works of Lao Tzyy. Truth and Nature. The World Book Company, Ltd. Taipei, Taiwan, China. Ch. 25, p. 12

31 Al-Wasiyyat. Roohani Khazain, 1984 edition, Vol. 20, p. 310

32 Zoroaster, a great Prophet of Persia, is understood by many Zoroastrians to be a dualist. Many others insist he was a monotheist. His name is spelt and pronounced differently. We have adopted Zoroaster, the English version, with which most people are familiar. Nietzsche, however, refers to him as ‘Zarathustra’. In this context we have used his term with his spelling but the person is the same.

33 The Holy Bible (1982) The New King James Version. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville. Isaiah 45:1-5

34 Translation of 67:2-3 by the author.

PART 2

Hinduism

Buddhism

Confucianism

Taoism

Zoroastrianism

The Question of Suffering